An acquaintance of mine read it in the Sunday bulletin from Fr. Ringrose's chapel.Ask your acquaintance to ask fr. Ringrose.
Is it wrong to be "new" here? Is it wrong to ask questions? Is this a closed group? Hmmm?You will have to learn to ignore certain people, get a thick skin, and pray for the crazies.
I have served for many of the Resistence priests, and I can confirm that there is at least one priest I know of who says "Benedicto" in the Canon. I heard it with my own ears. However, I'm not going to give any names or anything. My suggestion, like the others above, is to ask Fr. Ringrose or other priests personally.
There are also whispers that three "resistance" priests have dropped the name of Frank from the Canon.
Any one hear anything about this?
It doesn't seem all that surprising though, aren't some priests known sedeprivationists??Maybe Fr Ringrose is following the logic of Fr Chazal, who did an excellent talk on how 'dogmatic' sedevacantism is unsupportable from theologian's views, yet sedevacantism does make good points and that Pope Francis is definitely speaking heresy. (I'm not here to start some debate over the issue, just pointing out that there's a lot of gray area in such matters.)
I think that there are one or two forum members here who attend Father's chapel. Maybe they could shed a little light on what was written in the bulletins.
I don’t understand why so many Catholics and traditional Catholic groups still fight about this. To me the answer seems simple. Yes, there is positive doubt that the post-conciliar popes are not popes and no the problem has not been resolved until the Church speaks on this. Even many SSPX priests could agree with the above.I agree, spiritually speaking, we should not be fighting about this, especially in the ugly manner in which we often do. But our human nature is easily tempted to pride, bickering and frustration - which we sadly take out on our fellow Catholics. Let’s all pray that through this rest of Lent, our penances and prayers can return us to true charity, where we realize that the Church’s trials are God-sent, and God-controlled, therefore our response to such trials also need God’s graces, and a higher level of patience than we are capable. Then we would see that such trials are meant to teach us perseverance and humility, which Christ foretold to us and which graces we may need for future WORSE trials (the trials outlined in Matt chapter 24).
I agree, spiritually speaking, we should not be fighting about this, especially in the ugly manner in which we often do. But our human nature is easily tempted to pride, bickering and frustration - which we sadly take out on our fellow Catholics. Let’s all pray that through this rest of Lent, our penances and prayers can return us to true charity, where we realize that the Church’s trials are God-sent, and God-controlled, therefore our response to such trials also need God’s graces, and a higher level of patience than we are capable. Then we would see that such trials are meant to teach us perseverance and humility, which Christ foretold to us and which graces we may need for future WORSE trials (the trials outlined in Matt chapter 24).Good point.
If we can’t handle the minor trials now, while we have the sacraments/mass, how will we handle potential persecutions, or civil unrest or famines, when the Faith may be in hiding, and priests in short supply? We need to prepare NOW.
13 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-13.htm)But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. (Matt 24:13)
I wonder....how many traditional Catholic bishops identify themselves as sedeprivationist?SedeWhat? I can tell you that none of the bishop consecrated by +Lefebvre are sedeprivationist. And, none of the bishops consecrated by +Williamson are sedeprivationist. They are all sedeplenist.
pffffft ... none of them are sedeplenists. To be a sedeplenist you have to believe in the legitimacy of the pope with the certainty of faith. +Lefebvre, +Williamson, and +Tissier have all expressed doubts at one time another about their legitimacy. No Catholic could do that of a true pope any more than he can question the truth of any defined dogma.You are failing to distinguish between the belief that a pope can be judged a formal heretic and how it occurs, and doubt about the validity of a pope. These so called doubts of +Williamson,+Lefebvre, and +Tissier are not at all a doubt about the validity of the conciliar popes. If they had a doubt, they would be non una cuм like all the others who at the very least concluded such. So, what it is is a doubt or question about whether a pope can become a formal heretic, and how that occurs. I personally don't believe a pope can ever become a formal heretic. And, neither do I believe that a perfect council can judge a pope a formal heretic. But, they did not/have not come to that conclusion. Hence, the discussion you are abusing. But make no mistake, it is not a doubt about the validity of the popes. And, fuss about legitimacy is child's talk.
You put your ignorance on display yet again. Sedeprivationism militates AGAINST conclavism.
Father Chazal is unquestionably a sedeprivationist ... whether or not he'd lay claim to the term. He is NOT R&R. Standard run-of-the-mill R&R holds that some V2 papal teaching is legitimate and must be accepted ... if it's traditional and it's true. +Chazal claims that all of it is null and void due to the heresy of the occupants of the office, i.e. that they are completely deprived of any formal authority. Thus, sedeprivationist.
I don't see how sedeprivationism ends up in conclavism. If anything, it opposes it.Yes, you are correct. It wouldn't surprise me if conservative Novus Ordo Catholics are more ready to hold a conclave than the sedevacante and sedeprivationist bishops. I don't really fault the sede bishops for that but I wish they would at least give a general council of Catholic bishops some serious thought.
Yes, you are correct. It wouldn't surprise me if conservative Novus Ordo Catholics are more ready to hold a conclave than the sedevacante and sedeprivationist bishops. I don't really fault the sede bishops for that but I wish they would at least give a general council of Catholic bishops some serious thought.I never said that the sedeprivationists will hold a conclave. They will not. However, they will be the first victim of a conclave. And, life is in the blood. Their end comes like a thief in the night.
I suspected this but can not verify. Can you provide some writing of his or audio lending him to be a sedeprivationist? Even for him to say he is not a r&r is a significant position. Thanks.
Father Chazal is unquestionably a sedeprivationist ... whether or not he'd lay claim to the term. He is NOT R&R.
- It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.When +ABL was alive, the sspx agreed with the above. The ‘recognition’ of the popes was limited as he didn’t think that spiritually they were legitimate.
- It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
Nobody ever seems to explain to me how proper authority in the Catholic Church continues according to the strict sedevacantist position. I never get a clear answer.
Traditional Catholics have traditionally remained aloof and basically ignored "the man in a white cassock who lives in Vatican City".
Whether he is the pope, only legally the pope, or not pope at all doesn't really matter to us. In my opinion, that knowledge is AT LEAST morally impossible for 99.99% of men who weren't present at this or that secret meeting or election. For the average American or European living in 2018, no amount of study or thought is going to bring you to 100% certainty on the status of Pope Francis (and/or Pope Benedict).
But when I consider that the whole Crisis in the Church touches on God's secret plans and providence, which NO MAN IS PRIVY TO, nor has God shared his plans with anyone, it's even more impossible to know with certainty. I can't say "metaphysically impossible" because that would be like a plant having the use of reason. But it's morally impossible for 100% of men, not just the 99.99% who weren't intimately involved in papal elections, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, etc.
Oh I've heard some good arguments in my time. From R&R, from conservative Novus Ordo, from sedevacantists, and from sedeprivationists. As you listen to any of their arguments, they sound quite convincing. Just one problem -- those arguments can't all be right!
They all sound convincing because they each focus on ONE ELEMENT of the mystery of the Crisis in the Church. If you focus on this element, you lean R&R. If you focus on this element, you lean sedevacantist. And so on. The problem is, NONE OF THESE POSITIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES AND OBJECTIONS INVOLVED. Hence my firm belief that we're dealing with a mystery.
But what we do know with certainty: We have to save our souls, and keep the Catholic Faith, and the man in white isn't promoting or protecting that Faith. On the contrary, he is doing everything he can to destroy it.
So we can pray for him, even in the Canon of the Mass (especially since he might be pope or legally pope -- who knows?) but that's about it.
We don't have to follow a material heretic, nor should we negotiate with him for "legitimacy", jurisdiction, approval, etc.
Here is what Fr. Ringrose has published:
“Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.” In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.* When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands. Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy. The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks. So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.
(*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)”
And:
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church. The Faith requires all Catholics to reject this idea.
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever. (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.) Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope. Therefore, we must reject R&R.
- Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
- It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
- It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
Previously, I posted excerpts. Here's the complete text:
From Fr. Ringrose’s bulletin:
This feast reinforces Catholic teaching that Christ has given to Peter and his successors a unique role in the Church as Universal Pastor. In this role as teacher Our Lord has promised that he who hears Peter hears him. Recognizing this promise, the Church has infallibly taught that Peter and his successors cannot teach error to the Universal Church any more than Christ can. So Christ guarantees that Peter will never teach error and Peter has the special assistance of the Holy Ghost to carry this out.
Last week we considered the error of sedevacantism, which holds that there is no pope, and that there is no hierarchy. Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.” In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.* When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands. Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy. The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks. So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.
(*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)
From Fr. Ringrose’s posting in his church:
It is the teaching of the Church that the office of the Chair of St. Peter (Peter and his successors, the popes) is indefectible, that is it is always free from error and must be perpetual. Its teachings are the standard and rule of Faith, despite the worthiness or unworthiness of the successor. In light of this, what is a faithful Catholic to do? Join or re-join the Novus Ordo? By no means! It is a false religion and to do so would be to abandon the Catholic Faith.
The question arises: How is it that the New Order popes have attempted to impose on the Church erroneous teachings and harmful or evil law or practices? Particular attention must be given to two of the most widely-held erroneous explanations: sedevacantism and recognize and resist (R&R). In light of what has been said, the following become apparent:
- Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church. The Faith requires all Catholics to reject this idea.
- Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever. (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.) Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
- Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope. Therefore, we must reject R&R.
- Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
- It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
- It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
It would appear, then, that the Chair is not totally vacant, nor is it completely full. The new order popes possess some legal aspect as popes but lack the authority to teach or rule on matters of faith and morals. In the face of this situation, the proper response of all faithful Catholics is to believe what Catholics have always believed and to do what Catholics have always done. We cannot go wrong with that!
Here is what Fr. Ringrose has published:This is a dangerous position Fr. Ringrose is teaching. Because, synonymous with saving our souls is preserving or in our case saving the papacy. Because, it is from the papacy that we have other bishops. And, it is from among the other bishops that we have the sword. Even the priest and the mass is not officially ahead of those two, despite it being easily quotable by +Lefebvre. We have to keep it all in the balance.
The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.
That's where sedeprivationism comes in ... as one proposed resolution to this question. I myself have a slightly-different slant on this position, where I believe that if a merely-material Pope appoints a bishop to his office, and that bishop is not a heretic and has no impediment to formally exercising the office, he can in fact formally exercise his office and has all the usual jurisdiction that comes with it.And not binding at all on the Catholic conscience -- mere theological speculation.
So you're claiming that the Church has defected. Heresy.That is not what I am saying -- but that is what you are implying, no?
You just said that authority has ceased in the Church ... that's a defection of the Church and heresy. There's no sugar-coating that. You may need to rethink and restate your position in non-heretical terms.What I am saying is that according to Fr Ringrose -- authority has de facto ceased. I obviously don't believe authority has ceased because Christ has instituted the Church with a hierarchy. However, what you are saying -- correct me if I am wrong -- (I am not actually trying to be flippant) is that the normal governance of the Church has more or less stopped.
The Dominican priest/professor and later bishop, Guerard des Lauriers, was the confessor of Pope Pius XII (!), helped pen the Dogma of the Asssumption and also wrote the Ottaviani Intervention.Wow! Thanks, I didn't know that.
It still does not answer the question of how Christ's Church can actually continue to govern -- it simply doesn't according to this theory but is left in a frozen state.Providence would have it that not only St. Peter die in Rome, but St. Paul as well. St. Paul is our check and balance. St. Paul would have us be more missionary, and less utopian. And, who was the most glorious missionary of the V2 crisis? +Lefebvre was the glorious missionary. I will follow +Lefebvre and +Williamson who has been faithful to him.
In 2015, Fr. Ringrose explained to the Holy Name Society and ladies' sodality that because francis does not possess the authority of the pope that he (Fr. Ringrose) has dropped his name from the Mass.I will have to pray for Fr. Ringrose. I went down this road years when I first became a traditionalist. And, I found myself basically at his exact position. So, I will not disown him. But, it is dangerous. I am glad I am no longer there. Because, the night cometh, when no man can walk. It is beneficial for all that francis be prayed for in the canon. The other novus ordo bishops on the other hand, I have my doubt. But, I like consensus. However, you cannot have consensus without dialogue, and I have heard no R&R clerics discuss this or explain why novus ordo bishops are legitimate.
I agree that this is pure sedeprivationism.Is it? It seems to me that Fr Ringrose, like Fr Chazal, consider these men real popes....just without the "authority". Sedeprivationism believes that these men are NOT real popes.
Oh, I had not seen this.Confederate Catholic: In 2015, Fr. Ringrose explained to the Holy Name Society and ladies' sodality that because francis does not possess the authority of the pope that he (Fr. Ringrose) has dropped his name from the Mass.
If I had known in advance that Fr. Ringose is a sedewhatever, I would not have donated to his school. Oh well. Live and learn.Fr. Ringrose is not sedevacantist, as far as I know.
I personally hold that a bishop appointed by a material pope can formally exercise office so long as he does not have any impediments to it (i.e. is not a heretic or excommunicate).Yet you attack me. Vatican 2, ecuмenism, religious liberty, defense of the new mass, collegiality, and loose NFP is an impediment. I mean, the NO bishops universally are opposed to +lefebvre and the old sspx. That is a clear sign of a heretical impediment in my opinion. That is why I generally say remove the NO bishops(the pope remains) from the una cuм, and doubt their legitimacy. I simply have enough conviction to put into practice.
He was a sedevacantist. Therefore, his "views" can be easily dismissed.des lauriers morality was worse. He flip flopped becoming a full fledged sedevacantist in order to become consecrated a bishop by +Thuc. +Thuc did not like his sedeprivationism, and required that he embrace full vacantism. He agreed. Then, after being consecrated, flip flopped back into privationism, which is basically just a more on the fence position that is none the less servant to vacantism.
If you have a problem with that, too bad.
Someone just posted that Father Ringrose does not put the name of Francis in the Canon, and that he believes Francis has no authority. So, what does that make him in your eyes?Are you saying you do not support Catholic schools because they teach the Church-condemned error of pagan Greek heliocentrism?
Doesn't his school teach Baal worship in their science classes, and yet you're promoting it?
Yep. I attack you for not applying the same standard to Francis. He's far more hereticaler than many, even most, NO bishops.One cannot apply those standards to francis. Fr. chazal has even clearly said in his privation lecture that we the church do not have the instruments to formally assess the state of the papacy/francis. We cannot judge the pope a formal heretic. And, there is no historical precedent of a perfect or imperfect council, or any council for that matter judging a pope a heretic or judging a pope to not have authority. It has never happened, and I contend it will never happen. The pope can not be judged, and will never be a formal heretic. That is my standard. And, when applied, my theory and thinking is sound.
Uhm, no, my question was why YOU support it despite the fact that "they teach the Church-condemned error of pagan Greek heliocentrism" (as YOU put it).I support Catholic schools.
Not today, in the absence of a true Pope, whom alone this Authority would derive from.
Let me ask, where is the formal authority existing (in practicality) for the R&R camp today anyway?
Sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by dissolving the unity of its form and matter.Can you expound on this?
Drew
Quote from: drew on Today at 01:55:27 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg598974#msg598974)Sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by dissolving the unity of its form and matter.
Drew
Can you expound on this?
Quote from: Meg on Today at 11:25:06 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg598923#msg598923)Sedeprivationism is basically the same thing as sedevacantism. Very little difference.
At least it's a theory that is consistent with Catholic doctrine ... unlike R&R.
You don't seem to understand sedeprivationism. You had this same problem on the Father Chazal thread. You're stuck on a binary pope or no pope. Sedeprivationism holds that he's real in one respect, but not real in another. That's referred to as a DISTINCTION. That "real" pope thing is +Sanborn's spin on it because he only grudgingly accepted sedeprivationism to get consecration from +McKenna. Even then, +Sanborn says he's not a true pope because he lacks authority. Father Ringrose and Father Chazal have stated that he lacks authority. So you're playing with semantics on what it means to be a "real" pope.As for the bolded, do you have real proof of that? Because if you don't that comment is pure calumny and should be retracted.
How is a pope "real" if he lacks authority? As per Father Ringrose, he maintains a certain legal status by way of his election, but no formal authority ... aka sedeprivationism.
Our obligation is only to remain doctrinally and morally sound in the faith. No Catholic is obligated to provide an answer every question but he does have an obligation to avoid obvious errors. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” Matt 6:34.Agree 1000%!
One of the 20th-century popes actually issued a docuмent (can't recall if it was St. Pius X or Pius XII or perhaps both) which explicitly stated that even excommunicates could validly cast votes in a conclave. Somebody else might have the text readily available.That shows that excommunicates can elect a pope. It doesn't explain how they can elect a man that is a non-Catholic heretic to the Chair of Peter.
+des Lauriers was no theological lightweight, and he adduced some weighty theological arguments in favor of the thesis. He didn't simply pull it out of thin air.
That's one response to his theological position in the practical order. On the other hand, one might continue to keep his name in their by virtue of his having legal status as pope. Of course, in the Canon, it does refer to the included pope as being among the "orthodoxi ... cultores catholicae fidei" (orthodox keepers of the catholic faith) ... which status one would rightly reject for Francis.I'm not sure.
So, 2V, does this sound like Father Ringrose considers him a "real" pope?
I would say that an obvious error would be to think that the Church can contradict Herself. Given that to all appearances the Church did contradict Herself in Vatican II Council as is the wish of the International Jewry (To make the Catholic Church contradict Herself as to prove that her claims of Divinity are false) then the only possible explanation is that the authority (pope) who promulgated such Council is false and that the erroneous teachings are coming from an illegitimate impostor; unless you would like to argue that there exists not such contradiction.I think what Drew posted makes more reasonable sense than the Church has somehow ceased exercising any formal authority since 1958 or was it 1965 or was it 1968, 69? 75? When exactly? Who decides?
Sedeprivationism is intellectually absurd. Sedevacantism is doctrinally and morally a dead end. Recognize and resist is the only sound position at this time that is easily defended in spite of the mocking insults delivered by posters on this forum.Bishop Donald Sanborn teaches the exact opposite. He says the Pope is the "living rule of faith for the entire Church". I quote:
Caiaphas was a heretic. He denied the bodily resurrection and rejected Jesus as the Christ. He did not thereby loose his office. Even the apostles after Pentecost did not suggest that he lost his office because of heresy. St. Paul recognized and respected the office when he appeared before the high priest in Jerusalem. “And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God? And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people” Acts 23:4-5. “Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not” Matt. 23:1-3. This direction can be accurately described as “recognize and resist.” What God has established, only God can overthrow. Every commentary on the parable of the tares (Matt 13:24) the including Rev. George Haydock Commentary, Rev. Cornelius a Lapide’s Great Commentary, and St. Thomas’ Catena Aurea quoting the Church Fathers without exception say the tares refer to heretics. Those who demand that heresy precludes anyone from the office want to make themselves the “Lord of the Harvest.” Heresy precludes only be canonical laws, not by the nature of heresy itself. It is a question of law. It is ironic indeed that those making themselves the “Lord of the Harvest” end up with the tares.
No Catholic is required to do more with a heretical pope than the man born blind, and if he keeps dogma as his proximate rule of faith, a whole host of problems can be avoided. Those who deny dogma as the proximate rule of faith make the person of the pope their rule of faith and what follows is a host of irreconcilable problems.
The sedeprivationists offend the first principles of the understanding. The conciliarist popes are either popes or they are not. They cannot be, and not be, at the same time. If they stand in any way in potential to the office, then they are not popes. To divide the office between degrees of material and formal possession is to destroy the papacy. Separation of form and matter always constitutes a substantial change by definition. It is a dogma of faith that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was founded upon Peter. It is further a dogma of faith that the office will have perpetual successors. The faith is the primary sign and cause of unity in the Church. The pope is only accidentally and secondarily the sign and cause of unity and, since he is not the proximate rule of faith, he is just as much subject to the faith as every baptized Catholic. He does not possess the authority to command obedience to anything in violation of the virtue of Religion which is the virtue under Justice that directly governs obedience. Any act of obedience to any human authority that offends the virtue of Religion is a sin. Just as the man born blind in John 9 professed the true faith to the Pharisees every faithful Catholic is called upon to do the same today. It did not require him to deny that authority of the Pharisees because of heresy. When the pope becomes a heretical Judaizer like St. Peter did, when in his “dissimulation… (he) walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel,” he must be “withstood to his face” Gal 2:13-14.
Sedevacantism is intellectually, morally and doctrinally a dead-end. They have arrived at a Church that is not just defective in an essential attribute but it has no capacity to ever correct the defect therefore it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ. How do faithful Catholics end up in a position that is manifestly erroneous? Those Catholics that do not accept dogma as the proximate rule of faith necessarily make the pope their rule of faith. They make him the source of revelation as the revealer of mere ecclesiastical faith and they impose an understanding to the attribute of Indefectibility to mean that the pope possess a personal never failing faith and cannot possible teach error or promulgate unjust laws. They cannot recognize a heretical pope without feeling personally contaminated by his sin. But none of this is so. None of this has been dogmatically defined. These are nothing but theological presuppositions; speculative opinions expressed from men who could not imagine the current crisis of the Church. These opinions in our current situation appear daily more and more implausible.
Until the Pope uses his office to engage the attribute of Infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His Church to bind doctrinal error and immorality upon the Catholic faithful, and sedevacantists produce their own papal claimant, there is no argument against the recognize and resist that does not lead to doctrinal and intellectual error. Our obligation is only to remain doctrinally and morally sound in the faith. No Catholic is obligated to provide an answer every question but he does have an obligation to avoid obvious errors. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” Matt 6:34.
Drew
The third difference is that the case of a heretical pope is different from that of a heretical bishop. A pope is the living rule of faith for the entire Church, and is infallible in his magisterium (whether solemn or ordinary universal), and is infallible in promulgating universal laws, liturgy, and disciplines. None of these things is true of a bishop of a diocese. I remember as a child that people would often say, “You can’t be more Catholic than the Pope.” Very true. He is the living rule of faith, just as a yardstick is the rule of what is one yard. (source: http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20February%202018.pdf)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg598992#msg598992)Quote from: drew on Today at 01:55:27 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg598973/#msg598973)
Authority is an attribute of the Church primarily and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope. Those who make the pope the rule of faith have a problem when he is a heretic with the exercise of authority. Those who make dogma the rule of faith can deal with the corruption of authority
But the rule of Faith is neither. The Pope nor the Dogma are the proximate rule of Faith; but the living Magisterium of the Church.
Once one arrives to such realization, then the conclusion is completely different.
Drew - Thank you, I entirely agree with you.I agree with Drew.
Obscurus and cantarella - The "living" magisterium cantarella mentions as opposed to the rule of dogma, and the "living" rule of faith that +Sanborn attributes solely to the papacy as opposed to the rule of dogma are both wrong. The living element(s) in our time of crisis are either what we might call the office of st paul, or "the two or more who gather together in Christs name" with dogma as the rule of faith for both. Those are the living elements that vacantists and feeneyites are confusing. The vacantists attribute it solely to the pope, which will always and has let them down. And, the feeneyites attribute it to legion, which is basically the collective novus ordo zeitgeist. Both are not catholic.
You should begin at the end which is obviously not Catholic. Sedevacantist are in a church that has no pope, has no intention of getting one, and has no mechanism to get one. Their church cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ because it is absent a necessary attribute. If this fact is not enough to make any sedevacantist rethink the problem, then there is really nothing that can be done for them.Sedevacantists (of which I am not) and other similar groups did not found a new church anymore than Bishop de Castro Mayer did when his priests were expelled from their churches by Bishop Navarro and built new churches to offer the true Mass right near or beside the diocesan churches! They all run off of the same concept: the papal claimant cannot be obeyed because to do such would be to disobey Divine law.
I agree with Drew.I know, I just saw you post how +Sanborn believes the opposite, and wanted to respond to that part. And, to add to my last post, I don't think what I posted is in disagreement with dogma as the rule of faith. Because, I am aware of how the past probably 1200 years has placed increasing emphasis on the papacy to the point where I am not surprised that there are people who think as +Sanborn. And, the papacy is important. It is a significant element concerning what we might say are "living" elements of the faith. However, when the pope is a heretic, and the college we might say of bishops are heretics, what are we to think? Well, firstly, as drew said, it is dogma that is our rule of faith. But, secondly, for our crisis, it would be I think the "living" examples I gave. Because, there must always be hiarchical authority in the church. And, I contend that there still is. It is just not the pope and the college of bishops. It would be st paul an and the two or more who gather in Christ's name. Those are somewhat masked terms, but that may be the best way to say it.
Bishop Donald Sanborn teaches the exact opposite. He says the Pope is the "living rule of faith for the entire Church". I quote:That is correct. Sedevacantists (with only one exception that I know of), like conservative Catholics, hold the pope as the rule of faith. The conservatives believe the pope is rule of faith so they do everything he does. Sedevacantists hold the pope as the rule of faith and say he cannot be the pope. I had a recent exchange with Emmett O'Regan a conservative author and publicist who believes that the pope is the rule of faith and possess a "never failing faith." In the exchange, it is interesting to see that his arguments regarding the pope are the same arguments offered by sedevacantist.
Sedevacantists (of which I am not) and other similar groups did not found a new church anymore than Bishop de Castro Mayer did when his priests were expelled from their churches by Bishop Navarro and built new churches to offer the true Mass right near or beside the diocesan churches! They all run off of the same concept: the papal claimant cannot be obeyed because to do such would be to disobey Divine law.
Only a true conciliar apologist would make such a statement. Total newchurch speak. Let me quote Bishop Tissier from the 2012 Winona priestly ordinations when he said "this newchurch is no church but a poison poisoning the Church!".
Nice try to derail the thread and bury everything in ten tons of pages running circles around the EENS dogma and feenyism.
I know, I just saw you post how +Sanborn believes the opposite, and wanted to respond to that part. And, to add to my last post, I don't think what I posted is in disagreement with dogma as the rule of faith. Because, I am aware of how the past probably 1200 years has placed increasing emphasis on the papacy to the point where I am not surprised that there are people who think as +Sanborn. And, the papacy is important. It is a significant element concerning what we might say are "living" elements of the faith. However, when the pope is a heretic, and the college we might say of bishops are heretics, what are we to think? Well, firstly, as drew said, it is dogma that is our rule of faith. But, secondly, for our crisis, it would be I think the "living" examples I gave. Because, there must always be hiarchical authority in the church. And, I contend that there still is. It is just not the pope and the college of bishops. It would be st paul an and the two or more who gather in Christ's name. Those are somewhat masked terms, but that may be the best way to say it.I don't quite understand the parts I put in bold.
I don't quite understand the parts I put in bold.Well, for the most part heresy and error comes from the pope and the NO college of bishops. And, those are the two channels traditionally associated with the magisterium. So, in our time of crisis, those are really not representing the magisterium in action. And, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be a traditional catholic if it weren't for +Lefebvre, and now +Williamson. I certainly wouldn't be one if I relied on the pope and the college for direction. They(+lefebvre) are a manifestation of what I would call the office of st. paul in action. Which is the bishop that can successfully resist the pope. And, he can successfully resist the pope because dogma is his rule of faith. The other "two" I would be guessing about. Perhaps it is some combination of the monk and the nun. I do not know. But, I don't think it is a husband and wife.
Yes but the Campos priests at that time operated under the principle that they must avoid the Conciliarists at all costs. They didn't question whether they had any authority. Can we somehow now claim that there is no longer any operating authority in the Church? I mean we are trying to keep principles here and avoidance seems imperative and Bishop Fellay and the like don't seem to understand that anymore. But it doesn't mean "R&R" is somehow illogical.Actually, they made a deal with the Vatican and explained in their letter in great detail how they made that deal because they no longer wanted to question whether the vatican 2 church had any authority and were afraid that if they continued that they would have to openly accept sedevacantism. They even explain how they wrote to Bishop Fellay and explained the same.
The Rule of Faith is the Magisterium or teaching Church. There is no doubt on that.Correct, Canterella, but what are the teachings of the magisterium but doctrine and the catechism? And what is doctrine and the catechism but the re-teaching of “what has always been taught” for 1,900 years. Thus, the magisterium’s job is to safeguard and teach doctrine, which is the rule of faith.
Actually, they made a deal with the Vatican and explained in their letter in great detail how they made that deal because they no longer wanted to question whether the vatican 2 church had any authority and were afraid that if they continued that they would have to openly accept sedevacantism. They even explain how they wrote to Bishop Fellay and explained the same.Yes, I am aware of what they did. It is sad. Bishop Rifan would eventually begin to concelebrate the New Mass. Again, they didn't quite understand the Crisis being isolated in their area of Brazil.
http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/p/docuмento-perdido-dos-padres-de-campos.html
Correct, Canterella, but what are the teachings of the magisterium but doctrine and the catechism? And what is doctrine and the catechism but the re-teaching of “what has always been taught” for 1,900 years. Thus, the magisterium’s job is to safeguard and teach doctrine, which is the rule of faith.
If the current magisterium/hierarchy fails to do their job, then Catholics must turn to historical, orthodox teachings (ie doctors of the church and previous saintly popes) to help them learn the faith, which is exactly what trads have done.
The question of the status of the non-orthodox magisterium is largely academic, as it's none of our jobs to come to any conclusions about their future or punishments, etc. Our job is to know, love and serve God, and we have 1,900 yrs of consistent Church Teaching on how to do this. Everything else, including the status of the pope, is largely a distraction - especially for we laity.
As +W has been pointing out the past 3 weeks in his newsletters, our families are in crisis, young trads are leaving Church altogether, families are being ripped apart by immorality and many trad priests/bishops are STILL (after 20+ years?!) spending their time arguing about the status of the pope? REALLY? Is this the most pressing matter of the day? Hardly. The battle for souls has moved from the streets into the home and many priests have their heads stuck in theology books - too busy to notice and too worried about which “group” (ie sspx vs sede) is “winning”. What an insane world we live in.
The Magisterium (Pope & Episcopate) is needed for each passing generation.No one is saying they aren't needed. We're debating to what level. The point Drew is trying to make is that one's faith is MORE DEPENDENT on dogma (which has already been explained) than on the current hierarchy. As the past 50 years have shown - wherein we've had NO leadership and NO reliance on the magisterium, since they are quasi-heretical - traditional catholics have survived quite easily, because we have 2,000 yrs of orthodox magisterium's to fall back on. This is the beauty of God's eternal truth - that it does not change, which is why modernists had to introduce the idea of a 'living' magisterium - to get people to stop looking at the past and to get them to think that the 'current' magisterium is all that matters. This is heresy pure and simple.
St. Augustine famously taught that he wouldn't even believe the Scriptures themselves if the Church didn't propose them to him for belief.Right, but again, you must differentiate between the current and the UNIVERSAL magisterium. The Church has told us that Scripture must be believed...she told us LONG AGO. So, no matter what happens with Francis' faith, the belief in Scripture doesn't change. So, as Drew would classify it, this is a defined dogma/Truth which stands on its own, regardless of what's going on TODAY in rome.
He was arguing that the Magisterium is not the proximate rule of faith but, rather, dogma itself.As I understand it, he was classifying the PAST magisterium's teachings as dogma, since they aren't alive anymore and their teachings are 'set in stone'. All things in the present are classified as the magisterium. This way, one does not have to use the term 'universal'.
No, CATHOLICS hold that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith, not the pope per se. So you open with a complete strawman distortion of Catholic teaching. R&R like yourself concocted this nonsense about DOGMA itself, i.e. YOUR private judgment interpretation of said dogma, being the rule of faith ... and have thus essentially embraced Protestantism, the only difference being that the Prots hold that there's only one source of said dogma, while you hold two. Other than that, you're nothing but a run-of-the-mill Protestant. Dogmas is the object of the faith, not its rule. We've gone through this already.
It is a rule of faith, by which we believe that there is but one God, nor any other beside the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing. For the sources of their teaching the Fathers point to Apostolic Tradition and the Mosaic narrative. Thus St. Athanasius teaches: “God created all things, which previously did not exist, through the Logos out of nothing, so that they received being, as He speaks through the mouth of Moses: ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth.’”
“Whoever denies that new-born infants should be baptized immediately after birth, or asserts that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but do not contract from Adam original sin, which must be expiated in the waters of regeneration, and that consequently the baptismal form for the remission of sins applies to them not truly, but falsely; let him be anathema.” The Council bases this definition on Rom. V, 12 sqq., and on ecclesiastical Tradition, and concludes: "Propter hanc enim regulam ndei etiam parvuli, qui nihil peccatorum in semetipsis adhuc committere potuerunt, ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur ut in eis regeneratione mundetur, quod generatione traxerunt. According to this rule of faith little children, who are as yet unable to commit actual sin, are therefore truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that by regeneration they may be cleansed of that which they have contracted by generation."
Second Council of Mileve (416); its canons were taken over by a plenary council held at Carthage in 418, and approved and promulgated by Pope Zosimus in his Epistola Tractoria.
The formal object of faith is the First Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the Church’s teaching. Hence if anyone does not adhere as to an infallible and Divine rule to the Church’s teaching, which proceeds from the Church’s truth manifested in Holy Scripture, such an one has not the habit of faith, but holds the truths of faith not by faith but by some other principle" (II-II, Q. v, a. 3).
And:This is a strawman. Sedevacantism doesn't posit the complete loss of the hierarchy. SVs are all over the map on this particular point. 1. Some say there must be an ordinary hidden somewhere (Bishop in the woods theory) - John Lane claims this among many others. 2. Some say all the sees are vacant - Fr. Cekada proposed this on Ignis Ardens in 2012. It is possible. The hierarchy consists of all clerics and even a man who has received first tonsure is a cleric. So as long as there is at least one Catholic bishop (even if not an ordinary), the hierarchy is intact and retains all the powers of order and jurisdiction even if jurisdiction is not being exercised in any particular see. 3. Sede privationist theory 4. Siri theory - Cardinal Siri was the true pope elected in 1958. 5. Home alone theory and Apocalypse theory - we are in the end times. There might be other positions as well. But they are generally lumped in with the sv position. Basically, sv is a catchall for everyone who rejects the idea that Conciliar bosses are the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church. With the possible exception of position #5, sedes are not positing the destruction of the hierarchy. And those who hold #5 are very small in number. So I consider the argument a strawman. Also, I have never heard of a sede privationist attacking sedevacantists. So Fr Chazal and Fr. Ringrose have an ambiguous position. It certainly looks like SP but they are trying to distance themselves from other SPs and they give no reason for that. We could speculate that they do this for political reasons (because SP would be unpalatable to many former SSPX people which is the demographic that they are trying to serve).
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever. (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.) Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
What is being argued here is simply the foundation that the Rule of Faith for Catholics is what is taught by the Pope and the Apostolic succession of Bishops in union with him acting as protectors of the Deposit of Faith.
I am honestly in disbelief that we have Catholics here who have no concept about the Catholic Magisterium ... and who seem to follow a religion that's closer to both Protestantism and schismatic Orthodoxy than it is to Catholicism.Yeah, a lot of them are "dogmatic" sedes who are converts from Protestantism, too. A bunch of them on Facebook issuing their "bulls" and "encyclicals" to everyone. :laugh1: They act like some Catholic theologian after having converted from being a Protty or secularism only 3 years ago. Some of them haven't even had Confirmation, and others are home-aloner schizoids, despite a valid Tridentine Latin or eastern rite Mass available to them, but they think they can school everyone on the Catholic Faith.
DOGMA + MAGISTERIUM = object of supernatural faithAgree.
If the Magisterium, attempting to act Infallibly, could endanger faith, lead souls to hell, or even just cause them harm, it would have defected.Fixed your comment above.
Catholicism 103: The Pope is the principle and center, of the unity of faith.True, but he's not the author of the articles of faith, he's just the guardian of it...if he stays orthodox.
Catholicism 102: Church's lawful Rite of Mass cannot be harmful and is guaranteed to please God because Christ gave it to us.
If the Magisterium could endanger faith, lead souls to hell, or even just cause them harm, it would have defected.Ladislaus and Cantarella,
No, the entire point is that these men do NOT exercise Magisterium.Yes, but since when? At what point did +Francis lose his spiritual office? Was the Synod not an exercise of the magisterium?
Unlikely.Ok, but why is it unlikely?
No, because as it was defined in Vatican I Council, everything that the Magisterium proposes for belief as being divinely revealed MUST necessarily be derived from the Deposit of Faith, which consists of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There can be no novelties added to it, nor contradictions. The Magisterium consists of only all the infallible teachings of the Church.
Dogmas cannot change. They do not "evolve" either or are subject to further interpretation. This is true. It is also true however, that the Magisterium of the Church cannot contradict itself; but apparently it did, on December 7 of 1965, according to the Cassiciacuм Thesis.
DOGMA + MAGISTERIUM = object of supernatural faith
Catholicism 101: Ecuмenical Councils approved by a Pope are infallible.
Even if a non-infallible teaching can be, strictly speaking, mistaken, the Magisterium must always be considered a generally-reliable and safe guide to the faith. Otherwise, the Magisterium would have defected. If the Magisterium could promote grave and widespread error to the faithful ... to the point that Catholics MUST sever communion with the hierarchy rather than accept these teachings, then the Magisterium would have defected. R&R types love to quibble over the strict limits of infallibility, but then completely ignore the fact that the Magisterium cannot be anything other than a reliable and safe guide. If the Magisterium could endanger faith, lead souls to hell, or even just cause them harm, it would have defected. R&R like to pretend that, apart from the solemn dogmatic definition we see a couple times per century, everything else is a theological free-for-all.
BRAVO to Fathers Ringrose, Pinaud, Roy, and Rioult and finally Chazal for the bravery to reject the RR heresies. Likewise to Bishop Zendejas for continuing to care for these priests and for the bulk of his own people who likewise reject RR. Hopefully the rest of the SSPX or “Resistance” clergy are not far behind. There is hope.I am sorry you keep saying Fr Chazal rejects RR and embraces sedeprivationism. This message is simply ridiculous. You place extreme burdens on a Catholic to hold to the sedeprivationist theory.
Dear Drew,
The Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 uses the term Living Magisterium in a section title. I do understand your point that the N.O. is manipulating a redefinition of revelation and the magisterium but certainly the teaching authority is living entity. See the CE quote below.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm)
"With regard to the organ of tradition it must be an official organ, a magisterium, or teaching authority."
"Must it be admitted that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men?
"The Protestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith:"
"by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority. "
"Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible;"
"they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a LIVING organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere."
Those who do not follow Dogma as their proximate rule of faith cannot avoid such errors as sedeprivationism that drives a wedge between the form and the matter of the papal office thus necessarily causing a substantial change that destroys the office, or sedevacantism that simply throws it away.Admittedly, I have not really studied sedeprivationism so I can't comment on that part of your statement but I'm curious what you mean by "sedevacantism ... simply throws [the office] away". I doubt you are denying the fact that there have been at least 260 periods where there was no cleric possessing the Roman See in the history of the Church. Every one of those periods was known as a sede vacante. Why would positing a sede vacante now bring one under an accusation of "throwing away the office"?
As I mentioned, the term "Magisterium" as known today was first used by Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter, 1863 :https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/
I only read it in Italian and cannot find a copy in English so I used Google translator. The most relevant part is:
I am sorry you keep saying Fr Chazal rejects RR and embraces sedeprivationism. This message is simply ridiculous. You place extreme burdens on a Catholic to hold to the sedeprivationist theory.http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/guerard-de-lauriers-call-your-office-fr.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/guerard-de-lauriers-call-your-office-fr.html) From Dr. Chojnowski:
Now R&R is heresy? My...who made you Pope?
Dear Pax,I didn't comment on this; must have been someone else.
I don’t know nor did I say Fr. Chazal embraced sp.
Father Chazal is redefining the term "sedeplenist" in order to avoid the label "sedeprivationist" (which has long been taken as a synonym for sedevacantism). In point of fact, when you have a Pope who has legitimate election but lacks authority due to heresy ... that's what has been known heretofore as sedeprivationism. Run-of-the mill R&R holds that these popes have authority ... when they're teaching the truth, but lack authority when teaching error. Father Chazal has proclaimed that all of their acts are null and void and that they are to be categorically ignored ... rather than having their individual acts "sifted" according to Tradition.It was a typo by Dr Chojnowski. He has since corrected it. He meant sedeprivationist. So basically, Dr C is trying to find out if Fr Chazal is an SP.
Are you now questioning the orthodoxy of Pope Leo XIII??No. I said his time period was not orthodox. Even St Pius X alluded to his efforts being stalled and thwarted many times by infiltrators.
If theologians and modernists decide to twist around the words of the Holy Roman Pontiff - so be it!Fair point, but you also have to admit that theological words should be as precise as possible, (and 'living' is not precise at all) which is why theologians used to use the Scholastic method of St Thomas. If precise words are used, then misinterpretation is hardly possible, therefore truth is protected. Modernists use vague words on purpose, and it's been going on since the 1800s, because that's when modernists started infiltrating the Church.
Would it make any difference if the word "living" is removed? It seems to me you are taking issue with that word because of the connection with Fr. Bainvilles' dissolution of the EENS dogma, which everyone knows I am a strict believer of (if not, just glance at my signature). The Magisterium, this is, the teaching Church composed by the Pope of Rome (Vicar of Christ) and Bishops (apostolic succession) in union with him, constitute the Rule of Faith for Catholics.
My point is that this Magisterium of the Church cannot err via a general council. An error of such magnitude is impossible. If it indeed happened, then this very fact as a sign, an indication, that the authority which promulgated it is illegitimate. That is the whole point.
"The deeper understanding" of dogma was already condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae:
In Human Generis, Pope Pius XII is explicit about the Magisterium being the Rule of Faith:
As Catholics, we now that Christ established a Magisterium in order to keep intact the deposit of revealed truths for all time. Also, we know that this Magisterium cannot teach anything other than what pertains to this original deposit of Faith (Scripture & Tradition). Therefore, the Magisterium cannot contradict itself because that would be a failure of the Magisterium.
"It is not enough to find a new language in which to articulate our perennial faith; it is also urgent, in the light of the new challenges and prospects facing humanity, that the Church be able to express the “new things” of Christ’s Gospel, that, albeit present in the word of God, have not yet come to light. This is the treasury of “things old and new” of which Jesus spoke when he invited his disciples to teach the newness that he had brought, without forsaking the old (cf. Mt 13:52)."
…… I would like now to bring up a subject that ought to find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church a more adequate and coherent treatment in the light of these expressed aims. I am speaking of the death penalty. This issue cannot be reduced to a mere résumé of traditional teaching without taking into account not only the doctrine as it has developed in the teaching of recent Popes, but also the change in the awareness of the Christian people which rejects an attitude of complacency before a punishment deeply injurious of human dignity. It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.
Pope Francis, Oct 2017
“Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old” Matt 13:52.
Things new and old. This is a proverb, signifying every kind of food, substance, or goods necessary or useful for sustaining a family. Some of these things are best when new, others when old. Hence the proverb, “New honey, old wine;” i.e., honey is best when fresh, but the oldest wine is the best. Hence too the verse in Pindar’s ninth Olympic Hymn, “Praise old wine, but the flowers of new Hymns.” The meaning is—As the father of a family provides for his household things new and old, i.e., everything necessary and useful, so ought a Gospel teacher to bring forth, at suitable times, according to the capacity of his hearers, various discourses, knowledge of every kind; and especially to take care to teach them the new and unknown mysteries of the Gospel, by means of old examples, such as parables and similitudes, which his hearers can take in. Moreover, some of the ancients, as SS. Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, and Bede apply old and new to the Old and New Testaments. For that is the best preaching when the New Testament is confirmed and illustrated from the Old, and proved to be in all points typically agreeable to it. For the Old Testament was the type of the New; the New Testament is the antetype of the Old.
Actually the Conciliar church is recognizable. It appears to be a branch of the Anglican Church.I find this comment very interesting. I've never heard anyone else put it like that.
Actually the Conciliar church is recognizable. It appears to be a branch of the Anglican Church.Rome has not formally applied to join the Anglican community but I know some Anglicans that have gone the other way, chased out by the ladies. This was before Bergoglio would have ridiculed such a decision.
bzzzt. Straw Man Alert! Straw Man Alert!
It is the Magisterium, and not the pope per se (as if it were his personal attribute), that is the rule of faith.
Quote from: drew“Simply not true”? What I said is a brief paraphrase but the statement is most certainly true.QuoteSubmission of the mind and will, that is, the soul to God on the authority of God is what divine faith is. It must necessarily be unqualified.
Simply not true, Drew.
“We are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith. This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
To simplify, the faith is the WHAT believed while the rule is related to the WHY believed.
What do I believe? the Assumption. Why do I believe it? Because it was proposed as dogma by the authority of the teaching Church (proximately) and ultimately by God in revealing Himself (remotely). So it's the proposal by the Church (viewed formally) that's the rule of what I believe.
This is similar to the distinction between the faith itself (the contents of Revelation) and the faith viewed as supernatural virtue as moved by the formal MOTIVE of faith
He was a sedevacantist. Therefore, his "views" can be easily dismissed.This is the problem with some Traditionalists. In all reality, it aggravates the Crisis in my opinion. Many in the SSPX-resistance are willing to admit (Fr. Chazal being one of them) that when one reads the "seminary libraries" the sede vacante position is a legitimate Catholic position just as there are theologians on the other side (R and R). I completely agree with Fr. Chazal on this and am glad that he took the time to dig into this and explain to confused faithful like people responsible for comments like those above. Fact of the matter is that until the Church speaks declaratively on the subject of the post-conciliar papal claimants, undeniable positive doubt does exist and theologians and Doctors of the Church have written extensively on the topic of a sede vacante due to a Pope losing office because of being a heretic just as there are theologians on the other side who said that he would retain office.
If you have a problem with that, too bad.
But the rule of Faith is neither. The Pope nor the Dogma are the proximate rule of Faith; but the living Magisterium of the Church.
Once one arrives to such realization, then the conclusion is completely different.
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.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
I would say that an obvious error would be to think that the Church can contradict Herself. Given that to all appearances the Church did contradict Herself in Vatican II Council as is the wish of the International Jewry (To make the Catholic Church contradict Herself as to prove that her claims of Divinity are false) then the only possible explanation is that the authority (pope) who promulgated such Council is false and that the erroneous teachings are coming from an illegitimate impostor; unless you would like to argue that there exists not such contradiction.
I am most particularly obliged to bless and thank God, for not having suffered the first professors of that doctrine (Jansenism), men of my acquaintance and friendship, to be able to draw me to their opinions. I cannot tell you what pains they took, and what reasons they propounded to me; I objected to them, amongst other things, the authority of the Council of Trent (DOGMA), which is clearly opposed to them; and seeing that they still continued, I, instead of answering them, quietly recited my Credo (DOGMA); and that is how I have remained firm in the Catholic faith.
St. Vincent de Paul regarding in dealing with the Jansenist
No, she is saying that this council is OBVIOUSLY without the Indefectible teaching protection of the the Holy Ghost promised to the Church residing in the papal office.
Apart from the fact that you grossly mischaracterize his position as promoting "blind obedience to Church authority", what Msgr. Fenton articulates is much more than mere speculation. It's a direct consequence of what the Church has always taught regarding the Magisterium.
So, where to begin? Fenton is not speaking about simple "authority".
1) He explains how this is limited to "teaching" and not to "authority" in general.
2) Even within teaching, he explains that it is limited to the substance of core theological principles that were taught to the Universal Church as normative for faith and morals ... not to each and every obiter dictum within the Papal Magisterium.
Essentially, if you were to do serious harm to your faith by assenting to the Magisterium on such core teachings, the Magisterium would have failed in its mission and defected. If the Magisterium got so corrupt that we, as you claim, MUST go so far as to refuse communion with the hierarchy, then the Magisterium would have failed. If an Ecuмenical Council had taught Religious Liberty and religious indifferentism, and I accepted this and harmed (or even eventually lost) my faith, then the Magisterium would have defected.
This is nothing but Catholicism 101 ... vs. your brand of Protestantism that you pertinaciously promote here.
Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth."This above quote is definitely psychological propaganda (catholic style) to get people ready for the V2 changes that were to come. If the above is true, then infallibility is meaningless. Of course the above is not true, and is an exaggeration of the authority of the papacy, which the Modernists used to their advantage, and which was necessary so that catholics would "obediently" swallow V2's errors.
There's nothing to correct. You grossly mischaracterized Fenton as promoting "blind obedience to authority". He does nothing of the sort in the article to which you refer. It is YOU who need to retract and correct your mistake. You're basically smearing Fenton ... to be point of bordering upon calumny.
The question of "Where is your living magisterium today" is THE question that all traditionalists ponder regardless of their stance on the crisis. Centroamerica is correct when he says that "Until the Church speaks on the post-conciliar crisis, the question regarding the legitimacy of the public and notorious heretic Bergoglio will not be resolved". Differently from the dogmatic truths concerning EENS, I can only write about my current personal conclusions on this crisis, which amount to mere speculations. You know I come from a previous, almost - dogmatic sedeplenist position. I have never supported the separatist SSPX rhetoric because it does not make sense. After reading Mons. Guerard Des Lauriers works though, I realized that his thesis has a lot of merit in explaining the reason why we are experiencing such an apparent swift in the current Magisterium.
I would not say that the current Magisterium is merely in a passive state of "standby" as this was a normal interregnum; no, I would go further and say that there exist at present time a para-magisterium, actively trying to destroy Catholicism by teaching falsehood and promoting world-wide "contra - verdades". Yes, I see that there are global active forces trying to pose as the Roman Catholic Church, which make sense, because the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic infiltration of the Church is a fact well docuмented. Also, it makes more sense that there was an impostor placed to falsely occupy the Seat of Peter, rather than two thousand bishops apostatizing at once in Vatican II Council, because we know that all bishops of world without the Pope are not infallible.
In Des Lauriers words about the "Church Crisis": (using Google translation)
That is the precise date of the Magisterial contradiction occurring in a setting of a General Council, (with the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae), which even if one wants to argue, is not infallible, it is evidently part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, at the very least, and therefore, it is impossible that it teaches actively against the Faith. Contra-Verdades
Cantarella,
You are trying to answer questions that you do not have to answer. You have to begin from what is known with certainty and draw necessary conclusions but if something does not necessarily follow leave it alone.
It is a dogma that there will be perpetual successors in the papal office until the end of time. Francis/Bergoglio is no greater a heretic than his conciliar predecessors. Only his aggressive brashness, authoritarian spirit, vulgarity and overturning morality in the practical order has made him more repulsive than those who came before him even to the point of enlightening many conservative Catholics to rethink their positions. But it should not change the position of traditional Catholics.
Using the certainty of Catholic dogma we are obliged to reject everything from the conciliar church that does not accord with our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions. These traditions are not merely matters of Church discipline; they are necessary attributes of the faith that make the faith known and communicable to others. No pope possesses the authority to overturn these things but it does not require that he be removed from his office to oppose him. The office was established by God and only God can correct it. Just like the office of the high priest Caiphias. Jesus Christ advise to recognize and resist.
Remember the parable of the cockle. That cockle are heretics as taught by all the Church Fathers. The advice of Jesus Christ is to leave them until the harvest. The Church excommunicates heretics only because they are harming the faithful and that is a question of canon law. It is not a moral necessity.
The sedevacantists make the pope their rule of faith. They take the attribute of Indefectibility and interpret it to mean that the pope possesses a non-infallible infallibility and therefore can never teach doctrinal or moral error. This theory was harmless when the Church prospered but it clearly cannot stand the light of a clear examination.
The attributes of the Church: Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Authority relate directly to what St. Pius X identified in Pascendi as the three duties of the Church: to teach, to sanctify and to govern. There is an overlapping between the powers and the duties but the primary purpose of Indefectibility is duty to sanctify and worship God. Those who hold the pope as the rule of faith believe him to be infallible in his non-infallibility and thus either remove him from office or blindly obey and follow his every error. Those that hold dogma as the rule of faith subject obedience to the virtue of Religion and, like the man born blind, do not obey any command that directly or indirectly offends the virtue of Religion.
Some day we will learn that the evidence for the Indefectibility of the Church is the faithful Catholics who have preserved our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, particularly, the immemorial received and approved rite of Mass, that is a dogma of our faith against a heretical hierarchy who would ‘deceive even the elect, if that were possible’.
Drew
Garbage. I already called drew out once for this strawman nonsense.
Nobody holds that the Pope is the rule of faith.
Nobody's talking here about what it boils down to. Indeed, the theological lynch pin for all these disagreements regarding the appropriate Catholic response to this crisis "boils down to" the pope and the papacy.
But here we're talking about the RULE OF FAITH.
So the authority of an Ecuмenical Council, Vatican I, which I hope, we all agree is a legitimate and valid Council of the Church, is telling me that Blessed Peter and His Successors are to persevere in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received, so the Truth stands firm. I hope we all agree here (with the exception of, perhaps Poche) that to all appearances, Pope Francis and his conciliar predecessors are far from keeping such promise.
If then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord and by Divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff' is the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema.
Ladislaus writes with erudition and solid doctrinal points. Making ad hominem attacks is both childish and pompous.....when in conformity with Tradition.
The Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible always. That’s de fide, not bogus.
The Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible always. That’s de fide, not bogus.This is not in dispute.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
You have eliminated the Magisterium as the PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH. Consequently, you leave a vacuum, which is invariably filled with your private judgment. That's identical to Protestantism. I'm stunned that you don't understand this.
God often lets other fall into the same doctrinal and moral failings they unjustly accuse others of.This.
St. Thomas Aquinas --Great post!
Notice, as I have been saying, that the TRUTH itself is the "formal object of faith", whereas the "infallible and divine RULE" is the "Church's TEACHING" (aka Magisterium). It's this teaching that grants the requisite AUTHORITY to the truth MANIFESTED in the Scripture and provides its formal motive. Without the authority of the Church providing the formal motive of faith, there's no true supernatural faith. The, in the vacuum of this authority, "some other principle" (usually Protestant private judgment) fills the void.
Exactly as I have been articulating contrary to Drew's Protestantism.
With every post you simply expose your ignorance even more. Indeed the Magisterium is NOT part of God's Revelation. That Revelation ceased with the death of the Last Apostle. But the Magisterium does indeed come from God's AUTHORITY (which He left with and communicated to the Church). Just because it's extrinsic to the faith, per se, doesn't mean that it's not of God's authority ... but from man's. You do realize that Revelation and Authority are not co-extensive and that God's authority does operate outside of Revelation, right? Honestly, man, you're just a babbling fool with little or no grasp of basic logic. You can't distinguished between Pope and Magisterium, between faith and authority, between revelation and Magisterium, between revelation and authority ... but coflate all these notions like some ignoramus. This argument of yours quoted above has to be one of the most idiotic things I've read in a very long time.
When you appeal to DOGMA over and above the Magisterium, you have become a Protestant. It's the Magisterium that has the authority to interpret dogma There is NO APPEAL over the Magisterium to dogma.
Now, go ahead and say that not every pronouncement of the Magisterium is infallible or irreformable. That's an argument that can be debated among Catholic. But this nonsense where you make dogma the rule of faith cannot be countenanced among Catholics. You make yourself a Protestant heretic with this garbage.
Dogma is the object of our faith; it's WHAT we believe. But we do not believe dogma based on its own intrinsic truthfulness, but based on the authority of the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. That's the formal motive of faith, the truthfulness of the Revealer. But, as the Protestants found out, when you take the Magisterium away as the proximate rule of faith, that creates a vacuum. We human beings ALWAYS have a proximate rule of faith. While some Prots tried in vain to set up various interpretation authorities, nothing short of God's authority in the Magisterium could suffice ... and everything else invariably reduces to PRIVATE JUDGMENT as the proximate rule of faith.
By appealing to DOGMA over the Magisterium, what you're really saying is that my, Drew's, INTERPRETATION of said DOGMA, TRUMPS the INTERPTATION OF THE MAGISTERIUM. YOU ARE MAKING YOUR PRIVATE JUDGMENT YOUR PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH.
Modernism is condemned because it virtually destroys Christian dogma by denying that the dogmas of faith are contained in the revelation made by the Holy Spirit to the Catholic Church and subsequently defined through the supreme authority of the same Ecclesia docens{1} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_1). Once the Holy Spirit, speaking through the supreme magisterium{2} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_2) of the Church, defines a doctrine as de fide{3} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_3) the dogma in question remains, both in se{4} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_4) and in its external formula or terminology, unchanged and unchangeable, like God, Whose voice it communicates to us, in the shape of definite truth. Modernism tells us quite the reverse.
{1} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n1) Ecclesia docens -- i.e., 'the teaching Church.'
{2} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n2) Magisterium = 'teaching authority.'
{3} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n3) De fide = 'what is of faith.'
{4} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n4) In se = 'in itself.'
Rev. Father Norbert Jones, C.R.L., Old Truths, Not Modernist Errors, Exposure of Modernism and Vindication of its Condemnation by the Pope, 1908, (footnotes in original)
If we wish to proceed without offence along the true and royal road of divine justice, we must keep the declarations and teachings of the holy fathers as if they were so many lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God. Therefore, considering and esteeming these as a second word of God, in accordance with the great and most wise Denis, let us sing most willingly along with the divinely inspired David, The commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes, and, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths; and with the author of Proverbs we say, Your commandment is a lamp and your law a light, and like Isaiah we cry to the lord God with loud voice, because your commands are a light for the earth. For the exhortations and warnings of the divine canons are rightly likened to light inasmuch as the better is distinguished from the worse and what is advantageous and useful is distinguished from what is not helpful but harmful.
Therefore we declare that we are preserving and maintaining the canons which have been entrusted to the holy, catholic and apostolic church by the holy and renowned apostles, and by universal as well as local councils of orthodox [bishops], and even by any inspired father or teacher of the church. Consequently, we rule our own life and conduct by these canons and we decree that all those who have the rank of priests and all those who are described by the name of Christian are, by ecclesiastical law, included under the penalties and condemnations as well as, on the other hand, the absolutions and acquittals which have been imposed and defined by them.
Fourth Council of Constantinople.
And this power of designation is key. I don't know if any other sedeprivationists hold this, but if he can designate in general, then he can also designated/appoint a Bishop. And if that Bishop is not a heretic (or have some other impediment) that Bishop can formally exercise jurisdiction.At least some straight sedevacantists (maybe many?) also hold that a non-pope could legitimately make appointments via epikeia. John Lane for example.
This clearly suffices to meet the definition of Pastor Aeternus. If you take it too literally, it could never allow for even a brief interregnum between the death of one pope and the election of another.
Our captain Christ has given us the bearings unchangeable and clearly marked. Steady at the helm. Confidence and faith with sufficient heroism will get us home safely.
Even if this dogma was to be taken in the sense that R&R does, this is, the permanent physical occupancy of the See by a pope at all times, I do not see how this necessarily contradicts the sedeprivationist position, in which the permanency of the material hierarchy is fundamental (this is by the way, the main difference from strict sedevacantism). The Cassisiacuм Thesis believes that the merely material occupation of Sees, currently by Bergoglio, is effectively transmitted in the Church, as long as the external human acts of a juridical order which are required for this continuance are carried on.
In the words of Fr. Bernard Lucien:
What is understood by Mission is the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
What is understood by Session is the material occupation of the See of Peter.
The ordering of these two is precisely what is lacking today in the Church militant because the materialiter pope does not have the habitual intention of doing good to the Church. He loses therefore, Authority; but not power of designation. This permanence of the hierarchical structure is absolutely required for the Church to retain her Apostolic nature.
It was the Third Council of Constantinople; not the Fourth.
And per your own reasoning, such condemnation of Pope Honorious is of dubious veracity; given that the narrative is not enclosed in a dogmatic canon. All the councils, from Nicea to Vatican I, have worded their dogmatic canons "If any one says...let him be anathema"; but if any teaching proposed by the Church is outside this strict bracket; is not infallible and therefore subject to error, according to Drew.
And that's a debate among Catholics with Catholic premises. But we can't start out with the Protestant heresy that dogma is the rule of faith rather than the Magisterium.But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).
But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).
By what "rule of faith" do you determine that the current Magisterium has gone "off the rails" and needs to be rejected?
No matter what the "rule of faith" is, at some point you must determine if the "rule of faith" applies to something, in this instance the current Magisterium. Even if your position is "doubt" and not rejection, that is still your determination of dubiety. If you base that on prior Magsterial statements . . . so does Drew in relying on infallible Magisterial utterances.
If you say the current Magisterium isn't the Magisterium, and its rules shouldn't be followed . . . how do you know that?
Dimond Brothers have summed up very nicely how R&R leads inexorably to a non-Catholic view of the Magisterium.
Does this mean absolute inerrancy in every single proposition that proceeds from the Magisterium? No. But it does mean that the Magisterium will always be a safe and reliable and sure guide to Catholic faith overall.
Dimond Brothers have summed up very nicely how R&R leads inexorably to a non-Catholic view of the Magisterium.Everything the popes said is certainly true. Your problem is that you don't know what the magisterium is and as long as you believe the magisterium they speak of to be the hierarchy, you never will.
Well, I suppose that these popes COULD have been wrong, just piously exaggerating the general safety and reliability of the Magisterium.
Does this mean absolute inerrancy in every single proposition that proceeds from the Magisterium? No. But it does mean that the Magisterium will always be a safe and reliable and sure guide to Catholic faith overall.
Good post. Thanks.
One of Drew's quotes on page 14, reply #200:
https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.195
Dr(j)ew got completely destroyed by Cantarella and Ladislaus. :laugh1:
In your opinion, what is the Magisterium?From the thread titled: What exactly is the Magisterium? (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/what-exactly-is-the-magisterium/75/)
Only true in the minds of the sedes.This.
But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).
By what "rule of faith" do you determine that the current Magisterium has gone "off the rails" and needs to be rejected?
No matter what the "rule of faith" is, at some point you must determine if the "rule of faith" applies to something, in this instance the current Magisterium. Even if your position is "doubt" and not rejection, that is still your determination of dubiety. If you base that on prior Magsterial statements . . . so does Drew in relying on infallible Magisterial utterances.
If you say the current Magisterium isn't the Magisterium, and its rules shouldn't be followed . . . how do you know that?
It was the Third Council of Constantinople; not the Fourth.
And per your own reasoning, such condemnation of Pope Honorious is of dubious veracity; given that the narrative is not enclosed in a dogmatic canon. All the councils, from Nicea to Vatican I, have worded their dogmatic canons "If any one says...let him be anathema"; but if any teaching proposed by the Church is outside this strict bracket; is not infallible and therefore subject to error, according to Drew.
Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod {6 Constantinople III}, which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason.
The quote provided on the dogmatic canons being their rule of faith is from the first canon.
Fourth Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople
If we wish to proceed without offence along the true and royal road of divine justice, we must keep the declarations and teachings of the holy fathers as if they were so many lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God. Therefore, considering and esteeming these as a second word of God, in accordance with the great and most wise Denis, let us sing most willingly along with the divinely inspired David, The commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes, and, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths; and with the author of Proverbs we say, Your commandment is a lamp and your law a light, and like Isaiah we cry to the lord God with loud voice, because your commands are a light for the earth. For the exhortations and warnings of the divine canons are rightly likened to light inasmuch as the better is distinguished from the worse and what is advantageous and useful is distinguished from what is not helpful but harmful.
Therefore we declare that we are preserving and maintaining the canons which have been entrusted to the holy, catholic and apostolic church by the holy and renowned apostles, and by universal as well as local councils of orthodox [bishops], and even by any inspired father or teacher of the church. Consequently, we rule our own life and conduct by these canons and we decree that all those who have the rank of priests and all those who are described by the name of Christian are, by ecclesiastical law, included under the penalties and condemnations as well as, on the other hand, the absolutions and acquittals which have been imposed and defined by them. For Paul, the great apostle, openly urges us to preserve the traditions which we have received, either by word or by letter, of the saints who were famous in times past.
Canon I, Fourth Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople
Excellent questions! I hope you don't mind my making them my own. Ladislaus believes that the Indefectibility of the Church means that the pope possesses a fallible infallibility in the exercise of his ordinary authentic magisterium; a sort of negative infallibility whereby he can never lead any of the faithful into error. The theory is called "infallible security" (which I have already provided a link) from an earlier exchange with Ladislaus. Actually this may prove to be the most common property of those who hold the pope as the rule of faith. Since he is preserved from all public error, he can be safely followed wherever he leads.Drew,
So your questions are excellent. When did the Magisterium go "off the rails"? and, since dogma is not their rule of faith, How could they possibly ever know?
Drew
The following is a dogma of the Faith, Mr. Drew:What have they proposed at the Council to be held by all the faithful? We need to look at that Council and perhaps see that is was unlike any other.
The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.
The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council is infallible. (This is, only IN UNION with the Pope of Rome). Yet, R&R denies this dogmatic truth when they pretend that it was possible that more than a thousand bishops united with a true Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood to the Universal Church in Vatican II Council.
Let's see... two dogmatic and pastoral constitutions, nine decrees and three declarations, to begin with....At the same time a simple Catholic soul is not so ready to accept the abstract theological opinion of ONE theologian.
But why would I need to "look at the Council and see that was unlike any other"? As a simple Catholic soul, why would I have to scrutinize that?
I mean, if I can trust not even the Vicar of Christ on earth, whoever else can I trust? It used to be that Roman Catholics could just trust the Pope of Rome and accepted, as a matter of fact, that there was not a highest authority living on earth.
The following is a dogma of the Faith, Mr. Drew:
The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.
The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council is infallible. (This is, only IN UNION with the Pope of Rome). Yet, R&R denies this dogmatic truth when they pretend that it was possible that more than a thousand bishops united with a true Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood to the Universal Church in Vatican II Council.
Cantarella,In reference to the bold... Yes and it explains why they can't make any necessary distinctions. "You either obey everything or there is no Magisterium to speak of"
You are stumbling in the darkness already.
Since dogma is not your "rule of faith" why do you bother to quote it? You claim that the magisterium is your rule of faith, why not follow it? If the magisterium is in error, how can you possible know since you deny dogma as your rule of faith? You have nothing to judge anything by.
"The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council (with the pope) is infallible" only in potentia. To be infallible in acta requires that specific criteria be met which includes intent to define and impose upon the universal Church a question of faith and/or morals. Vatican II repudiated from the beginning to the end any claim to ever engage the attribute of Infallibility which Jesus Christ endowed His Church.
You cannot have it both ways. If the magisterium is your rule of faith and, like Ladislaus, you believe that the even in its ordinary authentic expression is necessarily free of error by virtue of the Church's attribute of Indefectibility, then how could Vatican II possible be in error? How can you possibly know if Vatican II "maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood"? You have nothing by which to judge the matter.
You have no pope. You have no access to the Magisterium. You have no rule of faith. Sedevacantism and sedeprivationism are dead ends where all those stumbling souls who directly or indirectly hold the pope as their rule of faith fall into a hopeless mess of contradictions. What is fundamentally common to both errors is the overturning of dogma.
Drew
The following is a dogma of the Faith, Mr. Drew:Sorry Cantarella, but you are preaching a NO doctrine. This "totality of the Bishops is infallible....." is not a dogma. It is not even a Church teaching at all - and in fact is a contradiction of dogma per Vatican 1's teaching, which specifically states that the pope, and only the pope teaches infallibly, and only when he speaks ex cathedra. Your "dogma of the faith" is nowhere in any Church teaching. Outside of some writings from some 20th century theologians, the only place I have ever come across it is in Lumen Gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html), #25, especially the second paragraph - you are almost repeating LG word for word.
The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.
The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council is infallible. (This is, only IN UNION with the Pope of Rome). Yet, R&R denies this dogmatic truth when they pretend that it was possible that more than a thousand bishops united with a true Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood to the Universal Church in Vatican II Council.
The totality of "Bishops" necessarily includes the Bishop of Rome, right? ::). I was not referring to the bishops by themselves. It has been repeated that the key of infallibility here is the Bishop of Rome; the successor of St. Peter in union with the bishops in a setting of a General Council. No, it is not a NO doctrine. It is actually a very old Catholic belief that this general assembly is one of the organs of Church infallibility.I am trying to tell you that there is no such Catholic doctrine, that this "doctrine" only exists officially within the NO. The Bull of V1, Aeterni Patris (1869-1870), clearly defines the Church's infallibility, the NO "totality" doctrine is not in it - the "totality" doctrine, which doctrine is essential to the NO's collegiality farce, is eliminated by V1.
:facepalm:
:laugh1:
St. Thomas Aquinas and Ladialaus and Cantarella --
DOGMA: Formal Object of Faith
MAGISTERIUM: Rule of Faith
Drew --
DOGMA: Rule of Faith
MAGISTERIUM: Churchmen Opining About Various Doctrinal Subjects
You're seriously asking why someone might quote dogma? Because Dogma is that which is believed on the authority of the Church's teaching.
If anyone says that divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because of the authority of God who reveals it: let him be anathema
Vatican I
"This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived."
Vatican I
These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she (the Church) subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.
Vatican I
The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. Condemned.
St. Pius X, Lamentabili
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.
Vatican I
"So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences."
Vatican I
The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
Oath Against Modernism
Stumbling in darkness is thinking that a legitimate successor of St. Peter can lose the Faith and become a heretic, even though Christ purposely prayed for this not to happen; or that the current Vicar of Christ can lead souls to Hell, even though Christ expressly commanded Him to "feed His sheep".
Stumbling in darkness is thinking that you can be more Catholic than the "Pope". That the Pope you recognize as such has become an enemy of the Faith and therefore, you must severe communion from him, in order to keep the Faith.
This is real darkness right there for a Roman Catholic.
Tell me, if you think that the Pope of Rome can become a heretic, one after another one, for decades now, how is this not giving in to the accusations that the Protestants and Orthodox have made against us Catholics for centuries?.
bzzzt. But it is the CHURCH who tells us that God has revealed it. Thus the meaning of St. Augustine's quote: "I would not believe the Gospel myself if the authority of hte Catholic Church did not move me to do so."Protestantism?
Take your Protestantism elsewhere.
The Magisterium is the "teaching authority" of the Church. It is, like the Church itself, established by God and it is part of divine revelation. So you first massive error is that claim that the Magisterium has not been revealed by God. The Magisterium is grounded upon the attributes of Authority and Infallibility which God has endowed His Church and this is of divine revelation. These attributes are attributes of God alone and only of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The Magisterium always teaches with the Authority of God the Truth of God without the possibility of error. We believe what the Magisteirum teaches because it is the Truth of God revealed by God. When the pope who is in potentia to the attribute of Infallibility teaches by the Magisterium, he does not teach on his own authority but the Authority of God. Thus dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church which we are obligated to believe because it is a Truth revealed by God on the Authority of God. Thus, the definition of faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.
This bull contradicts you in the very first paragraph:
QuoteQuoteThe only-begotten Son of the Eternal Father, who came on earth to bring salvation and the light of divine wisdom to men, conferred a great and wonderful blessing on the world when, about to ascend again into heaven, He commanded the Apostles to go and teach all nations,(1) and left the Church which He had founded to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples.
It is precisely this teaching Church (this is, the Magisterium) which Christ left, in order to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. The teaching Church is the Rule of Faith for all generations; contrary to what Mr. Drew says.
"Drew, your fight is against St. Thomas and all Catholic theologians, not with me. I'm not even going to bother with your last post. You can't seem to understand concepts as being formally distinct from one another. You act stunned when I wrote that the Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation. Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation."
Ladislaus
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600685/#msg600685)
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »
The same as you, because of the Catholic Principle of Non-Contradiction. It is only that the reason of why this may have happened is different.
You cannot have it both ways, either and you also have no current Authority or Magisterium. The rule of Faith you are following are the dogmatic canons taught by the assemblies of Bishops in the past;but these differ from the disciplinary canons also promulgated in such Ecuмenical Councils.
How do you make the difference between dogmatic canons and disciplinary canons (which are reversible) in past Councils? Doesn't make more Catholic sense to believe that everything which emanates from an Ecuмenical Council is at least free from major error?
Do you have a concise list of the dogmatic canons that constitute your Rule of Faith, Mr. Drew?
“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 (remote rule of faith), 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” (proximate rule of faith).
Again, you distort her position in order to attack it. Straw man. St. Robert Bellarmine, first of all, held it as a "pious opinion" that the Pope could not even personally fall into heresy. St. Robert Bellarmine himself considered this probable. So now you attack a Doctor of the Church as a "papolator". In fact, you implicitly attack every Catholic theologian of "papolatry". "Papolatry", ironically, is the common Protestant attack against the Church.
What Cantarella says is that the Pope as Pope, in his office of teaching the Church, cannot fall into heresy ... i.e., that he can never teach heresy to the Universal Church (assuming that he's a legitimate pope).
Oh, come on now. Yes, the existence of the Magisterium was revealed. That's not what we're talking about.
When I say that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I'm simply reiterating the teaching of Vatican I regarding the distinction between Revelation and Magisterium. Magisterium is not part of Revelation; it's a distinct thing. It's the Church explaining and defining Revelation. It's formally distinct.
You don't answer questions so if I repeat myself below it's unfortunately a necessity under the circuмstances. Or maybe some different questions will get a response.
Textbook. You appeal to dogma over and above the Magisterium, except what you're actually doing is preferring your own private interpretation of dogma to that of the Church.
Matthew 7
[1] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=1-#x) Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=2-#x) For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=3-#x) And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? [4] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=4-#x) Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? [5] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=5-#x) Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47007.htm
This bull contradicts you in the very first paragraph:Your above quote from Pope Leo XIII does not agree whatsoever with your echoing of V2's LG.QuoteThe only-begotten Son of the Eternal Father, who came on earth to bring salvation and the light of divine wisdom to men, conferred a great and wonderful blessing on the world when, about to ascend again into heaven, He commanded the Apostles to go and teach all nations,(1) and left the Church which He had founded to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples.It is precisely this teaching Church (this is, the Magisterium) which Christ left, in order to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. The teaching Church is the Rule of Faith for all generations; contrary to what Mr. Drew says.
By the way, this bull also refers to the ecuмenical councils as the "flowers of ALL earthly wisdom".
Stubborn, how do you distinguish an infallible teaching?"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed, 1) which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and 2) 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." - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council
This is what happens when the priest/bishop "theologians" prophesy the lie of their "immunity" from error in their teaching ALWAYS and whenever they open their mouths, and the people swallow it.
. . . . they are bound to teachings of their popes and bishops which are lies, on that account they cannot be bound to truth. They are bound to the method, not the matter.
Jeremiah 5
[11] For the house of Israel, and the house of Juda have greatly transgressed against me, saith the Lord. [12] They have denied the Lord, and said, It is not he: and the evil shall not come upon us: we shall not see the sword and famine. [13] The prophets have spoken in the wind, and there was no word of God in them: these things therefore shall befall them . . .
[26] For among my people are found wicked men, that lie in wait as fowlers, setting snares and traps to catch men. [27] As a net is full of birds, so their houses are full of deceit: therefore are they become great and enriched. [28] They are grown gross and fat: and have most wickedly transgressed my words. They have not judged the cause of the widow, they have not managed the cause of the fatherless, they have not judged the judgement of the poor. [29] Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? or shall not my soul take revenge on such a nation? [30] Astonishing and wonderful things have been done in the land.
[31] The prophets prophesied falsehood, and the priests clapped their hands: and my people loved such things: what then shall be done in the end thereof?
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/28005.htm
This is what happens when the priest/bishop "theologians" prophesy the lie of their "immunity" from error in their teaching ALWAYS and whenever they open their mouths, and the people swallow it.Yes, being bound to the method, which can be evil, instead of being bound to the matter, which forever can be only truth, has resulted in the crisis we are in.
It results in the contradictions of Ladislaus at best (the Magisterium is indefectibile and without error in its teaching, except when that teaching is BOD, or a new rite of Mass, or whatever) and the apostasy of the NO church in masses at worst.
(Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already)Translation:
Translation:Never knew you had the gift of reading souls. Must be a wonderful gift to have.
"Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already, and I looked it up in order to attempt a rebuttal, but was unable to do so, and realized I was mistaken."
Church has never taught or defined BoD.The Magisterium teaches BOD in the Catechism of Trent. You simply say it's not to keep your idea of the indefectibility of the "teaching" Magisterium intact. The Magisterium is indeed teaching in the Catechism; that's the purpose of a catechism.
And the new Mass and NO teaching do not come from the Magisterium, but from a bunch of usurpers masquerading as the hierachy. That's precisely the point of sedeprivationism (as articulated by Father Ringrose and Father Chazal in in particular).
Never knew you had the gift of reading souls. Must be a wonderful gift to have.Res ipsa loquitur.
(Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already)Ha this is it.
The good news is that Ladislaus, Mr. Drew, Stubborn, Trad123, Maria Auxiliadora and me, we all are in definite agreement that BOD was never taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Church; let alone this Judaic novelty of "salvation by implicit desire".Cantarella (and Laudislaus),
:cheers:
Since when is a Catechism the Magisterium. It's a book and not infallible.It appears you have not been following the discussion.
I can't really rephrase since I don't understand your confusion.
I'm not sure I understand any of this. I haven't been following closely but your post is hard for me to follow. Not an insult BTW. Please rephrase if you want me to respond. If not, let me just leave these quotes.
Did these dogmas fall from Heaven straight to your intellect via private revelation, Mr. Drew? If you scratch the word "dogma" and replace it with "Scripture" that is exactly what the Protestants allege against us. There is a reason why they call us "papist". As said before, the dogmatic canons are such because the Magisterium of the Church taught it so in the past, via the highest organs of infallibility such an Ecuмenical Council ratified by a Pope.
The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. Condemned St. Pius X, Lamentabili, 22
It is precisely this teaching Church (this is, the Magisterium) which Christ left, in order to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. The teaching Church is the Rule of Faith for all generations; contrary to what Mr. Drew says.
By the way, this bull also refers to the ecuмenical councils as the "flowers of ALL earthly wisdom".
Your above quote from Pope Leo XIII does not agree whatsoever with your echoing of V2's LG.
Yes, certainly the Church is the supreme teacher because the Church is Christ, it is Christ's mystical body which He established on earth in order to teach us how to get to heaven. He left us His Mystical Body, which IS the Church. The Church is most assuredly the supreme teacher.
Catholics, being members of the Church, are members of Christ's mystical Body, the Church. Christ and the Church are one. They are one and the same, which is the reason why the Church He left us can never err and will last till the end of time - because the Church is Christ.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but it is His Words that will last forever. When you read dogma, you read His Words. His words are contained the Solemn Magisterium as well as in both the Ordinary Magisterium and the Universal Magisterium. This is the teaching of V1.
OTOH, the NO church is a church where all the bishops of the world in union with pope, gather in council, or are dispersed throughout the world teach whatever they want - and on that account alone whatever they teach is binding and infallible. This is the NO church. This is a NO doctrine and does not agree with Pope Leo's or any other Church teaching.
"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed, 1) which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and 2) 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." - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council
Truth is "the matter", the way we learn this truth is via "the method". We Catholics are bound to truth, it is the truth that binds us. It is therefore the matter that binds us, not the method. It is therefore "the matter" which is our rule of faith, not "the method".
OTOH, within the NO church, it is the method that binds them, not the matter. The NO matter ever changing and is therefore impossible to bind oneself too. This is why within the NO, they are bound to the method, not the matter, i.e. they are bound to teachings of their popes and bishops which are lies, on that account they cannot be bound to truth. They are bound to the method, not the matter.
Mr. Drew: the Vicar of Christ on earth is not a mere "churchman". The following is the Scriptural annotation I have in my Bible on Luke 22, 32, in which is taught that Popes may err personally; but not judicially or definitely. The dogmatic definition on Pastor Aeternum about Papal Infallibility is based upon such verse. This was true for St. Peter as well as for all his legitimate successors:
I have studied this matter. The evidence for the improbability of the Pope ever falling into personal heresy, (let alone teaching it via an Ecuмenical Council); heavily outweighs the evidence otherwise. "For it was of congruity and Christ's special appointment, that he upon whom he intended to found his new Church, and whose Faith He would make infallible...". It is common knowledge that this argument of Pope Honorius has been repeatedly made against the Catholic claims of Papal infallibility for many centuries, but why should I take side with the Protestants, Orthodox, the SSPX and the likes of Salza & Siscoe on this matter?
No, my Rule of Faith is the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church in its highest manifestation of Infallibility. Namely, Ecuмenical Councils and dogmatic ex-cathedra statements by the successors of St. Peter.
Because we know that the Church cannot contradict Herself; and to all appearances, there is a contradiction in Vatican II Council from previous Magisterial Teaching; then that it may be an indication that a true successor of St. Peter did not promulgated it. It could be an explanation for the consequent and successive chain of evils, following the Council as well.
I can look for Truth with confidence in ex-cathedra statements by the Popes and Ecuмenical Councils up until Vatican II where there was a contradiction in a setting of a General Council, and an evident swift of the Magisterium as to make the Roman Catholic Church practically unrecognizable.
That is all.
Cantarella,This post was addressed to Cantarella. Reply # 399
The denial that dogmas are "truths fallen from heaven" is a condemned proposition of the Moderenists from Lamentabili.
When you exchange the word "dogma" for "scripture," you are replacing the proximate rule of faith for the remote rule of faith which changes the meaning of the post.
Acceptance of the proximate rule of faith necessarily presupposes acceptance of the Magisterium (the "teaching authority") and the papal office which alone can engage the teaching authority which is grounded upon the powers of Infallibility and Authority which Jesus Christ endowed His Church through which dogmas come. The papal office is the necessary but insufficient means to define doctrine as dogma. It is the material and efficient cause of dogma. Dogmas are the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, they are "truths fallen from heaven, and as such, are divine revelation that constitute the proximate rule of faith. The Magisterium is the means used by God brings these truths to His faithful, not "private revelation."
In addition to rejection of the Magisterium, Protestants also reject Tradition as a source of divine revelation.
Drew
Cantarella,This was also addressed to Cantarella. Reply # 401
I have no disagreement with the quote you have provided. The "never failing faith" means that the successors of St. Peter can never formally engage the Magisterium grounded upon the attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind errors of faith and/or morals on the faithful.
Regarding Pope Honorius, it is a fact that he was declared a heretic and anathematized by more two ecuмenical councils about 200 years apart. It is unfortunate that others have tried to excuse this fact or mitigate its implications because, if these two ecuмenical councils erred than the consequences are far worse than the problem of Honorius. Still, it is worth emphasizing that never was the question ever considered that Pope Honorius lost his office because of heresy.
Drew
Cantarella,And this was also addressed to Cantarella. Reply #402
I have no disagreement with what you have said. The Magisterium is the means and its end is the "highest manifestation of Infallibility. Namely, Ecuмenical Councils and dogmatic ex-cathedra statements by the successors of St. Peter." It is this end to which we look for what we are to believe as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. They are the whatness of our faith and consequently constitute the proximate rule of our faith.
I have no disagreement that Vatican II contradicts "previous Magisterial teaching," that is, the magisterium of Vatican II contradicts the proximate rule of faith, Dogma. But the magisterium of Vatican II formally refused to engage the Magisterial power of the Church grounded upon its attributes of Infallibility and Authority. It therefore has no more authority than churchmen teaching by their grace of state. And, as important as this is, when this teaching by their grace of state contradicts Dogma, the proximate rule of faith, it must be rejected, when, as you said, we can "look for Truth with confidence in ex-cathedra statements by the Popes and Ecuмenical Councils up until Vatican II," that is, we can look to dogma. We reject it because "we ought to obey God rather than men."
Drew
But other than that, what's the difference between JP2 issuing an Encyclical and Karol Woytla writing a book about Theology of the Body?All papal teachings are to be given 'religious assent' which is a cautious acceptance. JP2's encyclicals were not authoritative, in the sense that he did not solemnly engage his infallibility. Therefore, they are in the realm of the ordinary, fallible magisterium, as teachings from his PERSONAL BISHOP's office as a theologian, historian, etc.
EVERY Catholic theologian teaches that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.Actually Lad, the point here is that you are the one who believes this (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601323/#msg601323) opinion from Van Noort, which is shared with some other 19th/20th century theologians, to be dogma. This "dogma's" validity wholly depends upon on the "totality of bishops doctrine", which was never a teaching of the Church, you will not find this "totality doctrine" in any Church teaching. The only place you WILL find it officially taught, is in the teachings of V2 as I already posted. It is a teaching, nay a dogma of the NO that you are attempting to defend.
I love if how Stubborn dismisses with a wave of his hand any 19th/20th century theologian (who doesn't agree with him).
Stubborn,Exactly.
I think this is an excellent post worth giving serious reflection. Clearly and simply explained.
Vatican II has corrupted the meaning of the word "universal" magisterium by making it a purely material object divorced from the attribute of time.
Drew
The Teaching office of the Church. This must have the Pope included and it must be clear that the teaching has been divinely revealed. Since Peter and his successors were the only ones promised an unfailing faith, Catechisms, Theologians, non-Pope saints, Bishops not in union with the Pope are all examples of not the Magisterium.That is a decent definition. Thanks. I agree with it.
The Solemn Magisterium is the Ex Cathedra statements as outlined by the Vatican Council. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the teachings that are not set in that manner but nevertheless teach something divinely revealed. Usually a reiteration of a solemn declaration.
There are no teachings of the Magisterium that are erroneous or fallible. If a teaching is opposed to an Infallible Teaching, it is not of the Magisterium.
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Yesterday at 10:18:26 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601346/#msg601346)That is not what you "say," perhaps, but it is what you do (e.g., BOD).QuoteIf Ladislaus defines the Magisterium as "the Church teaching infallibly," we would not be having this discussion. If he defines it that way, he can tell us.
Nonsense. This discussion hasn't been about infallibility ... but about whether the Magisterium is the Rule of Faith, or dogma is (as Drew has been asserting).
I have repeatedly stated that, if you want to argue about the limits of infallibility, that's a separate issue that can be disputed among Catholic (to a point). But to go around saying that Catholics can appeal to dogma over the Magisterium because Dogma is in fact the proximate rule of faith ... that's Protestantism.
Sorry for the repost, but the picture isn't visible when not logged in. Here's the text from Van Noort:
The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium. The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.
1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself on the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach.
There were many Church Councils that the pope was not even present. Some even called by the Emperors. I’m not sure, but the pope may have sent his delegate to those that he was not present. Fr. Hesse goes into the history of church councils and talks about the many church councils were the pope did not come.In the last few months, I've listened to a handful of Fr. Hesse's sermons and if I recall correctly, didn't Fr. say that the popes did not call those councils, but they did end up going to them?
In the last few months, I've listened to a handful of Fr. Hesse's sermons and if I recall correctly, didn't Fr. say that the popes did not call those councils, but they did end up going to them?He mentions several that the pope did not even go to.
In the last few months, I've listened to a handful of Fr. Hesse's sermons and if I recall correctly, didn't Fr. say that the popes did not call those councils, but they did end up going to them?Start at minute 4:50 and you will see that there have been Councils called by Emperors where the Pope was not even present and te Councils were only approved as true Church Coincils centuries later.
Start at minute 4:50 and you will see that there have been Councils called by Emperors where the Pope was not even present and te Councils were only approved as true Church Coincils centuries later.Thanks! I see Fr. was correcting another one of the 20th century theologian's teachings, Ludwig Ott's, for his teaching that "the very fact that a pope calls a Council, makes it a Council."
https://youtu.be/xnEQIq4_AKI (https://youtu.be/xnEQIq4_AKI)
I just don't recognize this concept of Catholicism, that everything is a theological free-for-all except for a small amount of core dogma.Ladislaus, can you give me examples of a theological "free-for-all" that you speak of? What do you mean by 'small amount of core dogma'? Your comment presumes that there will be NEW dogma sometime in the future. How can that be possible, when ALL dogma is contained in scripture/tradition?
CATHOLICS MUST ASSENT TO MAGISTERIUM || CATHOLICS ARE FREE TO DISREGARD MAGISTERIUMAlso, for the 100th time, you simplify the magisterium and fail to distinguish between the infallible and fallible. What non-sede, non-novus ordo catholics reject is the FALLIBLE magisterium, which we are allowed to do, when the FALLIBLE magisterium DIRECTLY contradicts a previous SOLEMN definition by a previous magisterium.
NOVUS ORDO GOOD || NO Conservaties NO Liberals
NOVUS ORDO BAD || SV/SP R&R
Yeah, either that or at least entertain positive doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.No, you are either bound by the (your) magisterium to be a NOer, or you do not have an ounce of faith in the very thing you've been promoting the Church infallibly teaches.
The fact is that no one in history before R&R ever held that General Councils were not an Infallible Act of the Magisterium (even if they didn't word it like that). So we are left with two options; the Magisterium can err and has defected or those men were not Popes and V2 was not a Catholic Council.
Well...then prove it.
It's looking at it from the perspective that the Magisterium cannot, on the whole, be substantially corrupted.If the magisterium cannot substantially err, then why are you a sedeprivationist? Isn't that view admitting that the magisterium has erred and has lost its spiritual authority due to heresy?
I've found that this poster is not worth responding to at all ... along with Stubborn. They are so emotionally attached to their positions ... without the slightest logical backing or theological acuмen ... that there's simply no dislodging them from it. I wouldn't waste even a few minutes of my time once a month responding to Meg or to Stubborn.You are just upset because you do not know what to believe Lad. The "totality of bishops doctrine" dictates that you absolutely must accept whatever they teach as being infallibly safe, but you reject that part of the doctrine. Why promote a doctrine that even you reject?
PS -- this poster is the one who's going around stalking me with downthumbs for every post, including ones that have nothing controversial about them. She's doing it out of spite.
Let's say Pius XII is giving some 2-hour allocution and slips up theologically once or twice. Is that substantial error in the Magisterium? No. But now Pius XII writes an encyclical teaching some erroneous doctrine to the Universal Church? At that point it's substantial error.How about an error regarding justification, like BOD, in a universal catechism for instruction on the faith, like the Catechism of Trent?
How about an error regarding justification, like BOD, in a universal catechism for instruction on the faith, like the Catechism of Trent?Keep pressing him Jeremiah and he'll decide that your posts are not worth responding to at all. That's how it goes with some people who cannot answer clear questions with clear answers and instead, prefer to dance around your questions and dispute the indisputable lest they admit they've had it wrong all along. Keep him - and us all in your prayers please.
Just a helluva "slip up"? I'd say that's substantial error.
No?
(Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 23):
The priest Arius denied the central doctrine of Catholicism: the
divinity of Christ. He claimed that Jesus Christ was like God, but was not
really God. He thus fashioned a Christ who would be acceptable to the non-
Catholic world, who would be acceptable to both the Jєωιѕн people and the
pagans. Thus, Arianism was the first "ecuмenical" religion.
Millions were led astray by this charismatic priest, including four out
of five bishops according to St. Jerome, and two-thirds of all priests. The
eminent patristic scholar Fr. Jurgens notes: "At one point in the Church's
history, only a few years before Gregory [nαzιanzen]'s present preaching
(A.D. 380), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as
opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something
between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity,
today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit." (W.A.
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 39.)
Your a devotee of Des Lauriers, right? So whatever he said is de fide to you, apparently.
No, sedeprivationism means that the POPES do not exercise authority, predominantly teaching authority. In other words, it's not the Church teaching but these imposters pretending that they are teaching. Why are you conflating the Popes and the Magisterium?How can the magisterium exist without the pope? It can't. The pope is promised infallibility, and the bishops in union with the pope are promised infallibility, BUT NOT the bishops apart from the pope. If there is no pope, there is no magisterium, there is no teaching authority.
How can the magisterium exist without the pope? It can't. The pope is promised infallibility, and the bishops in union with the pope are promised infallibility, BUT NOT the bishops apart from the pope. If there is no pope, there is no magisterium, there is no teaching authority.Please post this teaching that the bishops in union with the pope are promised infallibility.
Why don't you give it a try?Wow Cantarella, it makes me very sad to see what has happened to you. I thought when you quoted a sede bishop who quoted from V2 and called that a dogma was pretty sad, but now this?
Post any Catholic source of any type outside the SSPX and the like, which teaches that an Ecunemical Council ratified by a Pope can err. The same request was made to Pax Vobis and Mr. Drew before, but we are still waiting.
No, these are the actual two alternatives for Catholics. Defection of the Church is not an option (although I know that you meant it only logically).The V2 hierarchy, while not the Church, is legitimate - and they preach(ed) lies.
EITHER the V2 hierarchy is not legitimate or V2 taught truth.
From a story about St. Thomas Aquinas --
Well, I would sooner believe that Religious Liberty is true than to believe that THE CHURCH could lie. Hands down. It's not even a question. If I came to the conclusion that the V2 hierarchy was/is/has been legitimate, then I would go the way of all those conservative EWTN Catholics where I spent my time showing how V2 can be reconciled with prior Magisterium.
Post any Catholic source of any type outside the SSPX and the like, which teaches that an Ecunemical Council ratified by a Pope can err. The same request was made to Pax Vobis and Mr. Drew before, but we are still waiting.For the record, I posted numerous theological opinions which state that EVERY WORD of conciliar docuмents are not infallible. Only those statements which are authoritarian, clear and bind the faithful to believe matters of faith and morals, are infallible.
Stop digressing. I don't believe that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD.
No, what these Popes are teaching about is the Magisterium considered AS A WHOLE, the "forest" vs. the "trees" view of it that I've been talking about. It's looking at it from the perspective that the Magisterium cannot, on the whole, be substantially corrupted.
[35. Adulti quomodo ante Baptismum instruendi sint.]
Diversam vero rationem in iis servandam esse, qui adulta aetate sunt, et perfectum rationis usum habent, qui scilicet ab infidelibus oriuntur, antiquae ecclesiae consuetudo declarat. Nam christiana quidem fides illis proponenda est, atque omni studio ad eam suscipiendam cohortandi, alliciendi, invitandi sunt. Quod si ad dominum Deum convertantur, tum vero monere oportet, ne, ultra tempus ab ecclesia praescriptum, baptismi sacramentum different. Nam cuм scriptum sit: Non tardes converti ad Dominum, et ne differas de die in diem; docendi sunt perfectam conversionem in nova per baptismum generatione positam esse. Praeterea, quo serius ad baptismum veniunt, eo diutius sibi carendum esse ceterorum sacramentorum usu et gratia, quibus christiana religio colitur, cuм ad ea sine baptismo nulli aditus patere possit: deinde etiam maximo fructu privari, quem ex baptismo percipimus; siquidem non solum omnium scelerum, quae antea admissa sunt, maculam et sordes baptismi aqua prorsus eluit ac tollit, sed divina gratia nos ornat, cuius ope et auxilio in posterum etiam peccata vitare possumus, iustitiamque et innocentiam tueri: qua in re summam christianae vitae constare facile omnes intelligunt.
[36. Adultis baptismum differendum esse demonstratur.]
Sed quamvis haec ita sint, non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramentum huic hominum generi statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cuм illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint. Contra vero haec dilatio aliquas videtur utilitates afferre. Primum enim, quoniam ab ecclesia diligenter providendum est, ne quis ad hoc sacramentum ficto et simulato animo accedat, eorum voluntas, qui baptismum petunt, magis exploratur atque perspicitur: cuius rei causa in antiquis conciliis decretum legimus, ut qui ex iudaeis ad fidem catholicam veniunt, antequam baptismus illis administretur, aliquot menses inter catechumenos essent: deinde in fidei doctrina, quam profiteri debent, et christianae vitae institutionibus erudiuntur perfectius. Praeterea, maior religionis cultus sacramento tribuitur, si constitutis tantum paschae et pentecostes diebus, solemni caeremonia baptismum suscipiant.
Ref: Catholic Church (1566) Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus. (Rome: Manutius) pp.197-198.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ)
Headings from the 1845 Rome edition. p.108 ff.
Here's my translation:-
[35. How adults should be instructed before baptism.]
The custom of the early Church testifies that a truly different method is to be kept for those who are at a mature age and have the complete use of reason, and for those who undoubtedly descend from infidels. For instance, the Christian faith is at least to be proposed to them, and they are also to be exhorted, drawn and invited to take it up with all zeal. If they are converted to the Lord God, then truly it is proper to advise them not to put off receiving the sacrament of baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church; for seeing that it is written: Do not delay to convert to the Lord, and do not postpone it from day to day, they should be taught that complete conversion, by a new coming into being through baptism is, to be highly valued; in addition, those who come late for baptism, still further lose for themselves the advantage and the grace of the other sacraments with which the Christian religion is adorned, since, without baptism, no one can be permitted to approach them [= the other sacraments]; then also they are deprived of the chief reward which we secure from baptism; because not only does the water of baptism wash off and entirely take away the stain and uncleaness of every evil deed which they had previously committed, but it adorns us with divine grace, by whose power and assistance we are also able to avoid sins in the future and to safeguard [our] righteousness and innocence; which, in reality, all easily understand to be the chief point of the Christian life.
[36. It is shown that the Baptism of adults is to be delayed.]
But nevertheless the Church has not been accustomed to bestow the sacrament of baptism at once upon this kind of person, whomsoever they might be, but has appointed that it should be deferred to a fixed season. Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness [of baptism to be granted to them], if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation. Indeed, on the contrary, this delay seems to bring certain advantages. In the first place, in fact, because it is carefully provided for by the Church that, lest anyone approach this sacrament with a feigned and simulated spirit, the desire of those who seek baptism is, to a greater extent, investigated as well as observed, on account of which we read in ancient decrees of the Councils that those who come to the Catholic faith from the Jews, shall spend several months amongst the catechumens before baptism is administered to them. Then, they are to be completely instructed in the doctrine of the faith which they ought to profess, and in the institutions of the Christian life. Moreover, a greater degree of reverence is shown towards the sacrament, if it be arranged that, they receive baptism with solemn ceremony only on the days of Easter and Pentecost.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sedevacantist-'-feeneyite-'-bishops/ (Reply 11)
"but please stop promoting this false and heretical notion that dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... against the teaching of all Catholic theologians."
"EVERY Catholic theologian teaches that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.
I love if how Stubborn dismisses with a wave of his hand any 19th/20th century theologian (who doesn't agree with him)."
Drew, you are just too proud to accept that you've been wrong about this. Someone cited Van Noort, and one could cite a huge number of Catholic theologians. I started with St. Thomas himself. But you just keep regurgitating this nonsense because you won't admit that you got it wrong. But it's worse than nonsense; it's the very heretical root of Protestantism.
Again, I know that you're trying to do in order to bolster up R&R. Do that, instead, by arguing about the limits of the Magisterium, but please stop promoting this false and heretical notion that dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... against the teaching of all Catholic theologians. I know why you're clutching onto this with white knuckles ... because you argued this position in some op ed piece (or whatever that was, I can't recall 100%). You similarly erred in misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the notion of "religious assent" to the Magisterium.
If you want to back R&R, just stick to your argument that the teaching of V2 can be rejected as fallible Magisterium. But let go of this error.
.No, more like Fred Sanford.
Kind of reminds me of a guy driving a beat up, rusty old pick up truck with the muffler hanging down and wearing clothes from the salvation army, trying to tell you how to become rich.
.
Oh, you mean like Sam Walton?
This is just a repetition of the old doctrine that all the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Pope are infallible "when they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful". The words "dispersed" just means that they are not gathered in the setting of an Ecunemical Council. What is the issue with it? All that it means is that there is no need to have the setting of a General Council in which all the bishops are present, in order to engage the Magisterium; which makes sense, given that there has only been 21 Ecunemical Councils since the Church foundation; so not ALL living generations have had an Ecunemical Council going during life time.It is not an old doctrine, it is officially a Novus Ordo doctrine, found only in the official docuмents of V2, specifically, it is found only in Lumen Gentium #25.
This is just a repetition of the old doctrine that all the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Pope are infallible
#1
“For even if it were a matter of that submission which must be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, this would not have to be limited to those matters that have been defined by explicit decrees of ecuмenical councils or by the Roman pontiffs and by this Apostolic See, but would also have to be extended to the totality of the Bishops [which is] is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.
#2
Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. [the Ordinary Magisterium]
when they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful"Cantarella,
Here’s what you guys are missing...the important factor of being “divinely revealed”.Pax Vobis,
Keep pressing him Jeremiah and he'll decide that your posts are not worth responding to at all. That's how it goes with some people who cannot answer clear questions with clear answers and instead, prefer to dance around your questions and dispute the indisputable lest they admit they've had it wrong all along. Keep him - and us all in your prayers please.Stubborn,
It is not an old doctrine, it is officially a Novus Ordo doctrine, found only in the official docuмents of V2, specifically, it is found only in Lumen Gentium #25.
In fact, the part I bolded in #3 is by far the best definition of what the Ordinary Magisterium is that I have seen so far.
Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter
1) "We love to think that they have not intended to restrict this obligation of obedience, which is strictly binding on Catholic professors and writers, solely to the points defined by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith which all men must believe.
2) And We are persuaded that they have not intended to declare that this perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they have recognized to be absolutely necessary to the true progress of science and the refutation of error, could be theirs if faith and obedience were only accorded to dogmas expressly defined by the Church.
3) Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. [the Ordinary Magisterium]
4) But, since it is a question of the submission obliging in conscience all those Catholic who are engaged in that study of the speculative sciences so as to procure for the Church new advantages by their writings, the members of the Congress must recognize that it is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure.
*******************
*******************
In this teaching above, we read in #1 that dogma rules, that all men must believe the defined dogmas of the Church, not some vague idea of a magisterium. In #2, we read that perfect adhesion to dogma ("revealed truths") is absolutely necessary in the refutation of error. This agrees with dogma being the rule of faith.
We learn in #3 that we cannot limit our beliefs to defined dogma, that we must also believe (faithfully submit to) "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world" (the Ordinary Magisterium).
In and of itself, #3 and #4 kills the "totality of bishops doctrine" with the words "all that has been handed down". They then bury it 6 feet under with the words "with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith" since here, the word "universal" simply means "always and every where". The term "constant consent" means that all of the Church's authorities and learned have accepted and taught as a part if the faith since the time of the Apostles.
Because he includes the attribute of time, he immediately eliminates the "totality of bishops doctrine", which by it's very nature excludes the attribute of time.
Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY…(# 9): The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] 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, 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 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.”
From MHFM
Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY…(# 9): The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] 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, 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 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.”
From MHFM
Ecclesia igitur, evangelicae veritati fidelis, viam Christi et Apostolorum sequitur quando rationem libertatis religiosae tamquam dignitati hominis et Dei revelationi consonam agnoscit eamque fovet.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_lt.html
Yes, we are; but only if Pope Paul VI was a true Pope; because only the papal approbation is what makes the decrees of an Ecunemical Council binding. You are going out of the way, but it is quite unnecessary. Simply, do a dispassionate research on the infallibility of Ecunemical Councils. I recommend you start by reading the dogmatic Profession of Faith imposed by Pope Saint Horsmidas (514-23) on the Eastern bishops implicated in the schism of Acacius.You cannot get out of it like that - at least not honestly. By doubting the legitimacy of pope Paul VI, and on that account rejecting your own rule of faith, clearly demonstrates that you have no faith whatsoever in your own rule of faith. Can't you see that?
R&R is trying way too hard. I know because I have been there, but we do not have to.
Pastor Aeternus IV.2
So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.
You guys have absolutely NO shame whatsoever. You need to read ALL of Pastor Aeternus; if you have any Catholic bones left in your body, then you should blush with shame for ever having embraced R&R. But then you can just claim that Pastor Aeternus got it wrong.
This ^^^ is in direct contradiction to Vatican I...No it's not.
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.The ordinary magisterium is fallible unless it agrees with "what has always been taught" (i.e. Apostolic Tradition), then it's UNIVERSAL because it agrees with the ETERNAL truths taught by Christ..
Your [false] accusation that I am a liar comes from the fact that you are simply incapable of understanding that words can be used in different ways.
Define Revelation. Revelation can be used for the revealed truths themselves, or for the PROCESS of Revelation, whereby God revealed Himself to us.
Indeed, the existence of the Magisterium is A revealed truth. I did not disagree with this. When I said that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I was referring to the process of Revelation.
This is precisely the distinction taught by Vatican I: Pastor Aeternus IV.6.
Whereas Revelation "makes known some new doctrine", Magisterium "religiously guards and faithfully expounds the revelation or deposit of faith". Popes do not REVEAL doctrine but, rather,
I can't help you are incapable of understanding the difference.
PS -- R&R distort the meaning of this passage to make it sound as if WHEN the Magisterium expounds "some new doctrine", then it can be rejected. But this passage is nothing more than a definition of the Magisterium, the Church's teaching authority, as distinct from Revelation.
And this is what I said in stating correctly that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation.
No, Drew, you the liar. You repeated the assertion that we consider the Pope to be the rule of faith even after I pointed out that it was not correct but was a dishonest strawman argument.
Drew, your fight is against St. Thomas and all Catholic theologians, not with me.
I'm not even going to bother with your last post. You can't seem to understand concepts as being formally distinct from one another. You act stunned when I wrote that the Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation. Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation. In Revelation, God reveals His truth to us. With Magisterium, the Church teaches and interprets and explains said truth. It is not the Church's teaching authority which REVEALS the truth. In fact, Vatican I clearly explained that papal Magisterium (in the context of infallibility) is to given to reveal new truth but merely to explain and protect it. If you cannot understand how these are different, then I just can't help you. Then your post goes downhill from there.
Ladislaus
"Oh, come on now. Yes, the existence of the Magisterium was revealed. That's not what we're talking about.
"When I say that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I'm simply reiterating the teaching of Vatican I regarding the distinction between Revelation and Magisterium. Magisterium is not part of Revelation; it's a distinct thing. It's the Church explaining and defining Revelation. It's formally distinct."
Ladisalus
"To simplify, the faith is the WHAT believed while the rule is related to the WHY believed."
Ladislaus
And then Drew claims that the indefectibility of the Magisterium has not been defined.
Let's keep reading in Pastor Aeternus. (IV.6-7)
Vatican I teaches that the Papal Magisterium was given by God so that the "whole flock of Christ might be kept away ... from the poisonous food of error" ... and yet R&R have the audacity to assert, in direct defiance of Vatican I, that the Papal Magisterium has in fact SUPPLIED this "poisonous food of error" to the "whole flock of Christ". How can you affirm, with your non-Catholic R&R position, that the Holy See "remains unblemished by any error". Disgraceful! Get thee behind me, Satan. R&R claims that the Papal Magisterium has failed to realize its end of protecting the flock from error, i.e. that it has defected.
You guys have absolutely NO shame whatsoever. You need to read ALL of Pastor Aeternus; if you have any Catholic bones left in your body, then you should blush with shame for ever having embraced R&R. But then you can just claim that Pastor Aeternus got it wrong. After all, these passages are not infallible because they do not come in the form of a solemn definition. You can just discard any non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium at a whim, because you in your brilliant private judgment have deemed it incompatible with dogma.
Many of you are nothing but Protestant heretics and schismatics.
Pastor aeternus is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, issued by the First Vatican Council, July 18, 1870. The docuмent defines four doctrines of the Catholic faith: 1) the apostolic primacy conferred on Peter, 2) the perpetuity of the Petrine Primacy in the Roman pontiffs, 3) the meaning and power of papal primacy, and 4) Papal Infallibility - infallible teaching authority (magisterium) of the Pope. Wikipedia
The only thing that I have affirmed is that the attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically addressed as has the attribute of InfallibilityI agree with the idea that Indefectibility has not has not been adequately explained. If it had been, then we wouldn't have certain people arguing that indefectibility is a "backup plan" for the church's magisterium, which renders the pope as a living oracle, incapable of "substantial" error and making the power of infallibility pointless.
Reply #464
Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 03:07:26 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601543/#msg601543)QuoteStop digressing. I don't believe that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD.
Unfortunately for you, I'm not digressing, but bringing up a very relevant point that directly contradicts not only your position but your attacks on the positions of others, e.g., Stubborn and Drew.
What is under discussion is the view that the Magisterium is free from error. You have yet to offer a definition of that critical term, Magisterium. You quote popes who say that the Magisterium is "free from error" then you go off on Thomas substance/accidents and say:
QuoteQuoteNo, what these Popes are teaching about is the Magisterium considered AS A WHOLE, the "forest" vs. the "trees" view of it that I've been talking about. It's looking at it from the perspective that the Magisterium cannot, on the whole, be substantially corrupted.
Why don't you go back and look at your quotes from the popes. Here's some of the phrases they used: "unable to be mistaken," "without danger of error," "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching." That is far more than "cannot, on the whole, be subtantially corrupted." Nice try, though, with that Thomist stuff. Impressive.
And now you say that you "don't believe" that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD. Here's the language, using a quote from another poster, which is cited:
QuoteQuote[35. Adulti quomodo ante Baptismum instruendi sint.]
Diversam vero rationem in iis servandam esse, qui adulta aetate sunt, et perfectum rationis usum habent, qui scilicet ab infidelibus oriuntur, antiquae ecclesiae consuetudo declarat. Nam christiana quidem fides illis proponenda est, atque omni studio ad eam suscipiendam cohortandi, alliciendi, invitandi sunt. Quod si ad dominum Deum convertantur, tum vero monere oportet, ne, ultra tempus ab ecclesia praescriptum, baptismi sacramentum different. Nam cuм scriptum sit: Non tardes converti ad Dominum, et ne differas de die in diem; docendi sunt perfectam conversionem in nova per baptismum generatione positam esse. Praeterea, quo serius ad baptismum veniunt, eo diutius sibi carendum esse ceterorum sacramentorum usu et gratia, quibus christiana religio colitur, cuм ad ea sine baptismo nulli aditus patere possit: deinde etiam maximo fructu privari, quem ex baptismo percipimus; siquidem non solum omnium scelerum, quae antea admissa sunt, maculam et sordes baptismi aqua prorsus eluit ac tollit, sed divina gratia nos ornat, cuius ope et auxilio in posterum etiam peccata vitare possumus, iustitiamque et innocentiam tueri: qua in re summam christianae vitae constare facile omnes intelligunt.
[36. Adultis baptismum differendum esse demonstratur.]
Sed quamvis haec ita sint, non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramentum huic hominum generi statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cuм illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint. Contra vero haec dilatio aliquas videtur utilitates afferre. Primum enim, quoniam ab ecclesia diligenter providendum est, ne quis ad hoc sacramentum ficto et simulato animo accedat, eorum voluntas, qui baptismum petunt, magis exploratur atque perspicitur: cuius rei causa in antiquis conciliis decretum legimus, ut qui ex iudaeis ad fidem catholicam veniunt, antequam baptismus illis administretur, aliquot menses inter catechumenos essent: deinde in fidei doctrina, quam profiteri debent, et christianae vitae institutionibus erudiuntur perfectius. Praeterea, maior religionis cultus sacramento tribuitur, si constitutis tantum paschae et pentecostes diebus, solemni caeremonia baptismum suscipiant.
Ref: Catholic Church (1566) Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus. (Rome: Manutius) pp.197-198.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ)
Headings from the 1845 Rome edition. p.108 ff.
Here's my translation:-
[35. How adults should be instructed before baptism.]
The custom of the early Church testifies that a truly different method is to be kept for those who are at a mature age and have the complete use of reason, and for those who undoubtedly descend from infidels. For instance, the Christian faith is at least to be proposed to them, and they are also to be exhorted, drawn and invited to take it up with all zeal. If they are converted to the Lord God, then truly it is proper to advise them not to put off receiving the sacrament of baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church; for seeing that it is written: Do not delay to convert to the Lord, and do not postpone it from day to day, they should be taught that complete conversion, by a new coming into being through baptism is, to be highly valued; in addition, those who come late for baptism, still further lose for themselves the advantage and the grace of the other sacraments with which the Christian religion is adorned, since, without baptism, no one can be permitted to approach them [= the other sacraments]; then also they are deprived of the chief reward which we secure from baptism; because not only does the water of baptism wash off and entirely take away the stain and uncleaness of every evil deed which they had previously committed, but it adorns us with divine grace, by whose power and assistance we are also able to avoid sins in the future and to safeguard [our] righteousness and innocence; which, in reality, all easily understand to be the chief point of the Christian life.
[36. It is shown that the Baptism of adults is to be delayed.]
But nevertheless the Church has not been accustomed to bestow the sacrament of baptism at once upon this kind of person, whomsoever they might be, but has appointed that it should be deferred to a fixed season. Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness [of baptism to be granted to them], if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation. Indeed, on the contrary, this delay seems to bring certain advantages. In the first place, in fact, because it is carefully provided for by the Church that, lest anyone approach this sacrament with a feigned and simulated spirit, the desire of those who seek baptism is, to a greater extent, investigated as well as observed, on account of which we read in ancient decrees of the Councils that those who come to the Catholic faith from the Jews, shall spend several months amongst the catechumens before baptism is administered to them. Then, they are to be completely instructed in the doctrine of the faith which they ought to profess, and in the institutions of the Christian life. Moreover, a greater degree of reverence is shown towards the sacrament, if it be arranged that, they receive baptism with solemn ceremony only on the days of Easter and Pentecost.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sedevacantist-'-feeneyite-'-bishops/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sedevacantist-'-feeneyite-'-bishops/) (Reply 11)
Now, apart from asking you to look at the language itself, which appears to be well translated above, I also want you to consider the following comments you made to Drew and Stubborn in this thread:
QuoteQuote"but please stop promoting this false and heretical notion that dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... against the teaching of all Catholic theologians."
"EVERY Catholic theologian teaches that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.
I love if how Stubborn dismisses with a wave of his hand any 19th/20th century theologian (who doesn't agree with him)."
I have one for you: NAME A SINGLE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN WHO READS THE ABOVE CITED PASSAGE OF THE CATECHISM AS NOT SUPPORTING BOD. I'll let you answer and see what you come up, rather than listing the long roll call of theologians and saints who would not "believe" like you that the Catechism is "not teaching BoD."
You're simply, ah, selective in applying the accusation of not listening to the theologians when it suits you - namely, applying it to others and avoiding the application to yourself. In fact, unless I'm wrong about what I think you will (or rather won't) come up with,"every Catholic theologian" opposes you. Doesn't stop you on your "belief" regarding the Catechism, so why should "EVERY Catholic theologian" prevent Drew and Stubborn from offering their view, which is at least consistent and doesn't come at you with a beam sticking out of the eye.
The Magisterium that is "free from error" appears to be only "free from error" when it agrees with Ladislaus. When it doesn't, well, it commits some real whoppers.
Digression? Nah. It's a pin that goes straight into your balloon.
Mmmmm....Pastor Aeternus is telling us explicitly that the Pope enjoys the Divine promise of never-failing Faith.
What does that say about the belief that all the conciliar "popes" have become heretics one after the other?
Mmmmm....Pastor Aeternus is telling us explicitly that the Pope enjoys the Divine promise of never-failing Faith.Please don't take my bluntness as me being disrespectful toward you Cantarella because that most certainly is not why I am being blunt.....
What does that say about the belief that all the conciliar "popes" have become heretics one after the other?
R&R claims that the Papal Magisterium has failed to realize its end of protecting the flock from error, i.e. that it has defected.Ladislaus,
R&R DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE TEACHING OF VATICAN I.Pitiful bit of theological wizardry you attempt there Lad. Study the prior bullet point IV.6, in order to find out what this gift of never failing faith is. Study it until you fully understand and comprehend it. After you accomplish this, then apply the correct understanding to 7.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus IV.7QuoteThis gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.
It cannot happen that Catholics in submission to the Papal Magisterium could jeopardize their salvation and ingest the "poisonous food of error" ... as R&R claims has happened. This right here is all the theological proof you need for the teaching of "infallible safety" ... which Drew dismisses as pure speculation. It's TAUGHT DIRECTLY by Vatican I.
:laugh1:LOL
Unbelievable. I simply quote Vatican I and that's referred to as a "pitiful ... theological wizardry". You guys are a joke, and it might even be funny if you weren't promoting heresy.
Imbecile, it defines it right there in the text I quoted. Never-failing faith has the effect of making sure that in the discharge of his teaching office the pope cannot introduce the poison of error to the flock ... and that the teaching office will be conducive to the salvation of the faithful (rather than militated against it .. as you heretics claim).Brainiac, you don't understand what Never failing faith is. Take the gloves and slip them over your head already, then go submit to your idea of the magisterium, show us the faith you have in that for a change.
I'm taking off the gloves here. You guys are without a question HERETICS.
In fact, as St. Thomas teaches that, once you've rejected the Magisterium as your rule of faith, you cannot have supernatural faith anymore --
This some other principle always ultimately reduces to your own private judgment.
WRONG. Most of the errors people call out in Vatican II were condemend in docuмents of the ORDINARY PAPAL MAGISTERIUM that had far less authority than an Ecuмenical Council does.No, you're wrong. V2's errors may have been condemned through the ordinary magisterium but they were also condemned solemnly. How many times have anti-EENS ideals been condemned? Multiple. Has V2's false ecuмenism been condemned solemnly? Yes, council of florence, I believe. And religious liberty? Yes, already been condemned (but I don't remember the council).
But you're claiming, then, that it's possible for an Ecuмenical Council to teach HERESY to the Universal Church? That's taking it to a new level.V2 did not make use of its SOLEMN infallible magisterium, therefore its docuмents fall under the fallible ordinary magisterium. Your problem is that you refuse to admit that 'fallible' means 'able to err'.
Cantarella,
Now you have gone back to where this started. The Pope is you rule of faith. I suggest that you read the thread:
The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg586898/#msg586898)
« on: December 31, 2017, 06:05:26 PM »
My wife posted a few of my initial exchanges with the conservative Catholic Emmet O'Regan. The link is provided in the post to the entire exchange. You will discover that he, like you, believes that the pope possesses a personal "never-failing faith." Besides not being true, it leads to two ends and you and Mr. O'Regan are good examples of both.
Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and the only solution to this error.
You need not reply to this. I think you are determined to follow the course you have chosen and any further discussion would be fruitless. It is Holy Week and we will have Tenebrae each day sung in Latin this year at our chapel in York, PA, so my time is committed elsewhere.
Drew
Please don't take my bluntness as me being disrespectful toward you Cantarella because that most certainly is not why I am being blunt.....
Being bound to the magisterium as your rule of faith "implies a corresponding duty to believe whatever the successors of the Apostles teach."
So where do you come off accusing the pope(s) of being heretics? You speak as if the popes and bishops (magisterium) are in some type of major doctrinal conflict with each other when they are not. What happened to your faith in your rule of faith?
Do you know what it means to have faith in the rule of faith?
Having faith means that no matter how pleasant or repugnant to you it may be, you are required to accept it. You may not accuse or put impositions on it, you may not require of it, *it requires of you* – and what it requires is your absolute submission of faith.
This is exactly the point. I am challenging you to demonstrate where your faith really lies. By telling you that you are bound to submit to the NO bishops and popes (magisterium), I am telling you something that is repugnant to you, something that logically, no trad Catholic could stomach - but having faith consists of accepting it regardless of how it strikes us, accepting it because it is our rule of faith, which rule is foundational to our faith.
I know the idea that the hierarchy, is the magisterium is the rule of faith, is entirely false, entirely NO, that it is a false teaching which even you and Lad have no faith in - we all know this because if you actually believed in what you say, you would have faith in it and you would be NO. Trads have always rejected that false teaching for what it is, while embracing what the magisterium actually is and what the rule of faith actually is - lest we all be NO.
Get lost, heretic. You're also one of the biggest idiots I've ever encountered online ... without the ability to grasp simple logic or even basic English. By itself, it's no big deal ... since not everyone has received the gift of intelligence from God. But combined with your incredible hubris, where you THINK you know better than the Church on everything, and only your interpretation of dogma is in fact the exact dogma "as it is written" ... that combination of stupidity and arrogance are incredibly repugnant to both God and man.Let's be straight here. You lie, not me. You're the educated one whose been brainwashed, not me. You're the one with no faith in your own heretical idea of what the magisterium even is, not me. I could go on, but you'll have to find out the hard way. Sad, but that's usually the way it works when you have no faith. I will keep you in my prayers.
You contradict the teaching of Vatican I, Pax....I think you put the accent on the wrong word BD. I think you should have put the accent on the word "in".QuoteVatican I
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
It is proved ab eventu. For to this point no [Pontiff] has been a heretic, or certainly it cannot be proven that any of them were heretics; therefore it is a sign that such a thing cannot be
The Form and Minister of Baptism *
[From the responses to the decrees of the Bulgars, Nov., 866, Pope St. Nicholas the Great]
Denzinger 335 Chap. 104. You assert that in your fatherland many have been baptized by a certain Jew, you do not know whether Christian or pagan, and you consult us as to what should be done about them. If indeed they have been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles [cf.Acts 2:38;19:5], (surely it is one and the same, as Saint Ambrose * sets forth) it is established that they should not be baptized again.
When one comes to the realization that the Magisterium (extraordinary and ordinary) is in fact infallible, everything becomes more clear.When a Bishop gives a homily at mass, that is an act of the magisterium. Is that infallible? It could be; it could not be.
Drew, Stubborn, Pax ... I don't even recognize you as Catholics.Emotional overreaction.
The homily of a Bishop and an "off the cuff" sermon or interview by the pope are acts of the Magisterium??If the Bishop is giving a sermon on a doctrinal matter, he is using his teaching authority and this is an act of the magisterium. If the pope is giving an interview and he is speaking of faith/morals, yes, this is an act of the magisterium. Depending on what they say, if it agrees with Tradition, it could be infallible or not.
Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted in the Church, or attested by the unanimous and constant agreement of theologians as being a Catholic truth [which is therefore] strictly obligatory for all the faithful." ("Infaillibilite du Pape", DTC, vol. VII, col. 1705)
On this problem we must remember that a truth may be sure and certain, and hence it may be obligatory, even without the sanction of an ex cathedra definition. So it is with the encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which the pope, the supreme pontiff of the Church, utters a truth which has been constantly taught by the Church’s Magisterium and which accords with the precepts of Revelation." (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 19, 1968, p.3)
The question, therefore, must be put objectively thus: given that [Humanae Vitae] is not an act of the Infallible Magisterium and that it therefore does not of itself provide the guarantee of ‘irreformability’ and certitude, would not its substance be nonetheless guaranteed by the Ordinary Magisterium under the conditions under which the Ordinary Magisterium is itself known to be infallible?"
This encyclical recapitulated the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today. This means that we can say that the conditions for the Ordinary irreformable [i.e., infallible—Ed.] Magisterium were met. The period of widespread turbulence is a very recent fact and has nothing to do with the serene possession [of the Magisterium—Ed.] over many centuries." (Renovatio, op.cit.)
This is the normal procedure by which Tradition, in the fullest sense of that term, is handed down;..." (Pope or Church?, op. cit. p.10)
I'm sorry but the fact that you agree with Stubborn's inane and incoherent ramblings is enough to completely discredit you in my mind.The truth is always idiotic and incoherent to those without faith, to liars and to workers of iniquity. Again, nothing complicated about it.
His idiotic comments are all predicated on the fact that he doesn't understand that this error does not actually come from the Magisterium. He repeatedly assumes that the V2 Popes are legitimate as a premise for proving that the V2 Popes are legitimate. That's the ultimate begging of the question.
QuoteFor to what other See was it ever said I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy Faith do not fail? so say the Fathers, not meaning that none of Peter's seat can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing, but that they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic Faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determinations of such controversies, doubts, questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protected them therein for conformation of their Brethren.
I think it does not come any clearer than this. This is a dogmatic decree from Vatican I Council which denial constitutes heresy. This teaching is infallible.
I would just like to see a teaching of the Magisterium that teaches that it is fallible in any form/type/mode whatsoever. I have never seen such a teaching and until you produce one, no one will consider your arguments legit.
I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.
This is a dogmatic decree from Vatican I Council which denial constitutes heresy. This teaching is infallible.The Point #6 which you quoted from Vatican 1 is not part of the dogmatic decree. Point #6 is not infallible. The below is the only infallible part:
3. there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).Exactly.
Amoris Laetitia
Really Pax? Now you are going to compartmentalize Vatican I Council just like you do with Vatican II? What is the end of such madness? What about the other previous 19 Ecuмenical Councils? Must Catholics scrutinize the narrative of every single dogmatic docuмent, just in case there has been a grammatical error or linguistic differences?You're missing the point. The faith is known by simple truths and simple sentences that a child can memorize by way of the catechism. So, when the pope defines a doctrine solemnly, he does so in a simple sentence, because truth is simple, as is God. The ARGUMENTS and REASONS why the pope issued the doctrine ARE NOT INFALLIBLE because they are not doctrine. It really doesn't matter WHY the pope reaffirmed the dogma of the assumption, or WHAT he hopes will be accomplished through his action. This isn't infallible because it's not directly related to faith and morals. All that matters is the dogma.
All of the below quotes are from a lengthy article which you can find here: http://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/ (http://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/)
These conditions of course contract the range of his infallibility most materially. Hence Billuart speaking of the Pope says,
“Neither in conversation, nor in discussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has defined, nor in answering letters, nor in private deliberations, supposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope infallible,” t. ii. p. 110. And for this simple reason, because on these various occasions of speaking his mind, he is not in the chair of the universal doctor.
4. Nor is this all; the greater part of Billuart’s negatives refer to the Pope’s utterances when he is out of the Cathedra Petri, but even, when he is in it, his words do not necessarily proceed from his infallibility. He has no wider prerogative than a Council, and of a Council Perrone says,
“Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” Præl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492.
Thus, if a Council has condemned a work of Origen or Theodoret, it did not in so condemning go beyond the work itself; it did not touch the persons of either. Since this holds of a Council, it also holds in the case of the Pope; therefore, supposing a Pope has quoted the so called works of the Areopagite as if really genuine, there is no call on us to believe him; nor again, if he condemned Galileo’s Copernicanism, unless the earth’s immobility has a “necessary connexion with some dogmatic truth,” which the present bearing of the Holy See towards that philosophy virtually denies.
5. Nor is a Council infallible, even in the prefaces and introductions to its definitions. There are theologians of name, as Tournely and Amort, who contend that even those most instructive capitula passed in the Tridentine Council, from which the Canons with anathemas are drawn up, are not portions of the Church’s infallible teaching; and the parallel introductions prefixed to the Vatican anathemas have an authority not greater nor less than that of those capitula.
7. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that the Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the special question which he happens to be considering; his prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his Cathedra, of giving that very answer truly. “Nothing,” says Perrone, “but the objects of dogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, not in their reasons,”& c.—ibid.
Look, I know you are trying really hard but the reality is that Ecunemical Councils are infallible.They have the POTENTIAL to be infallible. V2 was the first to not have been. All other were infallible, in specific parts of the canons only.
There is absolutely nothing in Catholic theology that supports the notion that General Councils can promulgate heresy.I agree that history/theology does not support the idea that a council could err. However, it never says it can't happen, either. How many theologians argued that the pope could never become a heretic? Yet here we are.
If an Ecuмenical Council has taught heresy to the Universal Church, then the Church has defected.A teaching of the Church implies that we MUST accept it under pain of sin, with certainty of faith, in order to be saved. All other ecuмenical councils required this level of belief. V2 did not (and still does not). Therefore, V2 did not "teach" in the same manner, nor on the same level, as all other ecuмenical councils. Again, if you won't admit this difference, you are of bad will and you have an agenda.
when we say the Church is indefectible, we mean that it will last forever and be infallible forever; that it will always remain as Our Lord founded it and never change the doctrines He taught.This means that the Church, in Her OFFICIAL teachings, will never change church doctrine and will forever remain the same, until the end of time. V2 did not change church doctrine, (though it proposed (but did not require) "modern" ways of "re-understanding" certain doctrines). The reason V2 did not change doctrine is because NO ONE IS FORCED TO ACCEPT THEIR NEW IDEAS. If we are not force to accept it, under pain of sin, with certainty of faith, as a matter of salvation, then it's not part of the Faith. It's as simple as that.
Amazing, you make the allegation of lying and produce no evidence other than your arguments (for what they are worth) have not convinced me? You think everyone reading these posts are fools? When I call you a liar, I produce a specific allegation. The charge is based upon evidence so that you can address the specific charge. Liars always have problems with their memory so let me refresh yours.
To "prove" your claim that the "magisterium is the rule of faith," you pasted the article from the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia that argued that the rule of faith must be "extrinsic" to the faith.
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg587485/#msg587485)
« Reply #94 on: January 03, 2018, 09:27:31 PM »
From this you argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to the faith, and that it is not part of divine revelation. We had several exchanges on this question to which you replied:
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600685/#msg600685)
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601142/#msg601142)
« Reply #358 on: March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM »
After Cantarella posted a dogmatic teaching that the magisterium is from divine revelation, she was asked whether she believed the dogma or you.
The reply did not come from Cantarella but from you. And now we move on to your lying efforts to "prove" that you never argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to divine revelation.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601154/#msg601154)
« Reply #363 on: March 23, 2018, 08:23:17 PM »
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601142/#msg601142)
"Well, what is it going to be: the Magisterium is part of divine revelation or the Magisterium is not part of divine revelation. Who has everything wrong, you or Ladisalus?"
And the equivocations keeps on flowing. You are a liar.
But your claim that the magisterium is not part of divine revelation is just one of many stupid things that you have posted. You are a phony pretending a competency that you do not possess.
Several years ago you denied that supernatural faith was believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.
SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/secret-special-chapter-of-neo-fsspx/msg463233/#msg463233)
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2015, 08:08:35 AM »
Then you demonstrated that you in fact did not know the definition of supernatural faith when you proposed driving a wedge between these two necessary attributes and thereby, dissolving the definition.
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg588127/#msg588127)
« Reply #245 on: January 08, 2018, 11:25:03 AM »
So in this thread we have you arguing the magisterium is the rule of faith when you clearly do not know what the faith is or what the magisterium is. No wonder you do not know what the rule of faith is!
But you plod on tracking dirt where ever you go. Sedeprivationism presupposes the dissolution of the form and matter of the papal office and you are so ignorant that you do not even know that this presupposition necessarily produces a substantial change destroying the office!
You possess some knowledge but without wisdom or understanding. The habit of the first principles is wholly lacking with you. And what makes everything so destructive, you have no moral sense and your too immature to take responsibility for what you post or the damage you may do.
Drew
"Indeed the Magisterium is NOT part of God's Revelation. That Revelation ceased with the death of the Last Apostle. But the Magisterium does indeed come from God's AUTHORITY (which He left with and communicated to the Church). Just because it's extrinsic to the faith, per se, doesn't mean that it's not of God's authority."
Ladislaus
Ladislaus:
"I myself had once been a Sedevacantist. Only in retrospect can I honestly see the great bitterness and lack of charity that this led to on my part. I have found nothing but spiritual disorder – to one extent or another – in all the Sedevacantists I have ever met (myself included and foremost among them). It would be best to leave out the numerous downfalls – in scandalous fashion – of bitter Sedevacantists."
Cantarella, there's no need to keep debating these heretics.I'm coming to the same conclusion about you two. Both of you continue to post your personal interpretation of general V1 excerpts. How about you post some good research? How about you post some FACTS? The closest thing you have to supporting your view is 1-2 Fenton quotes about a weird, modernist view that the pope possesses a fallible infallibility (which is a contradiction), which leads to the false idea that the pope can never make a mistake and is an oracle.
This is a SSPX priest. That someone would think that an ecuмenical Council whose decrees have been approved by a Pope is heretical should tell us a priori that such a person cannot do good theology. The SSPX also exercises poor theology in others matters; but that is another topic. That is why I had asked for a non-SSPX resource.
Anyway, this author is wrong and here is proof. He says: "The difference between doctrinal and pastoral teachings has great implications at Ecuмenical Councils. This is because the Church has never taught that all Church Councils are in and of themselves infallible".
In the scriptural annotations for the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15, which recounts the First Council of Jerusalem, is taught very explicitly that a General Council represents the whole Church, and therefore cannot err. Here is the most relevant parts from the textual annotation:
The Holy Ghost is the assistant of all lawful Councils, to the world's end, and that by Christ's promise.
I've pointed out this insanely idiotic "begging the question" logic about 100 times to you already. What we're saying is that V2 was NOT an legitimate Ecuмenical Council and therefore not infallible. That's the very POINT of sedevacantism/sedeplenism.You've never offered a definition of the indefectible and errorlessly teaching "Magisterium." You avoid my posts bringing up the apparent contradiction of how a Magisterium which is, to quote the popes you quoted, "unable to be mistaken, "without danger of error," and which "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching," could in fact actually teach the erroneous doctrine of BoD in a universal catechism approved by the pope and drafted at the request of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent.
If Vatican II was "different" as we all seem to agree, must be because a true Pope did not promulgated it. The only difference that could be defended from a theological point of view in saying that Vatican II was not a true Ecuмenical Council of the Church, is that the authority which promulgated it is illegitimate, basically that Paul VI was an impostor, so there was not a Papal approbation, which is what makes the Councils infallible. It is either that; or accepting that Vatican II did not teach heresy; and hat therefore, we ought to be applying the "Hermeneutic of continuity".
The resolutions of a General Council are infallible. Part of the long scriptural annotations following the mentioned chapter of Acts of the Apostle from my Rheims Bible dated 1582 reads as follows:
That someone would think that an ecuмenical Council whose decrees have been approved by a Pope is heretical should tell us a priori that such a person cannot do good theology
Do you know what distinguished the anti-Councils? precisely the lack of PAPAL APPROBATION.This is a good point and I agree. The quote was an interesting one, but we'll throw it out as its irrelevant. My bad.
What we're saying is that V2 was NOT an legitimate Ecuмenical Council and therefore not infallible.Agree. But it has nothing to do with sedevacantism. It wasn't infallible because 1) it didn't follow V1's infallibility requirements and 2) it never intended to be infallible.
The resolutions of a General Council are infallible.Of course they are. But V2 HAD NO RESOLUTIONS/CANONS. A teaching of a council, whereby the Church issues a statement, with an anathema, IS REQUIRED TO BE BELIEVED OR WE GO TO HELL. V2 had no such statements/resolutions/canons. Therefore, it's not infallible.
If Vatican II was "different" as we all seem to agree, must be because a true Pope did not promulgated it.THANK YOU for admitting that V2 was not like ANY OTHER ecuмenical council in church history. But it has nothing to do with the status of the pope! It has to do with the language used (or lack of it), the intention of the council and the lack of MORAL WEIGHT of its docuмents, which do not bind anyone to believe its drivel.
Well, then be consistent, Stubborn. Your rule of Faith is "dogma", then have Faith in the infallible dogma that there is no salvation without personal submission to the Holy Father. If you recognize Pope Francis as such, then there is no other option for you but attending Mass next Sunday in your local FSSP, as unpleasant as may sound.The dogma never states we must submit to him at all, it clearly state: "We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Moron. She holds this dogma as an object of her faith based on (and motivated by) the rule that it has been defined by the Church. Idiot doesn't even know what "rule of faith" means and he's spouting nonsense as if he's some kind of theological authority.
Moron. She holds this dogma as an object of her faith based on (and motivated by) the rule that it has been defined by the Church. Idiot doesn't even know what "rule of faith" means and he's spouting nonsense as if he's some kind of theological authority.No, I am merely saying that which is the most basic and fundamental of truths of the Catholic faith, which is the authority.
Of course he is. R&R twists teachings of the Church to suit their narrative of the situation, and have been for a long time.
Yes, this sums it up nicely.
He's now trying to liken the teaching of an Ecuмenical Council to a random bishop giving a Sunday sermon or the Pope giving a radio interview.Nope, nice try. You refuse to admit that an infallible statement IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION. V2 is not required, because it contradicts previously infallible/required statements, therefore it's anathema.
The Shepherd has been struck and the sheep are scattered...we all have to do our best in this situation, Meg. I believe most of us are trying to do our best to make sense out of everything.
I just happen to believe the most logical position is the sede vacante position and that's why I'll keep debating and arguing about it.
But these R&R Trad Catholics are in no way different, theologically speaking, from the Old Catholics who arose in the aftermath of Vatican I.There you go again, making rash generalizations, like the liberal media, and you broad-brush everyone who disagrees with you as "R&R", which you've falsely defined as a narrow and specific viewpoint, when in reality, the term can include multiple mindsets. You fail to distinguish either through malice, laziness or lack of education.
If you have no acuмen for theology, then you need to stop drawing absurd theological conclusions (out of ignorance) and then falsely attributing your nonsensical conclusions to others. You were claiming that Cantarella no longer believed in dogma because her rule of faith isn't dogma.What you call absurd "theological conclusions (out of ignorance)" are principles simple, basic and fundamental to the Catholic faith.
So according to Pax Vobis' logic, the Nicene Creed emerging from the Council of Nicea (Ecunemical I) must be a fallible teaching subject to error because it does not happen to be enclosed in a "Canon".Trick question. The Nicean creed, as we know it today, was formulated at Nicea, but revised at the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon.
Right?? According to Pax, we can't know for sure, so we have to pit Council against Council, and Pope against Pope...this is lunacy and at a minimum, proximate to heresy.
What did he replace the magisterium with?QuoteThose who reject the Magisterium as this proximate rule must replace this proximate rule with something. If it isn't the Church presenting dogma to our minds with authority as worthy of supernatural faith, then it's something else, a fallible rule that ultimately reduces in every case to private judgment.Excellent post.
It is only by the authority of the Church that we know what has been revealed by God.
This is what separates the Catholic Church from the reformists.
He's making it up.Yes, I made up all those quotes from theologians and Bishops about how V2 is a fallible council. I also made up the theological commentary where it explains the 3 levels of the magisterium and how the papal office is only infallible in specific, and precise circuмstances, as Vatican I lays out.
So how can we know that what the Church previously taught was true before such infallibility "requirements" were defined in Vatican I? This is, 19 Ecunemical Councils prior that one.Because the requirements for infallibility are part of the Faith, which has existed since Apostolic times. Vatican 1 only RE-TAUGHT what had always been believed. Do you think it is a coincidence that all previous dogmatic statements at ALL ecuмencial councils and ALL 'stand alone' dogmatic statements (i.e. immaculate conception in a papal bull) used the same formula to define these truths? No it's not coincidence because it is FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES. Who do you think the Apostles learned it from? Christ, of course.
I'm not following, Stubborn...take me down the rabbit hole a bit and maybe I'll figure it out.In a nutshell, the magisterium, his (previous?) rule of faith, is NO, but presumably he is not. This means he rejects the magisterium as his rule of faith.
I don't think there's exactly a "Rainbow Coalition of Sedevacantists" (although when I read that, it made me laugh pretty good). If that were the case you'd have to include the "sede plenists" as part of that Coalition.
Personally, I don't care for all of the labels, but it becomes somewhat necessary in order to distinguish all of the particular points of view. I view myself as a Catholic who believes the sede vacante position is the most logical explanation of the Vatican II revolution, and I view you as a fellow Catholic who disagrees with me.
Condemn is a strong word...I don't believe I've ever condemned anyone.
Condemning aside, don't you do the same to Catholics who hold a position different than yours?
Pax, post a source that teaches the sermon of a bishop or an interview by the pope is an act of the Magisterium... That's what I'm asking
I suppose you could say that I condemn the R&R position...along with sede positions that aren't simple sede vacante.
I would agree that most folks who hold the sede vacante position are in disagreement on other issues, but then again, the R&R have many disagreements with each other as well.
Like I said, we're all trying to do our best and I'm happy to have a forum where we can have robust debate about all of it.
But these clowns here who assert that an Ecuмenical Council can teach heresyYou've yet to respond to ANY of the quotes i've posted, from theological experts and Bishops. These are not my opinion, but from people who study these things for a living. Quit attacking me and let's debate ideas. Find other sources besides Fenton. Don't be a 1 trick pony.
If it were a mere quibble about the legal status of a pope, I'd agree with you.
But I have realized on this thread I that must distance myself from acknowledging those as Catholic who have basically a heretical view of the Magisterium. You yourself called it "at least proximate to heresy". I think it's more than just proximate.
For those R&R who just say, "As for the pope, it's not my position to say." or "I just give him the benefit of the doubt." or "It's up to the Church to depose these guys, and I don't have the authority to do it." That kind of reasoning is all within the parameters of a disagreement among Catholics. Cajetan vs. Bellarmine on the heretical pope issue, a disagreement among Catholics.
But these clowns here who assert that an Ecuмenical Council can teach heresy or even grave error to the Universal Church, and that we must reject the teachings of an Ecuмenical Council by appealing to Tradition? That's just downright heretical. There's no other way to describe it. St. Pius V would have had them burned at the stake. If these guys are Catholic, then the Church owes an apology to Luther and to the Old Catholics.
From my point of view, I'd tell you that the NO is a false church, set up to deceive the masses and propagandize them in false doctrine that has some semblance of the Catholic Church. The only teaching authority the NO possesses is from the devil.We agree on this. The reason we even can agree on this, is because the magisterium is not our rule of faith.
I see a contradiction occurring in Lumen Gentium; in that salvation is possible to those who are "ignorant" of the need to be in communion with the Pope of Rome, and therefore never join the Catholic Church, contradicting the thrice infallibly defined, EENS dogma.Ahhh, but see you are "sifting" the magisterium, as Ladislaus so often says. You aren't allowed to do that. If the magisterium is always infallbile and an ecuмenical council is always infallible, then this contradiction is only APPARENT and not real. And you must use +Benedict's 'continuity' theory to bridge the gap. You must wait for the Church to clear up the confusion. This is your logical conclusion.
And now you shamelessly mock the solemn teaching of Vatican I. It was not Cantarella but Vatican I which taught about the Pope's "never-failing faith". But, then, what's the difference? If you can excoriate the teaching of one Ecuмenical Council (Vatican II), then why not the other Vatican Council also?
You're a complete disgrace, and the more you post the less Catholic you seem.
Then AGAIN you repeat that lie that we consider the Pope the rule of faith. We are not talking about the Pope but about the Papal Magisterium. And, yes, Vatican I DOES IN FACT TEACH that the Papal Magisterium (to the Universal Church) IS IN FACT THE RULE OF FAITH. In fact, it's explicitly laid out.
I'm absolutely appalled by your posting.
"Mmmmm....Pastor Aeternus is telling us explicitly that the Pope enjoys the Divine promise of never-failing Faith.
"What does that say about the belief that all the conciliar "popes" have become heretics one after the other?"
Cantarella
This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away from the poisonous food of error by them, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of Hell.
Pastor Aeternus
"You shamelessly mock the solemn teaching of Vatican I."
Ladislaus
"And, yes, Vatican I DOES IN FACT TEACH that the Papal Magisterium (to the Universal Church) IS IN FACT THE RULE OF FAITH."
Ladislaus
"The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith."
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
"Apostolic See is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by its judgment."
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circuмstances, sometimes assembling Ecuмenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which, with the help of God, they had recognized as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
But since, in this very age in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the supreme pastoral office.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
It's not "sifting" if she believes that the NO is a false church.Ahhh, but what is the evidence that the Church is false, according to her? The V2 docuмents that she "sifted". CIRCULAR LOGIC!
Because of the Catholic principle of non-Contradiction in dogmatic teachings as those emerging from Ecunemical Councils. In particular I see a contradiction occurring in Lumen Gentium; in that salvation is possible to those who are "ignorant" of the need to be in communion with the Pope of Rome, and therefore never join the Catholic Church, contradicting the thrice infallibly defined, EENS dogma. I also see a contradiction in Nostra Aetate and the Church radical change on Her timeless approach towards the perfidious Jews. This false Magisterium of the Church has become radically Judaized.
Without the pope, no Magisterium. So, as a rule of faith, the pope and the Magisterium stand or fall together. Your distinction between the two as a rule of faith is meaningless.
She throws them all out as being without authority.She (the new authority) throws them all out as being without authority. Very humble.
Now you could claim that private judgment is the starting point for any rejection of Vatican II.He who calls everyone protestant is now promoting protestant private interpretation.
But the rejection of the Conciliar Church has more to do with the fact that it lacks the elements required for the motives of credibility in general.Here's what Vatican I says about 'motives of credibility', which it says the Church always posesses. Nice try.
That's why St. Robert spoke of MANIFEST heresy (vs. formal heresy or any other kind of heresy) ...Speaking of St. Robert Bellarmine, who said that, "Only by the words of the general Council do we know whether the fathers of that council intended to engage their prerogative infallibility"
Now you could claim that private judgment is the starting point for any rejection of Vatican II. But the rejection of the Conciliar Church has more to do with the fact that it lacks the elements required for the motives of credibility in general. If you look at that abomination as a whole, it does not resemble the Church Church in its essential marks. Those "motives of credibility" are the natural precursors before the acceptance of the Church's authority as a whole.
So how do we know that Pius IX and Gregory XVI weren't in fact WRONG in their condemnation of religious liberty while Vatican II was right? Ah, you say, it's because Pius IX and Gregory XVI followed Tradition while Vatican II did not. Says who, Drew? Your private judgment?
Ladislaus
We know they are wrong because their teaching is in accord with the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Of course any judgment anyone makes on anything can rightfully be called “private judgment.” Even making a profession of Catholic faith by the submission of mind and will to the revelation of God is a “private judgment.” Vatican I’s article on the faith says that, “the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind.” That is, it requires a “private judgment” regarding the motives of credibility. What I said before concerning conscience applies here. Every Catholic must do his best before any act or judgment to insure a conscience that is both true and certain. He is then required to follow that conscience even if it is shown subsequently to be erroneous....
Drew
I asked for a Magisterial Teaching,Well, the term “magisterium” has only been used for 150 years, so that’s a limitation on your request. I’ve posted stuff before and you rejected that too, so do your own research. The fact of the matter is, that since Vatican 1 defined the parameters of the papal magisterium’s infallibility, anything which falls OUTSIDE those parameters, by definition, is fallible.
The bottom line is that Ecunemical Councils approved by the Pope cannot err. This is true, regardless of the Council issuing dogmatic canons or anathemas.There are so many quotes from theologians all saying the same thing. And I could post a lot more. What’s the use? You can’t even follow St Bellarmine’s explanation. You either have a reading comprehension problem, or you’re not open to the truth.
What if there were errors in the Council of Trent or Vatican I Council present in the "fallible" narrative"?Do you have the docuмents of Trent memorized? How about all the other ecuмenical councils - can you recite them all by heart? Have you even READ them all, word for word? Because If you think that every word is infallible, then by golly, you’d better be familiar with every dot and tittle.
Second, the Fathers are clear that those who refuse to accept the definitions of faith made by a general council are to be excluded from the Church as heretics.You gloss over this term like it has no meaning.
Except that Pax insisted that V2 taught blatant heresy.I said it erred. I said it had contradictions.
You're conflating the term de fide with infallibilityInfallibility is only used for de fide definitions. That’s it purpose.
Bellarmine reasons that if the pope is infallible in judging matters of faith or morals, then his judgment of a council’s decision cannot be in error, no matter how small the particular council.You continue to ignore the fact that V2 did not have any judgements. Therefore it’s not protected by infallibility. It did not have any dogmatic decrees, canons, judgements or teachings. Therefore, infallibility IS NOT PART OF THE COUNCIL. This is backed up by the quotes from Paul VI himself, the council fathers, theologians present and theologians not present.
But while there could theoretically be some small mistakes, for an Ecuмenical Council to teach heresy or even grave substantial error to the Universal Church?Your use of the word “teach” is in error. That’s your problem. A teaching of the Church MUST be believed by all the faithful, with certainty of faith, under pain of sin, as a matter of salvation. V2 DID NOT “TEACH” ON MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS like all other ecuмenical councils. There is NOTHING in V2 that we MUST accept with a “certainty of faith” therefore your use of the word “teach” is absolutely wrong because you fail to distinguish the different levels of thr magisterium, some only requiring CONDITIONAL assent, which fact you continue to dodge like a snake on a road dodges cars.
No, Pax Vobis. Of course we do not have to memorize all Ecunemical Councils by heartOf course we don’t, because only the dogmatic decrees, judgments, canons or definitions are MATTERS OF FAITH. All else is theological reasons and intentions, which aren’t infallible.
There are many teachings of the Church that fall short of being de fide.True, but these non-de fide teachings are not required to be held with 'certainty of faith'. They are to be held with CONDITIONAL assent, just like V2. Ergo, they are not required for salvation...just like V2 is not required.
Is it possible that in an expository passage in an Ecuмenical Council there could be a small mistake? Theoretically, yes, although even this is unlikely as Catholics have always believed that Ecuмenical Councils have been under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. But while there could theoretically be some small mistakes, for an Ecuмenical Council to teach heresy or even grave substantial error to the Universal Church? That would mean a defection of the Church. I reiterate without any hesitation or shadow of doubt that people who believe as Pax does are heretics and are not Catholic.
Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide.I don’t think the above is possible. Infallibility only deals with faith/morals; it is PRECISELY the reason it exists - to define matters of faith. Provide an example where an infallible statement is not de fide or “of the faith”.
Secondly, you're confusing indefectibility/infallible safety with infallibility in the strict sense.Fenton is the only source which postulates this ideal. It’s a theory at this point. I’d like to see a strictly-orthodox theologian agree with him. One theologian does not make it so.
quite another for an Ecuмenical Council to teach HERESY to the Church, as you have claimed.V2 is an ecuмenical anomaly. This is what the masons wanted - to cause confusion. To create an unprecedented situation. They succeeded. But those who know their faith, and the simple truths of the catechism, know that its errors are errors. They also know that these errors are NOT binding as even the authors, theologians and post-conciliar popes have repeatedly said.
No, a de fide truth is not the same thing as a matter of faith. "Matter of faith or morals" simply refers to truths having to do with faith and morals (as opposed to scientific truths, for instance). There are lesser truths which pertain to the faith. And that's the typical R&R misreading of Vatican I again, that only solemnly defined dogmas are infallble. "Define" simply means to clearly delineate and put an end to dissent ... on some matter relating to faith and morals ... in such a way as to make it clear that it must be held by all the faithful.
I disagree. The problem with sedevacatism and sedeprivationism is that they lead to theological and philosophical teachings that overturn dogma.Excellent.
Why cannot an fallible council approved by a pope, churchmen teaching by their grace of state, teach heresy? The reply is typically that the Indefectibility of the Church would not permit this. But here is the problem. The Attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically defined as has been the Attribute of Infallibility. Much of what is believed concerning this Attribute of the Church is the product of theological speculation and Catholics are free to speculate how this Attribute is exercised and preserved in the Church.
Dogma establishes the limits of theological speculation and as long as a Catholic does not offer any conclusions that oppose revealed truth, he is free to consider other possible explanations. It is from theological speculation that we have the common opinion the Indefectibility serves as a personal non-infallible infallibility of the pope protecting him from error in doctrine and morals in the exercise of the authentic ordinary magisterium based upon his grace of state. This theory has a number of problems that are not just evident since Vatican II but can be seen throughout difficult times in Church history.
We know that the Attributes of the Church are powers given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ, that enable the Church to do specific things. But just as in man, where each individual sense power has its specific mode of operation and individual ends but still has considerable overlapping with other sense powers in many general perceptions, so do the powers of the Church. If each power is considered with respect to its individual end, they correspond to the three principles duties that God has imposed upon His Church: to teach, to worship God and sanctify the faithful, and to govern specifically enumerated by St. Pius X in Pascendi. These duties are possible through the powers of Church given to her by God, that is, Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Authority. It is important to remember that these Attributes are firstly Attributes of God and only Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The powers resided primarily and essentially in the Church. They resided in churchmen only secondarily and accidentally.
The specific end of Indefectibility is to worship God and sanctify the faithful. Common theological opinion holds that Indefectibility of the Church means that a council and pope could never impose doctrinal or moral error on the Church. This leads to conservative Catholics. like Emmett O'Regan. who believe that the pope possess a personal never-failing faith and Indefectibility means there is no possibility of error from the Vatican II or concilar popes therefore we must accept them and all they teach. It also leads to sedevacantism/sedeprivationism that agree in general principle with conservatives but therefore conclude that the pope cannot be the pope to preserve the Attribute of Indefectibility. I contend that both of these conclusions are wrong and both lead to overturning of dogma.
If you consider Indefectibility as primarily an Attribute of the Church in light of the specific end of this power, that is, the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful, these ends have never been absent from the Church since Vatican II. Just as Noah building the Ark condemned a sinful world, so Catholics faithful to tradition and the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" condemn the conciliar Church. It is traditional Catholics that will not betray the faith that constitute the evidence of the Church's Indefectibility.
This theory may not be correct but it does not overturn any Catholic dogma.
As far as the exercise of Authority, it is strictly addressed in Catholic moral theology. The proper response to Authority is Obedience. But the ultimate Authority is God and all Catholics are obligated firstly to obey God. There are about a dozen subsidiary virtues under the virtue of Justice. These subsidiary virtues are hierarchically related. The first and most important virtue under Justice is the virtue of Religion. This virtue primarily concerns giving to God the things that are God's and typically can be quantified by specific acts. It is the virtue of Religion that governs obedience. Obedience is only a virtue when it is properly regulated by the virtue of Religion. When it is not, any act of obedience is sinful. There has hardly been any imposition of Authority since Vatican II that does not directly offend the virtue of Religion and must therefore be opposed.
R & R does no damage whatsoever to Catholic dogma or Catholic morality. Two things are necessary for any reconsideration: firstly, a conciliar pope will have to directly engage the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal and moral error, secondly, sedevacantists/sedeprivationists will have to produce a pope who is generally accepted by Catholics faithful to tradition.
I do not think either one is going to happen.
Lastly, every faithful Catholic should remember that the two greatest tests by God, the angelic test in heaven and the person of Jesus Christ to the Jews, required His chosen faithful to reject the constituted authority established by God. It should not surprise anyone if this should happen again.
Drew
"If you consider Indefectibility as primarily an Attribute of the Church in light of the specific end of this power, that is, the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful, these ends have never been absent from the Church since Vatican II."
and
"Two things are necessary for any reconsideration: firstly, a conciliar pope will have to directly engage the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal and moral error, secondly, sedevacantists/sedeprivationists will have to produce a pope who is generally accepted by Catholics faithful to tradition.
I do not think either one is going to happen."
Just as Noah building the Ark condemned a sinful world, so Catholics faithful to tradition and the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" condemn the conciliar Church. It is traditional Catholics that will not betray the faith that constitute the evidence of the Church's Indefectibility.
Jeremias writeth to the captives in Babylon, exhorting them to be easy there and not to hearken to false prophets. That they shall be delivered after seventy years. But those that remain in Jerusalem shall perish by the sword, famine and pestilence. And that Achab, Sedecius, and Semetas, false prophets, shall die miserably.
I wonder what is your understanding of the dogma that there is no salvation without personal submission to the Pope of Rome, Mr. Drew. It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. How can you recognize, in good conscience, who the Pope of Rome is, and still persist in severing communion from him?Are you saying we are under a moral obligation to become a sedevacantist or sedeprivationist? I am sorry but there is considerable debate about what needs to be done with a heretical Pope. There is absolutely nothing wrong with avoiding him while at the same time recognizing his authority.
I wonder what is your understanding of the dogma that there is no salvation without personal submission to the Pope of Rome, Mr. Drew. It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. How can you recognize, in good conscience, who the Pope of Rome is, and still persist in severing communion from him?
Excellent.
My disagreement with you is best represented by the juxtaposition of these two quotes of yours:
I agree with both statements, and because I do I disagree with an implication that I see in the paragraph from which the first quote is taken:
I read that as you saying that it is only Traditional Catholics, who attend the Latin Mass, who continue to carry the faith of the Church in these times. I disagree. In addition to the impossibility of a pope "engag[ing] the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal or moral error," I also think it impossible for a pope to promulgate or foist a Mass upon the Church that fails to perpetuate the Lord's presence in the Church and deliver the sacramental grace of the Eucharist, the center of our faith. Perhaps, however, that is included in your formulation.
True Catholics who hold to the true faith have followed Our Lord into the "captivity" of the Novus Ordo and post-Vatican 2 reality. This has been willed by God on the Church for her past abominations and the "heresies" by prior popes with regard to bowing to Mammon and the Money Powers, most evidenced with regard to usury, and the practical gutting of God's law against it.
On the whole in coming to understand what we are going through I recommend that Jeremiah 29 and the "70 years of captivity" for God's people be deeply and prayerfully studied. That punishment came upon the Church of the Old Covenant for its past abominations, and those who followed God's will and went into captivity were the ones to receive the future blessing.
In any event, within the NO are numerous elect of God, receiving Our Lord in maimed but salvific rites while in "captivity" in a foreign land, humbly enduring His just scourge upon His people, praying, confessing, saying their Rosaries, standing outside abortion clinics, decrying sodomy and adultery, maintaining the truth of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."
But again, I agree with you, perhaps in total, and misunderstood and read some implications into your excellent post that weren't there.
Have a Blessed Easter, brother.
Hogwash. If you recognize his authority and avoid him, then you are in schism. Period. No, there's no strict obligation to be a sedevacantist or a sedeprivationist. But one must at least have positive doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 popes to avoid the sin of formal schism. If you want to argue that he stays in office until removed by the Church, that's a theological opinion.Wow, you certainly are over-analyzing the issue. I am only saying that I am not going to say that the See is Vacant. I recognize he has been given authority but that he is misusing his authority. He holds the office but should not have the office. Who decides that he should be deposed? In fact, who will depose him? Or the local diocesan bishop? Me? You? My obligation is to keep the faith in its simplicity.
However you want to eventually resolve the pope question in isoluation, I could hardly care less. What I care about is how you're butchering the indefectibility of the Church, the holiness of the Church ... smearing the Magisterium as having taught heresy, etc. That is what I find repugnant. As to whether you think Bergoglio is the pope, I could hardly care less about that in isolation. I have no problem attending Mass una cuм Francisco. I have a problem with Protestant and non-Catholic principles that usually end up manifesting themselves with R&R.
Submissive and in submission to are completely different things. No, this is not a question of simple disobedience. You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it. You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope. So a son might be "submissive", i.e., pay lip service about how in theory he should submit to his father, but then he leaves the home in defiance of his own father and instead of helping with the father's business, he opens a shop down the street that is trying to steal customers from his own father. That's what you're doing ... if these guys are legitimate popes. You can TALK all you want about how you wish to submit to your father, but in fact you are NOT in submission to him.
Stop it with the "obey God rather than man" nonsense already. This isn't about simple obedience, but about submission to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline. When you put YOUR interpretation of Tradition/dogma over that of the Magisterium, you're not actually obeying God ... but rather your private judgment, i.e. yourself. That's Protestantism in a nutshell.
Submissive and in submission to are completely different things. No, this is not a question of simple disobedience. You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it. You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope. So a son might be "submissive", i.e., pay lip service about how in theory he should submit to his father, but then he leaves the home in defiance of his own father and instead of helping with the father's business, he opens a shop down the street that is trying to steal customers from his own father. That's what you're doing ... if these guys are legitimate popes. You can TALK all you want about how you wish to submit to your father, but in fact you are NOT in submission to him.
Stop it with the "obey God rather than man" nonsense already. This isn't about simple obedience, but about submission to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline. When you put YOUR interpretation of Tradition/dogma over that of the Magisterium, you're not actually obeying God ... but rather your private judgment, i.e. yourself. That's Protestantism in a nutshell.
“Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide.”
Ladislaus
Your claim that “Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide,” is impossible.
That's tantamount to a defection of the Magisterium.If the pope is not engaging his FULL magisterium, then his errors are not a defection, because his errors do not come from the OFFICIAL PAPACY but from his private office as theologian/bishop. You are making an illogical and erroneous connection between the fallible magisterium and indefectibility. There is not ONE V2 official who has claimed that V2 was free from error. You and Catarella however disagree and try to impose YOUR INTERPRETATION of a council and you HAVE NO OFFICIAL CHURCH AUTHORITY TO DO SO, nor any facts to support your thesis. (You've yet to show one quote or fact which proves that V2 must be accepted as a matter of salvation, yet you falsely assert that it is part of the infallible magisterium. So ridiculous.)
You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it.
You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope.We reject the fallible magisterium, since it is in error in some cases, which we are allowed to do since it only requires 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'.
So basically a legitimate successor of St. Peter, the very foundation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, has turned to be an enemy of Jesus Christ?
Then you wonder why the Protestants laugh at us.
:facepalm: :laugh1:
An excellent point...
Pitting pope against pope and Council against Council is exactly what R&R leads to...
So the Vicar of Christ on earth himself has been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in an illegal and sinful rite for decades now?Does a bear shat in the woods? Does a pig like mud? Can a pope go to hell?
So basically a legitimate successor of St. Peter, the very foundation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, has turned indeed to be an enemy of Jesus Christ?How many theologians have addressed this possibility? Many, over the course of many centuries. Even St Bellarmine said it was possible.
What is completely foreign to Roman Catholicism is the disdain and contemptuousness towards the Pope of Rome, the legitimate successor of St. Peter, by those who call themselves Catholic.You mean the same disdain and contempt that St Bellarmine showed towards the (imaginary) pope whom he argued could fall into heresy? I guess St Robert was in error and his ideals are COMPLETELY FOREIGN to the faith, as you state. (sarcasm alert).
It is believed that Popes can indeed fall into error in private writings or even have sinful lives.
But NOT promulgate error in Ecunemical Councils, though.V2 did not OFFICIALLY and AUTHORITATIVELY (i.e. under pain of sin, as a matter of salvation) force ANYONE to accept their novelties. You have not proven your above statement in any capacity and EVERY V2 theologian, including Pope Paul VI says the COMPLETE opposite of what you said. Your view has no factual backing. It is worse than a theory, it is wishful thinking. At worse, it's a lie.
Again, they pretend that V2 were just the private musings of one Giovanni Battista Montini. He and the bishops were officially teaching the Church, exercising the Magisterium.Alas, only if they had been exorcising the Magisterium instead!
It was an act of the fallible Magisterium.
Paul VI simply stated that V2 did not SOLEMNLY define anything.Yes and they said much more. Not only did Paul VI fail to SOLEMNLY define anything he also failed to non-solemnly define anything. The magisterium can be infallible solemnly and non-solemnly. V2 was neither.
The Fifth Lateran Council defines infallibly the necessity of being subject to the Pope of Rome for salvation, so if you know who the Pope of Rome is, then why don't you submit?
Pope Innocent III († 1216) :
“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:1) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men." (Sermo 4)
Pope Adrian VI († 1523) :
“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).”
Venerable Pope Pius IX :
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
Pope Adrian II († 872) :
“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings”.
St. Thomas Aquinas:
“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4)
Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P:
“It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5)
From Galatians 2:11
“But when Cephas [Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11)
The theologian Juan Cardinal De Torquemada O.P. († 1468)
“Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.” (Summa de Ecclesia)
You have a habit of classifying anything as "theory" or "speculation" if it hasn't been formally or solemnly defined. So, for instance, you claimed this of the Church's disciplinary infallibility and overall indefectibility ... even though the propositions related to both disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility flow directly from Catholic teaching and have a much higher theological note than "speculative". For you there seem to be only two categories, de fide and speculation. That's in line with your limiting of infallibility to solemn definitions. As with the different ramifications of indefectibility which are denied by no theologian, the notion of fides ecclesiastica is very widely held. This distinction appears in every listing of the "theological notes" that I have ever seen.
But for people of your mindset, anything short of things defined solemnly by the Church are optional.
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. Vatican I
I am not aware of any reputable Catholic source which gives this (rather childish) explanation of the doctrine of submission to the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Pope of Rome. I have only heard this rhetoric in SSPX circles. Furthermore, you did not answer what is your understanding of the dogma, what it entails, and its implications in the regular lives of Catholics. You briefly touched the point of the legitimacy of general disobedience. Do you become a subject to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of Baptism alone? What are your obligations as a Roman Catholic in this respect?
I rather believe the words of Pope Leo XIII in Epistola Tua, 1885:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
[Galatians 1:8 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=8#x)]
This whole thread, and the other long winded thread (The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/405/), 28 pages) could have been reduced to a few posts IF ONLY sedevacantists would know how to distinguish between the Authentic Magisterium and the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary). For some reason, they CAN NOT and WILL NOT make a distinction between the two.One of the main problems is that the sedes' very definition of "magisterium", which they say is their rule of faith, is the same as the Novus Ordo definition of "magisterium". Which is to say the sedes' adhere to the NO "totality of bishops doctrine". They believe this NO doctrine, quoted from a sede bishop, to be "a dogma of faith" - "The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful." - Bishop Pivarunas, CMRI
How do you reconcile your post with this teaching from Pope Leo XIII?
Fr. Joachim Salaverri wrote: |
Quote “An internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See which have been authentically approved by the Roman Pontiff.” Fr. Joachim Salaverri, of the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in Spain, quote taken from article by Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953 |
What is more, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
Essentially what you're saying is that the non-infallible teachings of the Pope and bishops have no authority when they're not infallible, and Catholics can be free to disregard them.You really are a person of extremes. If something is not infallible, we must give 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'. If you want to know what that means, go re-read the definitions i've posted multiple times.
So you're essentially denying the notion of authoritative teaching to anything short of infallible pronouncements.I've posted theologians' explanations of the 3 tiers of magisterial authority numerous times. You refuse to make distinctions. You have no integrity.
"At the time, when the word magisterium was used, it meant the infallible type only" Are you kidding me, Pax?? Where did you come up with this little gem? Source please...You don't even believe that there IS a fallible magisterium, so how else can YOU interpret this, but that it's ALL infallible?
I actually have a scriptural annotation ...Cantarella, you need to stop with the scriptural annotation that you've posted like 1,000x. It's AN OPINION.
Same thing here. The "superiors" who are mentioned here (and may be disobeyed if they command something sinful), are NOT precisely the Pope of Rome.A superior is a superior. The Pope is a superior. Principle applies. If St Thomas needed to make an exception, I think he's smart enough to remember to do so. Your exception is not valid.
St. Thomas explicitly taught in "Contra Errores Graecorum" that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. When we talk about the Holy Father himself then; then the submission to be given is completely different.Right. We are only obligated to give 'religious CONDITIONAL assent' to the pope, unless he requires UNQUALIFIED assent, through a teaching that he, through infallibility (either solemn or non-solemn), binds us.
...because we believe that his authority comes from GOD, being the succesor of St. Peter. Obedience and loyalty to Peter is the authentic and traditional Catholic attitude.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Since you've decided to join in, please elaborate on the quote from Pope Leo XIII. What is he saying in the quote below? What does he mean?
Why would anyone be banished from the Church by departing "from the doctrine propose by the authentic magisterium" if the authentic magisterium can err?
It was consequently provided by God that the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ should not end with the life of the Apostles, but that it should be perpetuated. We see it in truth propagated, and, as it were, delivered from hand to hand. For the Apostles consecrated bishops, and each one appointed those who were to succeed them immediately "in the ministry of the word."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n.).
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
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. "Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee" (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2)………..
For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: "All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium" (Sess. iii., cap. 3). Hence, as it is clear that God absolutely willed that there should be unity in His Church, and as it is evident what kind of unity He willed, and by means of what principle He ordained that this unity should be maintained, we may address the following words of St. Augustine to all who have not deliberately closed their minds to the truth: "When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?" (De Unitate Credendi, cap. xvii., n. 35).
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
How do you reconcile your post with this teaching from Pope Leo XIII?
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.
Authorized: having official permission or approval.
Authoritative: able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.
Pope Leo XIII elaborates on this specific issue...
That was not the point, Meg. The point of the quote is to demonstrate that Christ left in Peter and His successors, a representative of Himself on earth. Christ and the Pope are not independent from each other. As Pope Innocent III explains here:
Well, I'm certainly not a linguist by any stretch of the means. But the latin sure seems to indicate the word "authentic".
Looks pretty clear to me, but maybe someone with training in Latin can chime in...
authentĭcus (adjective I class)
1. (docuмent) original, genuine, authentic
2. that comes from the author
authentic (adjective)The bottom line for me is this: often lay theologians will read something and understand it in a completely different way as what was intended by the one who wrote it. Put many little such mistakes together and you will arrive at a big mistake, which will be very hard to correct.
1. verus [veră, verum]
2. certus [certă, certum]
Another example from Satis Cognitum:
From an online Latin dictionary:
authentĭcuм
neutral noun II declension
1 original or authentic docuмent, the original
2 docuмent certifying relic genuine
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.
Well, I'm certainly not a linguist by any stretch of the means. But the latin sure seems to indicate the word "authentic".
Looks pretty clear to me, but maybe someone with training in Latin can chime in...
I already ignore quite a bit of what Father Cekada has to say. He's done a lot of good research and laid a good foundation, but I don't care about what version of this or that is accepted by him...
I'm certainly skeptical of the translation, yes. Anything "official" that comes from the apostate church should make anyone skeptical. Obviously, in your position, it makes sense that you would accept something "official" from the Vatican. I get it, man...
I don't find it that interesting of an exercise... Of course, I know where I got it from.
I did, however, find our dictionary exercise interesting as it confirmed my original assertion about the translation.
I agree, I don't think that our little exercise did you any good. People like you already think you know it all - it's obvious from this last condescending post of yours.
By the way, Samuel, you can pursue this as far as you want to go. Just know that I'll be here to keep you in check...
I agree, I don't think that our little exercise did you any good. People like you already think you know it all - it's obvious from this last condescending post of yours.
By the way, Samuel, you can pursue this as far as you want to go. Just know that I'll be here to keep you in check...
There's no need to apologize at all ... since Drew and his wife are actively promoting heresy. They would have been burned at the stake by St. Pius V for trying to spread such poison.
You're succuмbing to feminine emotions in feeling the need to apologize.
Your sarcasm indicates you're not really interested in pursuing anything...but I'll bite.
I don't have any "illustrious sedevacantist mentors", Sam.
Father Cekada, Novus Ordo Watch, John Lane, and John Daly all believe in the salvation of non-Catholics, so I don't pay much attention to any of them. Occasionally I'll refer to some Father Cekada material, and Novus Ordo Watch has some good material, but to be honest, I don't know much about John Lane or John Daly...
That being said, I believe that the Dimonds have the most comprehensive material to read through, and I refer to their material the most. And to correct your statement above, MHFM does not use or accept the translation of "authentico" or "authenticuм" as "authoritative". See below, from the Dimonds website:
Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin. It means that the successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.(http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-glossary-principles/#.WsQcxp9fhhF)
...
Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith fail not. Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.
...
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896:
“… Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium… If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”
Outside of the Church there is absolutely no salvation
(http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation/#.WsQed59fhhE)
Heretic – a baptized person who rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church. Heretics are automatically excommunicated from the Church (ipso facto) without any declaration for rejecting an authoritative teaching of the Faith.
The Glossary of Terms and Principles (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-glossary-principles/#.WsQcxp9fhhF)
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
Also, note here that the Church is infallible in its ‘authentic magisterium’. Pope Leo XIII declares that to deny teaching of the ‘authentic magisterium’ is to separate oneself from the Church. The position that the ‘authentic magisterium’ can contain error is common among false traditionalists.
The Magisterium is Free From Error (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/the-magisterium/#.WsQX6Z9fhhF)
I'm not going to digress onto the subject of BoD here (this thread is long enough already), but it suffices to say that AT NO POINT have I ever asserted that there can be no error whatsoever in any proposition ever to have emanated from the Magisterium. What I have stated is that the Magisterium is infallibly safe, i.e., that no one can in submitting to an authoritative teaching made to the Universal Church on a substantial point proposed as being normative for the faithful endanger their faith (as Msgr. Fenton articulated it). BoD, conceding for the sake of argument that the Church has taught this, as held by St. Thomas et al., does no substantial harm to the faith. It's a speculative theory that can be understood in such a way as to bring no harm to Catholic doctrine. Saying that the Magisterium is the "rule of faith" is not the same as saying that it's absolutely inerrant ... you ignorant baboon. I've explained this to you several times already, but you are too dense to absorb this ... that and too blinded by your own heretical depravity.
Why don't you go back and look at your quotes from the popes. Here's some of the phrases they used: "unable to be mistaken," "without danger of error," "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching." That is far more than "cannot, on the whole, be subtantially corrupted." Nice try, though, with that Thomist stuff. Impressive.
Saying that the Magisterium is the "rule of faith" is not the same as saying that it's absolutely inerrant ... you ignorant baboon. I've explained this to you several times already, but you are too dense to absorb this ... that and too blinded by your own heretical depravity.
No I don't, moron. I have consistently characterized BoD as an opinion of speculative theology with which I happen to disagree at this time.
You have no recourse but to lie in a futile attempt to win this debate, out of spite.
So who is right and who is wrong between you and the Magisterium when you "disagree" with its speculatively theologizing about BoD?Since his magisterium can be wrong on inconsequential matters, he is naturally free to decide which matters are inconsequential and which matters they got wrong. He is also forced to decide who is actually the real vs fraudulent magisterium and find out where the real magisterium aka Church is hiding.
The wrong one is in "error" - which is why I imagine you "disagree" with it. Or do you "disagree" with truth much?
If it's the Magisterium in error, don't go doing any carpentry with your "rule of faith." lol
Interestingly enough, my first post on this thread was on page 12 - It was a post correcting your false assertion that "the foundation of the Church are its teachings..."The Church = teachings + pope. It's both. However, teachings came first, because Christ was teaching the Apostles the Truth (which came from both the Old Testament and Christ's new testament) before the Church even existed. Christ's public life and time before the Ascension were done before Pentacost (birthday of the Church). So, teachings are the foundation of the Church, with the pope being the guardian of the teachings.
As for the Bellarmine quote from the SSPX article you posted, I believe Cantarella and Ladislaus addressed this.Why don't YOU address it? They read plain english and then apply verbal/mental gymnastics to say that it doesn't say what it says. I guess you go along with their lack of integrity? Suit yourself.
The Pope is human indeed; but as time progresses, I am more and more convinced that his Faith indeed cannot fail. Until someone is able to prove otherwise; I am now endorsing the 4th proposition explained by St. Bellarmine here:
As I had said before, the evidence of Popes not falling into heresy is overwhelming. R&R just can't really defend its position on this matter. Most of their sources do not even have enough theological weight whatsoever. For example, this quote attributed to Pope Adrian VI:
First, this is a false assertion, given that it is easily proven by ecclesiastical docuмents that not "MANY" Roman pontiffs were heretics. Second, it turns out that this quote was not written by POPE Adrian VI, but by "Adriano Florenzio" before being elected pontiff. Therefore, this work does not even belong to the Magisterium whatsoever.
I will go further and say that I don't even think you can safely believe a Pope can become a heretic after the dogmatic definition of Papal infallibility from Vatican I Council.
I am now endorsing the 4th proposition explained by St. Bellarmine here:Ha ha.
He's referring to the simple fact that the existence of the alleged quotation cannot be verified.St Bellarmine was quoted 4-5x saying that 1) councils are only infallible in their decrees/canons/definitons and 2) decrees/canons/definitions are the ONLY parts which are 'of the faith' and must be held for salvation.
A single reading of Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus is all is needed to arrive to my conclusions:
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that (1) they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that (2) the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and (3) be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the (4) tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
And those I have already explained to you.You ignored 1/2 of the quotes. I'm not surprised.
Your argument is not with me, Pax, but with the Vicar of Christ.The pope is the foundation of the Church, but not the ONLY foundation.
That is just because you do not understand it. If, in fact, the conciliar "popes" have done all you describe above against the Church, then that is a public indication that they are NOT the legitimate successors of St. Peter to begin with. That is the sign, because we know that popes do not fall into heresy.
Do tell. This ought to be good.
[Insert R&R distortion of Vatican I right here].
We are dealing here with the possibility of heresy in an Ecunemical Council,
So you mock this, eh?
Gross distortion? This comes almost verbatim from the TEACHING OF VATICAN I, dips..t:
And this last part is key. If Catholics are forced to split off from the hierarchy on account of error in the Papal Magisterium, then this overturns the teaching of Vatican I. If the Magisterium has gotten so corrupt that Catholics are forced to refuse submission to the hierarchy, then it's a sign that these are not Peter with the "gift of truth and never-failing faith".
Oh, Pius IX condemned Religious Liberty? Well, it didn't have all the notes of infallibility, so it's a flip of the coin whether I accept it or not. I like Pius IX and don't like Vatican II, so I'll go with Pius IX.Anyone with an 8th grade understanding can read encyclicals pre and post V2 and see the difference in use of the english language. Your sweeping-generalizations, emotional rants, and childish name-calling are becoming more and more normal for your posts. I wish you'd deal in facts, but that might be asking too much.
He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience.Oh, here we go again, with Fenton...
So you're saying that the teachings of Pius IX were infallible, right?No, not everything. The Syllabus of Errors was binding, yes. The Immaculate Conception, obviously, and any canons from V1. And any of his non-infallible magisterium, which I don't have memorized because it would've been a RE-TEACHING of a dogma ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, therefore it was already in the catechism.
Directives ... from Latin, meaning to give a direction to. And Vatican II clearly set a direction for Catholic theology and made it normative for the Church.AUTHORITATIVE direction is different from just direction. AUTHORITATIVE presumes we MUST BELIEVE it. A simple 'direction' is not binding, and the pope is NOT protected from error in simple directions, only when he is authoritative, and teaches/binds the Church.
I didn't ask whether the Syllabus was binding but whether it was infallible.The syllabus contains many errors that have been previously and infallibly condemned. Yet the Syllabus is not regarded as an infallible statement, no. It could fall under the non-infallible magisterium, if such errors are shown to have been ALWAYS condemned (which is problematic, since most of those errors have only been around since the 16th century with modern philosophers). Yet, such a condemnation must be given 'religious conditional assent' and presumed to be correct, unless we find errors.
Again, for people like Pax and Drew, the entire Magisterium can become polluted with error so grave that it endangers the faith if submitted to and an Ecuмenical Council can teach heresy to the Universal Church.
Except for a small handful of solemn pronouncements, the rest of it amounts to little more than the public musings of a Giovanni Battista Montini or Karol Wojtyla or Jorge Bergoglio. Hey, there's Bergoglio's latest Recyclical. Well, he was just thinking out loud. Oh, Pius IX condemned Religious Liberty? Well, it didn't have all the notes of infallibility, so it's a flip of the coin whether I accept it or not. I like Pius IX and don't like Vatican II, so I'll go with Pius IX. I'm going to pit Pope against Pope and Council against Council.
And the entire Magisterium outside of those core dogmatic de fide teachings can become so thoroughly corrupted that we must break submission with the hierarchy in order to please God and save our souls.
THIS is the Church you believe in?
It's blasphemous ... and quite heretical.
I believe that we are not dealing with human authority, Mr. Drew; but in the figure of the Pope, DIVINE authority coming from God. Otherwise, the foundation of St. Peter that Our Lord envisioned for His Church is quite meaningless. That changes everything of course, and it is why the example of father and son falls short. We part from the premise that the Holy Father, on account of having authority from God, will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith.
The Vicar of Christ on earth does not issue unjust commands to the Faithful or lead souls to Hell by promulgating error. As simple as that. If someone has doubts on the reason for this, please read Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus.
If the Magisterium has gotten so corrupt that Catholics are forced to refuse submission to the hierarchyThe V2 hierarchy HAS NOT REQUIRED SUBMISSION to their errors. They are NOT REQUIRED TO BE HELD UNDER PAIN OF SIN. Therefore, when we question and refuse parts of V2 (which we are allowed to do because they only require CONDITIONAL assent) it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OFFICIAL MAGISTERIUM which is only in operation when teachings are REQUIRED.
but “also be submissive to him in matters of liturgy and discipline.”Cantarella, same answer as above. The pope/magisterium HAVE NOT REQUIRED SUBMISSION therefore no one is REFUSING SUBMISSION.
So it doesn’t matter that the V2 docuмents admit that unless they say they they are binding on the faithful (which they never said) that they are not binding? THIS DOESNT MATTER?!QuoteFrom V2's footnotes:
In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.
As a matter of fact, nowhere in the council docuмents does the Synod openly declare that such and such a doctrine is being defined.
Nobody cares about such distinctions except for "Lefebvrists". The Church does not promulgate error or anything harmful to the faithful in a General Council, period.
Also Samuel, it is not like we are talking about the latest imprudent interview Bergolio just made, or a silly error here and there caused by distraction or something minor. That would not make him a false pope. We are dealing here with the possibility of heresy in an Ecunemical Council, a schismatic liturgy, modernized catechism, a complete swift in the Magisterium, a demolition of the Catholic dogmas of salvation, etc.
And this is not even about a single pope promulgating error like in the times of Arch. Lefebvre. R&R really keeps adhering to the idea that after more than half a century, the consecution of the last 5 - 6 latest "popes" have all become heretics and enemies of the Faith. The legitimate successor of St. Peter keep becoming heretics one after another one.
Impossible.
Neither one is an "error" at this time. I explained it as a difference of opinion that the Church has allowed. Do you even know what an "error" is from a theological standpoint? Look up the "theological notes".
Tell that to +Lefebvre, +Fellay, et al.No, I'm telling you. This is a fact. The reason +Lefebvre continued to separate from new-rome is the same reason that Fr Chazal outlines - they don't have the faith; they are dangerous. We must separate from them to keep the Faith.
Thanks, BD. This quote exposes Pax's lie. Sadly, on this point at least, Paul VI is MORE CATHOLIC than a lot of the R&R folks here.
How many times does it need to be explained to you that we don't believe that Paul VI has Magisterium? That is the very point of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism.You have no right to believe your rule of faith is not the rule of faith when it comes to V2, because to do so means the magisterium is not your rule of faith.
Stubbornian Logic --No, I gave you logic, what is apparent, is you have no faith to see it.
assumes that the V2 popes are legitimate in order to prove that they are legitimate.
Premise 1: V2 Popes are legitimate popes.
Premise 2: [insert any nonsense here, whether true or false]
Conclusion: V2 Popes are legitimate popes.
Cantarella,
Which of these two mutually exclusive positions do you believe is the correct one:
1. A validly elected pope can fall into heresy.
2. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.
Keep in mind that in #1 we're not talking about what happens if or when he falls into heresy, we're only talking about whether it is possible or not that a pope can fall into heresy.
Stubborn, in the attached screenshot of Danzinger dogmatic definitions it is clearly read:Is this the translation you are trying to get? This is almost the same translation that Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter here (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/). I see nothing whatsoever regarding the NO's "totality of bishops doctrine". This part teaches the absolute necessity of using dogma to refute errors.
About the infallibility of the church dispersed throughout the world to propose the traditional doctrine of Christ. I have already translated it but for some reason, cannot copy it here so I am just attaching another screenshot where the doctrine is explained. See #1683. (this is because of your issue with the infallibility of bishops throughout the world).
Stubborn, in the attached screenshot of Danzinger dogmatic definitions it is clearly read:
About the infallibility of the church dispersed throughout the world to propose the traditional doctrine of Christ. I have already translated it but for some reason, cannot copy it here so I am just attaching another screenshot where the doctrine is explained. See #1683. (this is because of your issue with the infallibility of bishops throughout the world).
How many times does it need to be explained to you that we don't believe that Paul VI has Magisterium? That is the very point of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism.
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Today at 01:49:58 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg602898/#msg602898)QuoteSedeprivationism.
Before Vatican II the law of identity excluded partially pregnant and partially pope.
At least one cannot still be partially pregnant.
For now.
So you make it clear that you don't understand the concept of a distinction.
He's talking about the ORDINARY UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM ... which is by definition of course authentic.
Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter:Note the submission of faith is not limited to defined dogma, but also to teachings of the Ordinary teachings of the Universal Magisterium - WHICH MEANS: our submission of faith is also owed to "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."
Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith.
This would be the answer:
2. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.
However, I do believe that it is within the realm of possibility that an impostor (or in this case, a marrano) can be elected to the Papacy as it occurred with antipope Clement VII or antipope Alexander V.
Mr. Drew,
If your rule of Faith is "dogma" as you say, then in order to be truly consistent, you need to adhere to the dogma that Ecunemical Councils are infallible, and therefore, they require absolute obedience; not selective. The Denzinger's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04736b.htm) edition "Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum" by Professor Ignatius Stahl, I think the 9th edition published after Vatican I Council, lists the heading "Concilium generale representat Ecclesiam Universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience).
I have a copy of the 10th edition, dated 1910, attached is a screen of the index concerning infallibility under Potestas Docendi (See II.). It is impossible that R&R can prove that General Councils ratified by the Pope, even if they do not pronounce infallible "canons and anathemas", do not fully represent the Ecclesiam Universalem and thus, require absolute obedience and assent.
This is a dogmatic truth.
Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976This whole address is full of half-truths and contradictions. "Par for the course" for a modernist.
It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions.
As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…
A full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X…
Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger ReportOne who gives V2 the required 'religious conditional assent' does not deny V2 nor the authority of the pope; they just realize that he did not USE his authority in the same manner as at Trent/Vatican I. Ratzinger here tries to connect the authority of Trent/Vatican I with being equal to that of V2. Of course, it's not, as he later admitted when he became pope.
It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.
Now you and Ladislaus have argued in different posts that everything in an ecuмenical council is necessarily infallible. You have argued that the pope possess a personal never-failing faith. You have argued that the pope is infallibly infallible when he wants to be infallible, and he is fallibly infallible when he does not want to be infallible. All this is possible because he possess a personal Indefectiblity called "infallible security." So you claim that the pope is not your rule of faith but rather the magisterium, but everything your pope does is infallible and the magisterium is meaningless without a pope, so, your rule of faith is the pope by default whom who tuned into a god. The pope is always infallible until you catch him making a mistake and then he is no longer the pope. In the end, the only rule of faith you have is yourself.This is a very accurate summary of Ladislaus/Cantarella's arguments, and logical conclusions to which they lead. ...If the above is wrong, now is the time to clear this up, guys.
It has been the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that the resolutions of the General Councils are infallible. They do not contain error against the Faith. This truth is part of the Apostolic Tradition and it means that your position is not really traditional, but quite a novelty, indeed.This is not true Cantarella because it is not the constant teaching of the Church that the resolutions of General Councils are infallible - what that is, is NO speak, not the teaching of the Church. That EXACT wrong thinking is what originally swayed many otherwise faithful Catholics to abandon their faith and join the NO. I saw it happen in real time with my own eyes.
I ask then, why should I put in doubt all the resources I have clearly cited in this thread, from Pope St. Hormisdas, Bellarmine, Pope Leo the Great (who by the way, explicitly taught that those who reject Councils "cannot be numbered among Catholics"),...
On top of that he blends me and Cantarella together.You consistently answer for her, and you've never called her out on her numerous contradictions, so it's safe to presume you sympathize with some of her arguments.
It has been the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that the resolutions of the General Councils are infallible.You have provided NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that V2 taught infallibly. Not one. You have no integrity.
You consistently answer for her, and you've never called her out on her numerous contradictions, so it's safe to presume you sympathize with some of her arguments.
This is not true Cantarella because it is not the constant teaching of the Church that the resolutions of General Councils are infallible - what that is, is NO speak, not the teaching of the Church. That EXACT wrong thinking is what originally swayed many otherwise faithful Catholics to abandon their faith and join the NO. I saw it happen in real time with my own eyes.
As regards infallibility, there has only ever been one Council that spelled it out, i.e. infallibly defined the extent of the Church's infallibility - and that was The First Vatican Council, whose teachings, which entirely omit the above thinking, effectively and infallibly destroy the above belief.
You gave a blatant misquote from Pope Leo the Great. The correct quote is: "whosoever resists the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics". I trust you see the error by omission in your above quote as well as it's inevitable repercussions.
Please note that you will find this to always be the case whenever you come across papal encyclicals regarding the necessity of our submission to the decrees from Councils - they will *always* be referring to past councils - not to future councils. It is important for you to always make this distinction and always remember this.
You, on the other hand, are a heretic who needs to convert back to the Catholic faith. So you are not in any position to judge anyone else's integrity.Lack of facts and personal attacks (hey, that rhymes). That’s all you have.
So now you call traditional Catholic theology a set of "ridiculous views". Cantarella, unlike you R&R types, has a strong Catholic sensus fidei.
As V1 defined, all clear, authoritative, 'under pain of sin' and "of the faith" teachings are infallible (solemn or non-solemn).
All pre-V2 ecuмenical councils fulfilled V1's requirements, therefore they contained infallible teachings.
V2 did not fulfill V1's infallible requirements, and Paul VI and many theologians admitted this.
Therefore, V2 did not contain any infallible teachings.
It's that simple.
Idiot. V2, as a Council, most certainly did fulfill the requirements for infallibility.
What you're bumbling about trying to say is that there are no TEACHINGS within Vatican II that have the notes of infallibility, whereas some of the teachings in Vatican I did have these notes. It's not about the form of the Councils, as V2 meets all the conditions require for a Council to be infallible ... as Cantarella has demonstrated.
You can't even properly articulate your arguments, so I have to help you.
Idiot. V2, as a Council, most certainly did fulfill the requirements for infallibility.Would also like to point out the most obvious error you made - you falsely think that a council, which is is an INANIMATE OBJECT, can be infallible. No, a council cannot be infallible, only the pope can. A council is just a method, vehicle, or instrument USED by the pope to teach infallibly.
Councils are more than just an extension of papal infallibility. You're trying to pretend that an Ecuмenical Council is no different than, say, an Encyclical letter.I'm trying to distinguish between the POPE and a COUNCIL. There is a difference. The POPE has the power of infallibility, not a council. The pope can use his infallibility at a council, in an encyclical letter, in a papal bull, etc. To teach infallibly, the pope has to fulfill the conditions set down by V1.
You are constantly being exposed as simply making sh*t up as you go along.Another empty comment from you. "Lack of facts and personal attacks".
But you just said that Councils essentially don't exist and are inanimate objects.I never used the phrase "don't exist". Here is what I said:
Absolutely right. When someone doesn't accept the Magisterium as their rule of faith, they invariably fill the vacuum with their own private judgment.:facepalm:
Again, Cantarella, you're too kind. What does that make him? A HERETIC. (you softened it by saying he's an oxymoron who holds a position unheard of except from heresiarchs).
While only God can make the determination of whether he's a formal heretic in the internal forum, he's obviously a manifest heretic in the external forum who pertinaciously adheres to various Protestant heresies. And Drew is the same. You show him too much respect as well ... just because he outwardly lives a good Catholic life. Same could be said of many heretics throughout history.
Why don't you just plainly say that your Rule of Faith is actually the dogmatic canons of Trent exclusively, and your own personal interpretation of Vatican I Council, in particular, the canons that you "think" may construct a theological foundation which would justify disobedience to the Roman Pontiff and a complete rejection of an Ecunemical Council?:facepalm: :pray:
You are a Roman Catholic who do not trust the Pope of Rome nor the Ecunemical Councils. What does that make you? an oxymoron. The fact that this position is unheard of -except from arch heretics such as Luther- before Vatican II Council, reassures me that indeed it is not traditional. It is not the authentic Catholic position.
Good points above. But Cantarella is not going to pay any real attention to them.I see that.
Wrong. Said sensus fidei comes from simply reading Traditional pre-Vatican II theology about the Church and the Magisterium. Try it sometime and see if it lines up with your twisted heretical spin on Catholicism.
Thank you for the clear answer. Please bear with me, I am trying to fully understand your position.
Which of the following mutually exclusive statements is your position:
1. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic can determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
I believe that also. I suspect that the V2 papal claimants were never legitimate to begin with. I believe that Siri was elected and illegitimately/illegally replaced by Roncalli.
There's this prophecy, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi --
7. CONCLUSION: VATICAN 2 IS NOT INFALLIBLEGood post Pax, a shame to spend the time you did on it proving the painfully obvious.
How many times does it need to be explained to you that we don't believe that Paul VI has Magisterium? That is the very point of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism.
Good post Pax, a shame to spend the time you did on it proving the painfully obvious.
How many times does it need to be explained to you that we don't believe that Paul VI has Magisterium?Ok, so Paul VI didn't have a valid Magisterium. Is that because you believe in the Siri thesis? If not because of Siri, then why wouldn't Paul VI be valid? And, further, why didn't JPI, JPII, Benedict or Francis have a valid magisterium?
"How many times does it need to be explained to you." The Magisterium is the "authoritative teaching" of the Church that can only be engaged by the pope. So if the each one of the conciliar popes "has (not) Magisterium" who does? And if no one does where is your rule of faith? No pope, no access to the Magisterium, no rule of faith. Then you are left only with yourself as your only rule of faith. Sounds just like Protestantism.
Drew
I believe that also. I suspect that the V2 papal claimants were never legitimate to begin with. I believe that Siri was elected and illegitimately/illegally replaced by Roncalli.
There's this prophecy, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi --
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Today at 04:10:57 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg603046/#msg603046)QuoteAnd they accuse others who recognize the truth of using dogma as the ultimate authority - basically doing what they do in practice (just don't say it - hypocrites!) - as if it were some offense against the faith.
Since you just joined in, why don't you tell me where did you get this "truth" from?
Where are your traditional, pre-Vatican II Council, Catholic sources that support that a General Council ratified by the Pope can teach heresy?Well, let’s see. There were 3-4 St Bellarmine quotes but you ignored them. Then there were a few from theologians in the 1920s but you must not like those either.
3. Believe Dogma as it was once declared
There is only one way to believe dogma: as holy mother Church has once declared.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Churchhas once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”[xviii] (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn18)
This definition of the First Vatican Council is critically important for dogmatic purity, because the primary way the Devil attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to recede (move away) from the Church’s dogmas as they were once declared. There is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and “interpret” these words in a way that is different from how holy mother Church has declared them.
Many of us have dealt with people who have attempted to explain away the clear meaning of the definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation by saying, “you must understand them.” What they really mean is that you must understand them in a way different from what the words themselves state and declare. And this is precisely what the First Vatican Council condemns. It condemns their moving away from the understanding of a dogma which holy mother Church has once declared to a different meaning, under the specious (false) name of a “deeper understanding.”
Besides those who argue that we must “understand” dogmas in a different way than what the words themselves state and declare, there are those who, when presented with the dogmatic definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation, say, “that is your interpretation.” They belittle the words of a dogmatic formula to nothing other than one’s private interpretation. And this also is heresy.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[xix] (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn19)
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned[xx] (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn20)
Dogmas of the faith, like Outside the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven; they are not interpretations. To accuse one who adheres faithfully to these truths fallen from heaven of engaging in “private interpretation” is to speak heresy.
The very point of a dogmatic DEFINITION is to DEFINE precisely and exactly what the Church means by the very words of the formula. If it does not do this by those very words in the formula or docuмent (as the Modernists say) then it has failed in its primary purpose – to define – and was pointless and worthless.
Anyone who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole point of the Chair of Peter, Papal Infallibility and dogmatic definitions. He is asserting that dogmatic definitions are pointless, worthless and foolish and that the Church is pointless, worthless and foolish for making such a definition.
Also, those who insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter. They are subordinating the dogmatic teaching of the Chair of Peter (truths from heaven) to the re-evaluation of fallible human docuмents, thereby inverting their authority, perverting their integrity and denying their purpose.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (#7), Aug. 15, 1832: “… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”[xxi] (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn21)
Thus, there is no “strict” or “loose” interpretation of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as the liberal heretics like to emphasize; there is only what the Church has once declared.
It has been the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that the resolutions of the General Councils are infallible. They do not contain error against the Faith. This truth is part of the Apostolic Tradition and it means that your position is not really traditional, but quite a novelty, indeed.
I ask then, why should I put in doubt all the resources I have clearly cited in this thread, from Pope St. Hormisdas, Bellarmine, Pope Leo the Great (who by the way, explicitly taught that those who reject Councils "cannot be numbered among Catholics"), the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vatican I council, The 1800's Denzinger version, my Bible, etc. (in fact, if you notice, every single one of my thoughts are backed up by an ecclesiastical source). Why should I put all those behind to trust and follow Mr. Drew, instead ? Everyone is wrong except Mr. Drew?
I am still waiting for a single reputable Catholic source that is in agreement with your theory on the Rule of Faith being "Dogma". No Council, no Pope, no saint, no priest, not even a known theologian is in agreement with you.
I am always welcome to be proven otherwise, though.
Tell me, what really makes your assertion any different from Luther's here above?
Oh, Cantarella, you can’t even make a simple distinction that not everything in a council is infallible. Even your buddy Ladislaus agrees you’re wrong on this.PAX: I think you owe Cantarella an apology for your last statement. Criticize her errors and arguments,yes, but leave the insults/name-calling to the ignorant and impolite. Calm down! She isn't your enemy. "In all things charity." Too, Holy Mother Church has honored a woman, Saint Catherine of Alexandria, with the title "Patroness of Philosophers". And Edith Stein was no petit intellectual, even before her conversion. Sleep on this and I think you'll feel differently about your last sentence.
Women have no business discussing theology, philosophy and especially, logic.
Don't you realize that you are praising Pax for citing a bunch of Novus Ordo, indult-like individuals, including Cardinal Ratzinger? If you are leaning indult, then plainly say so. At least that position is consistent. Otherwise, I do not understand your support. I mean, all these people are saying Vatican II was a pastoral, NOT infallible Council, they admit that the Council narrative may have some misworded controversial sentences here and there; yet they all remain in COMUNION WITH ROME and SUBMISSION TO THE POPE. They assent to Paul VI when he says "all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed”.Cantarella, did you take some course? - or who/what/group did you get involved with? - or did you attend some NO classes within the last year or so or what is it? Something happened to you within the last year or so to spin your head as it did and I would like to know what it was so that I avoid whatever it was that changed you. I hope you will at least give answer to this.
You are praising Pax for citing the 1983 catechism? Come on!
2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
Cantarella, did you take some course? - or who/what/group did you get involved with? - or did you attend some NO classes within the last year or so or what is it? Something happened to you within the last year or so to spin your head as it did and I would like to know what it was so that I avoid whatever it was that changed you. I hope you will at least give answer to this.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the conciliar popes themselves believe the same as you? That whatever they do is infallibly safe? That whatever he and the totality of bishops preach is infallible?
With that belief, they lived their conviction and opened up the flood gates for the salvation of everyone they possibly could, did away with fasting, sacrifice, penance and all the other Catholic treasures, replacing them with people friendly attractions. Why wouldn't they? Why would they need to define any dogma when whatever they say is infallibly safe? "We all worship the same God" is infallibly safe. "There is no hell" and poof, that's infallibly safe to believe. "Follow the dictates of your conscience" is infallibly safe. "Kissing the Koran" is infallibly safe. And on and on.
What is it that you are debating anyway?
PAX: I think you owe Cantarella an apology for your last statement. Criticize her errors and arguments,yes, but leave the insults/name-calling to the ignorant and impolite.
That's the nail in the coffin to discredit you ... your endorsement of the inane nonsensical ramblings of Stubborn and Pax.Haha, Ladislaus. The post they are agreeing with was 99% NOT from me. It was 99% quotes and FACTS to support my viewpoint, unlike your view, which is “supported” by 1 Fenton quote, and even in that one he’s talking about an official teaching of the pope, not the contradictory ramblings of V2.
Indeed, the living Magisterium has gone dormant. You're unable to comprehend that we still believe all that has been taught previously by said Magisterium.Ahh, Lad, but you contradict yourself. You have repeatedly argued against the TIME factor when it comes to the magisterium. You have repeatedly said that we all must submit to the PRESENT magisterium and if we refer to the past, we are heretics for pitting magisterium vs magisterium.
You are absolutely fixated on infallibility in the strict sense, but you ignore the indefectibility of the Magisterium ... and of the Church.The magisterium is ONLY indefectible when it is teaching with AUTHORITY, as OFFICIALLY binding, on matters of faith/morals, to be believed by all the faithful, AS A MATTER OF FAITH, under PAIN OF SIN. V2 is not indefectible.
What's contrary to all Catholic teaching ... and is heretical ... is your allegation that an Ecuмenical Council has taught heresy and grave error to the Church that endanger the faith if submitted to.V2 is not obligatory, so your use of 'submit' is incorrect. Those that follow V2 do so of their own accord, because they know not the Faith, as they are obligated to for their own salvation. If they knew their Faith, or had the desire to, God would give them wisdom to see that V2/new mass is not obligatory.
It's a completely different ballgame when you're claiming that the Universal Magisterium has gone corrupt and has defected by the embracing and teaching of heresy and error, endangering the faith and very salvation of all who would adhere to it.This is one of your main errors...using the term 'Universal Magisterium' improperly. It causes you all kinds of problems. You use 'universal' as having the same meaning as 'ecuмenical' (i.e. that universal means 'all the bishops and pope' together). It doesn't mean that at all and it's not synonymous with 'ecuмenical'. Or you use it to refer to the 'universal' teaching of a council, i.e. it is a teaching "for all". This is incorrect too.
Indeed, the living Magisterium has gone dormant. You're unable to comprehend that we still believe all that has been taught previously by said Magisterium. Similarly, a LEGITIMATE pope could go 30 years without even exercising Magisterium. I'm sure we've had a few of these during the darker periods of Church history. This does not mean that the Magisterium is not the proximate rule of faith.
You again have ZERO comprehension of what "rule of faith" even means, and you keep babbling like an idiot with one incoherent post after another. You fail to understand the basic terms involved, and have therefore degenerated into Protestant heresy.
Don't you realize that you are praising Pax for citing a bunch of Novus Ordo, indult-like individuals, including Cardinal Ratzinger?Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. (James 2:19)
Sounds to me that she is debating her own conscience.
Cantarella, have you been going to the Greek Orthodox church?
Drew, how many times do I have to explain it to you that ... AS ST. THOMAS AQUINAS TAUGHT ... the dogma is the formal object of our faith, i.e. WHAT we believe with supernatural faith, and the Magisterium is the rule of faith, i.e. WHY we believe it?
St. Thomas also taught that those who do not have the Magisterium as their rule of faith invariably substitute some other rule, invariably their own private judgment. So St. Thomas teaches that it is YOU who "prefer yourself over dogma".
Vatican I clearly taught the difference between Magisterium and Divine Revelation. Look into it.
If there WERE current Magisterium, as you claim there is, and said Magisterium were to teach something to the Universal Church, then that something cannot and does not contradict past Magisterium.
If Vatican II was a legitimate Ecuмenical Council, then I accept all of its teaching as being in harmony with Revealed Doctrine
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:
1. there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699);
2. there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705);
3. 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:
1. Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);
2. Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);
3. 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)
Now, as we have already seen, doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) indefectibility is certainly implied in Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) promise that the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against His Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), and cannot be effectively secured without doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) infallibility; so that if Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) promise means anything — if Peter's successor is in any true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) sense the foundation and source of the Church's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)indefectibility — he must by virtue of this office be also an organ of ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) infallibility.
Luke 22:31-32
Here Christ says to St. Peter and to his successors in the primacy: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."
This special prayer of Christ was for Peter alone in his capacity as head of the Church, as is clear from the text and context; and since we cannot doubt the efficacy of Christ's prayer, it followed that to St. Peter and his successors the office was personally committed of authoritatively confirming the brethren — other bishops, and believers generally — in the faith; and this implies infallibility.
Cantarella,
Yes? No? Sometimes?
That's because it's NOT. I guess that you are not capable of reading even the English translation of Vatican I.
Revelation produces new doctrine, while the Magisterium religiously guards and faithfully expounds it. When the Pope and bishops teach, they are not revealing but expounding and guarding.
Oh, wait, you fail to comprehend this passage because you DISTORT its meaning to pretend it means that IF the Pope makes "new doctrine", then we are free to reject it.
The Church is indefectible PERIOD.What does this even mean, in the context of our debate? This is the most general, overly-simplistic statement I’ve ever read. It doesn’t answer any of the points I made.
Thank you.
In that case, which of the following mutually exclusive positions do you believe is the correct one?
1. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.
2. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as an invalid pope, unless and until he is proven valid.
Ladislaus,
Just for clarification before a detailed response is offered, is this quote from Vatican I the evidence from which you have concluded that the Magisterium, that is, the "teaching authority" of the pope to engage the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority, is NOT part of divine revelation? Is this it?
Drew
Catholic Encyclopedia --
QuoteQuoteAmong the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm) of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end oftime (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm), but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) or in morals (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm); nor can it ever lose the Apostolic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm) hierarchy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm), or the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) through which Christ communicates grace to men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm). The gift (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm)of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm), i.e. the powers of evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm), would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm) change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) the school (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13554b.htm) of holiness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm). This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm) and corrupt moral (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm) standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) to the world, and charged it to warn all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) of revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) err (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm). By the hierarchy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm) and the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm), Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), further, made the Church the depositary of the graces (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) the treasures of grace.
Does anyone think that the Conciliar Church meets these requirements?
Is the Conciliar Church this "school of holiness" which "dispenseto men the treasures of grace", not "corrupt in faith or in morals"?
This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm) and corrupt moral (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm) standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm)to the world, and charged it to warn all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) of revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) err (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm). By the hierarchy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm) and the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm), Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), further, made the Church the depositary of the graces (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) the treasures of grace.
Pax, you avoiding this?
there are winds of change blowingI agree. There is MUCH evidence that a pushback against satanism in politics is happening in the US and on other parts of the world. Also, hopefully, in Rome. I think that Satan’s 100 years of special influence promised in Pope Leo XIII’s vision, is over. 1917-2017. Masonic power is still widespread but their path to victory will face a growing opposition, and of course, we know they’ll lose in the end. Although this opposition is hopeful, I fear the short term future for us will be chaotic, as the mason’s will be forced to use every demonic back-up plan they have to achieve victory. Our Lady will win the war, but the battles may be ugly.
Thank you, that explains everything.There is no contradiction there at all. Popes are not infallible in everything they say, nor are they guaranteed to always be right. A Pope can absolutely be a material heretic(although not a formal heretic). However, a Pope cannot be in error when speaking ex cathedra, and any teachings or dogmas defined as such are guaranteed to be true cannot be in error.
All the following quotes are from the Dimond's website (emphasis mine) :
(http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-glossary-principles/#.WsQcxp9fhhF)
And so are these quotes:
There are probably many more quotes that fit in either of the above boxes, but I'm sure any reasonable person will get the picture:
The Dimond Brothers use the translation that suits their theory of the day. And today's theory may well (and often does) contradict yesterday's theory.
1. In the first box they need to defend the Catholic Church from the arguments of Her external enemies, and so they teach that the Magisterium can indeed err, but not when authoritatively teaching.
2. In the second box they need to "prove" sedevacantism, and so they declare that the Magisterium is always free from error (i.e. authentic Magisterium).
It is so obvious, even after a 5 minutes look across their site, that I am indeed struggling not to become sarcastic.
Bellator Dei, like the Eunuch, you are in need of a reliable teacher, and the Dimond brothers do not qualify for that position.
He that walketh with the wise, shall be wise: a friend of fools shall become like to them. Proverbs 13:20
I don't need "evidence". It's Catholic Theology 101 that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostles, that Magisterium does not reveal doctrine but safeguards and expounds it.
And, furthermore, I don't particularly care about what you have to say about this. It has precious little to do with the argument on this thread.
You do not even know that the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.
So, then, you're fine with . . . ?
You're fine with . . . ?
And you have no problem with . . .?
Does anyone think that the Conciliar Church meets these requirements?
So, then, you're fine with the fact that Bergoglio says that adulterers can receive Communion?Ladislaus, the pope and his new-rome hierarchy can say, believe or preach whatever they want. Catholic doctrine is only what is REQUIRED to be believed. New-rome has not changed, added to, or deleted any catholic doctrine AS A REQUIREMENT, using their APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY. Therefore, their new beliefs are not part of the Faith.
You're fine with the fact that the V2 papal claimants have all participated in and endorsed participation in false worship?
And you have no problem with their false doctrine?
I would say this one:
However, after some time (and this is when it gets problematic) I do think that it is possible for Catholics to begin discerning an invalid pope over his heretical external actions, even before an official ecclesiastical declaration occurs, and during this period, perhaps subtract obedience from him in good conscience, especially when the actions of the antipope are so evident and the Faith itself is endangered.
Actually, I could make the same question to you regarding your rejection of Vatican II Council and the R&R position.
After the promulgation of an Ecunemical Council (Vatican II), do you think a Catholic must treat it as a valid Council unless and until it is proven invalid?
QuoteI asked:
Cantarella, did you take some course? - or who/what/group did you get involved with? - or did you attend some NO classes within the last year or so or what is it? Something happened to you within the last year or so to spin your head as it did and I would like to know what it was so that I avoid whatever it was that changed you. I hope you will at least give answer to this.
It is very simple, really: I now have the certainty that General Councils ratified by a Pope cannot err. In view of this fact, the only way to say that Vatican II was not an Ecunemical Council of the Church is that the authority (pope) who promulgated it was false. Or, that it did not teach heresy.
Given that the Council of Trent is your true Rule of Faith, then what do you have to say about the following Tridentine dogmatic truth which directly condemns your position:I say that according to your understanding of the above condemnation, that you indisputably prove that you are absolutely guilty of "weakening the authority of [the Second Vatican] Council, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved, or disapproved by [the] Council.
QuoteQuoteCondemned:
29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of Councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved, or disapproved by any Council whatsoever.
No, I don't need evidence because this is a non-issue for me. And I'm not going to spend any of my time digging up quotes to prove it to you.
This is like asking me to prove that Our Lady was immaculately conceived.
No Catholic theologian disputes the fact that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. Magisterium does not reveal anything but proposes revealed truth to us for belief, explains it, and guards it.
I am afraid you do not understand. What we say is that Vatican II was NOT an Ecunemical Council at all; because it lacks papal approbation, which is the crucial element that makes the Councils infallible. (Given that the pope who promulgated it was false, an impostor).I completely understand. I know that you decided that the pope was not the pope and it was not an ecuмenical council, that's a terribly lame opinion to have in light of infallible teachings that all councils are infallible.
Are you, Stubborn, from all people, really telling me not to trust in this Tridentine dogmatic statement, as written?"Please note that you will find this to always be the case whenever you come across papal encyclicals regarding the necessity of our submission to the decrees from Councils - they will *always* be referring to past councils - not to future councils. It is important for you to always make this distinction and always remember this."
How could I ever take this "out of context"?. This is a dogmatic teaching and it is clear as water. Are you telling me I have to distrust the Council of Trent as well, or that, as Modernists do, accommodate the teaching to the appropriate context?. Perhaps this Council was not infallible, either?
I thought that a Tridentine dogmatic teaching was true for all ages.So did I.
OK, so you give the Syllabus (a non-infallible teaching) as grounds for rejecting Vatican II (a non-infallible teaching). How do I know which one was right?The Syllabus is not infallible entirely, but there are many errors it condemned which have already been infallibly condemned.
What if Pius IX, in his excessive zeal, went a little bit overboard, and Vatican II simply moderated his teaching?Same answer as above.
So what if Vatican II was similarly correcting Pius IX? How do you know Pius IX was right and Vatican II wrong? What if Pius IX was simply condemning some very specific errors that were a little different than what Vatican II was teaching? What if the two can be reconciled by making the appropriate distinctions? How do you know that they can't be?V2's errors are easily shown to have been infallibly condemned in the past. There are multiple websites out there, as well as many books, which prove this. V2 is partially condemned by the Syllabus, but mostly through previous infallible statements from Councils. The Syllabus is not the ONLY source which condemns V2.
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm) of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm), but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) or in morals (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm); nor can it ever lose the Apostolic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm) hierarchy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm), or the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) through which Christ communicates grace to men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm).
The gift (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm) of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm), i.e. the powers of evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm), would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm) change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) the school (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13554b.htm) of holiness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm). This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm) and corrupt moral (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm) standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) to the world, and charged it to warn all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) of revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) err (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. Nobody could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm).(Pertaining to the sentence I underlined): V2 does not enforce, under any penalty, that anyone accept its errors. By definition, then, its novelities are not protected by indefectibility.
QuoteNo, the conciliar church is not the true church. As Our Lady said at LaSalette, "The Church will be in eclipse." The conciliar church has obscured, but not changed, the true doctrines of the Church. Thus, such novelties are not an affront to indefectibility.
Does anyone think that the Conciliar Church meets these requirements?
Also all other things taught, defined, and declared
This is the Council of Trent, regarding the errors infallibly condemned (including #29)Here yet again Cantarella, you are quoting something 400 years old - since that time, the conciliar popes in unison with the totality of all the bishops did away with it some 60 years ago. That makes it null and void and infallibly safe to boot! Per your own belief, their disposal of this abjuration is an act of the Church's infallibility. Per your own belief, it is infallibly safe to abandon all thoughts related to your above obsolete quote. By their infallibility, your above quote is obsolete because they infallibly obsoleted it - does it comfort you to know that it was infallibly safe to obsolete it?
QuoteQuoteAlso all other things taught, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and ecuмenical Councils, and especially by the sacred and holy Synod of Trent, (and by the ecuмenical Council of the Vatican, *particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching), I without hesitation accept and profess; and at the same time all things contrary thereto, and whatever heresies have been condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize. This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, (and) which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold.
29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of Councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved, or disapproved by any Council whatsoever.
B. Define "whole Church". After an infiltration has occurred, yes I think it is possible for the majority of unsuspected bishops to follow an anti-pope, at least for a while. We know it is possible because it has happened before during the Great Western Schism. There is historical evidence therefore, that the situation may arise, and please keep in mind that all of the anti-popes actually professed the Roman Catholic Faith!
Will respond to A, as time permits.
Decisions referring to dogma (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm) were called in the East diatyposeis (constitutions, statutes (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm)); those concerned with discipline were termed kanones (canons, rules),
In the West no careful distinction of terms was observed: canones and decreta signify both dogmatic and disciplinary decisions.
Yes, we know. You claim that it's possible for the Magisterium to be totally corrupted by modernism and heresy ... so long as a small handful of dogmatic definitions remain intact.You have a Church that has been taken over by the enemies of Christ, and defeated Him.
You claim it's possible for the Magisterium to be totally corrupted by modernism and heresy...I claim that the fallible magisterium, which is another word for the current hierarchy, can be corrupted because there is nothing in church history or tradition which says otherwise. A non-certain teaching, which is conditional and can be rejected without sin, having no bearing on one's salvation is NOT A TEACHING because it's not part of the faith. The UNIVERSAL magisterium can never be corrupted, of which V2 was not related to.
2) Your allegation that the Magisterium has been corrupted is heretical.The Universal Magisterium can never be corrupted because these teachings are with “certainty of faith”.
So 99.5% can be completely wrong, corrupted, filled with heresy, and leading to hell any souls who submit to those teachings.Never said that. You erroneously assume that the magisterium ONLY concerns itself with matters of faith/morals. In many previous ecuмenical councils, the topics were a wide variety, with many matters needing to be addressed that had nothing to do with faith/morals (i.e. liturgical abuses, jurisdictional or legal matters, etc.) These, by definition, aren't matters of infallibility, which only deals with defining faith/morals.
Show me the dogmatic condemnation of Religious LibertyA negative condemnation may not exist (I don't know), but the positive teaching (which does not allow religious liberty) DOES exist.
Feel free to explain what you mean at any time with YOUR evidence, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Protestantism. It's Catholic Theology 101 that revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle.
What unites Protestantism, on the contrary, is the notion that Dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... YOUR heretical principle.
To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.
Vatican I
“That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This holy see has always maintained this, the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and the ecuмenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.”
Vatican I
Since the only thing in the Magisterium guaranteed to be correct are those .5% of dogmatic definitions, then 99.5% of it can become corrupt. There's nothing to stop it."CAN" become corrupt doesn't mean it will. Secondly, there is more to infallibility than dogmatic definitions; you can have non-solemn infallibility, where church teaching is shown to agree with Tradition and the CONSTANT teaching of the church. In this case, the magisterium is also infallible.
When, some day, God willing, the Church is restored and we have a Pius XIII reigning uncontested as Pope, when he releases an Encyclical, how will formerly-known-as-R&R receive it? Will they receive it with the docility of a Catholic hearing the Shepherd's voice ... or with skepticism, and subjecting it immediately to their judgment and even perhaps criticism?A non-infallible encyclical requires 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'. You still don't know what that means. It means that we ASSUME it's correct, we ACCEPT the teaching as orthodox, unless questions arise, and we are allowed to ask for clarification. It doesn't mean we totally ignore the docuмent and act like it doesn't exist.
Fine. Please cite that then.No. Not wasting my time. There are so many websites/books dedicated to this topic; you can research yourself.
No such solemn condemnation (or affirmation of the opposite) exists. Period.?? So you think V2's "religious liberty" novelty is ok?
You are correct in saying that it is “theology 101 that revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle.” That is a dogma. But what is your point in repeating this fundamental truism? It is unrelated to the issue.
You are not correct in your claim that the “Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation.” It is a fundamental doctrine of Protestantism that the “Magisterium is Not part of divine revelation.” In this you are in agreement with at least someone but they are not Catholics.
Now since Protestants rejects the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ, they necessarily reject Dogma because the Magisterium is the necessary material and instrumental cause of Dogma.
The Magisterium is the “teaching authority” of the Church grounded upon the Church’s Attributes of Infallibility and Authority. When “Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt 28: 18-20), is a direct quote cited by the Church Fathers and the Council Father at Vatican Council I in support of the doctrine that that Jesus Christ instituted a “teaching authority” in his Church. He commanded all the faithful to hear this “teaching authority,” saying, “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth, me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16).
Vatican I says that the primacy of jurisdiction was conferred directly by Jesus Christ on St. Peter:
The Vatican I also says that the “primacy of jusridiction” includes the “teaching authority” of the Church saying:
Your claim that the “Magisterium is not part of divine revelation” is grave error. It is a grave error that you have repeated many times. It explains why you reject Dogma as your rule of faith for if the Magisterium is not from divine revelation, it is not from God, and neither is dogma, which is the fruit of the Magisterium. That makes Dogma part of ecclesiastical tradition which, since the Church created it, the Church is free to reform it any way it likes. Which in end explains your charge that anyone who takes Dogma literally is guilty of “Protestantism” because they are following “private interpretation.” In the end, you have no problem embracing sedeprivationism that fractures the form and matter of the papacy thus causing a substantial change destroying the office because the dogma that it will continue until the end of time makes no impression on you.
Ladislaus, you really are rotten to the core corrupting the most elementary first principles of the faith.
Drew
No. Not wasting my time.Anyone who continues to actively take part in a 67 page, 1,000 post thread has no problem wasting time.
Ladislaus,The magisterium is free from error.
Why don't you prove, outside of Fenton, that the pope is infallible in fallible things, i.e. that indefectibility protects him from error, even when infallibility is not in use. Your entire argument rests on this case and if Fenton is your only source, and if it can't be shown to be a CONSTANT teaching, then it's a theory, no more no less, and one that others disagree with.
I'm demanding that you clarify your principles. You claim that V2 is fallible. If you cite previous Church teaching against Religious Liberty, then you need to be able to find some INfallible teaching that condemns religious liberty or defines the opposite as true Otherwise, you're simply pitting one fallible teaching against another ... without any reliable rule to determine which one is right and which one is wrong. Or could they both be wrong? Or both be right? You have NO way to prove it. You just go by what you feel like believing.Ideal x is fallible and does not have to be held with 'certainty of faith'. Therefore it has no bearing on my salvation. I don't have to prove it has been condemned if it's not binding and part of the faith. If it's not part of the faith, then i am only required to give CONDITIONAL assent?
My best guess is that your understanding of the phrase "part of Revelation" has Revelation meaning the body of revealed truths, and the phrase meaning that the existence of the Magisterium is revealed truth. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the process or act of Revelation ... as distinct from Magisterium. No Catholic can dispute that the existence of the Magisterium is revealed. It would be heresy to say otherwise. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread or what we're talking about.
You're too lazy to actually read Fenton ... because he cites the prior theologians who hold the same position.Did Fenton cite EVERY theologian of his time? If there wasn't a consensus then and also agreement with Tradition, then his theory is just that, a theory and no more.
My argument is based on papal teaching (often repeated) that the Magisterium is free from error.Let me re-phrase this whole question.
It is calumny to assert that I "reject the Magisterium of the Church." That would be rejecting dogma which I have already explained to you is the "proximate rule of faith.
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on April 09, 2018, 03:55:33 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg603429/#msg603429)So you concede that the Church has been taken over by the enemies of Christ? When was this? Vatican 2? Under Paul VI?QuoteYou have a Church that has been taken over by the enemies of Christ, and defeated Him.
You can think your position is so much more righteous, pure, "Catholic" than his, but your head would be up a certain orifice that shouldn't be visited by any body parts, much less the head of the body.
But then again, considering your viewpoint, your "head" up that particular orifice would be apt.
Of course it's been taken over. What's your point?
Sixthly, we offer to the envoys that compendious rule of the faith composed by most blessed Athanasius, which is as follows:
Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this,...... Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Athanasian Creed
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Today at 10:23:04 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg603688/#msg603688)QuoteOf course it's been taken over. What's your point?
So you concede that the Church has been taken over by the enemies of Christ? When was this? Vatican 2? Under Paul VI?
Your position is so inconsistent it's incredible. And yet you go around calling people heretics, blasphemous, clueless, etc.
You have the "Conciliar" Church defecting, which is how you know it's not the Magisterium. And yet you have the Conciliar Church's Novus Ordo liturgy being a liturgy protected as one used by the "indefectible" Church such that it can't be an incentive to impiety per Trent - https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/is-the-sspxsspx-resistance-crypto-sedevacantist/msg600712/#msg600712 (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/is-the-sspxsspx-resistance-crypto-sedevacantist/msg600712/#msg600712)
Which is it? Has the Church been "taken over" by Christ's enemies or is the "Conciliar" Church the "indefectible" Church of Christ which is protected from "defection" when it uses a liturgy, to the extent that said used liturgy cannot be an incentive to impiety?
Is the Church now partially indefectible too? With its partially-pope pope?
I can't make heads or tails out of this incoherent rant.
I guess that the problem is that you, and many others, can't get their minds around the material-formal distinction about the Church.
No problem with the bizarre R&R statement that the V2 "Popes" are simultaneously the heads of two Churches, the Catholic and the Conciliar ...I know nothing of this "two churches" thing. Go discuss this with those making the bizarre statement.
but you're ready to have epileptic seizures at the mere mention of the formal-material distinction.
This is just garbage. Not even sure where to begin.Great analysis. Very good facts you referenced. Excellent job of pointing out my errors.
So the rule of faith for Catholics is exclusively the Athanasian Creed? What about the other dogmas defined by the Church, not contained in the creeds?
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10987) of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4554) of Christ, corrupt its dogmas ". "The right (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10046) Christian (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2927) faith (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4554) consists in giving one's voluntary (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12148) assent to Christ (https://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus) in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2927) : the one by refusing to believe in Christ (https://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus) Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6511) ; the other by restricting belief (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=1667) to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4554) and heresy (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5695) is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10624) and Tradition as proposed to our belief (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=1667) by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church ; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
I am most particularly obliged to bless and thank God, for not having suffered the first professors of that doctrine (Jansenism), men of my acquaintance and friendship, to be able to draw me to their opinions. I cannot tell you what pains they took, and what reasons they propounded to me; I objected to them, amongst other things, the authority of the Council of Trent (DOGMA), which is clearly opposed to them; and seeing that they still continued, I, instead of answering them, quietly recited my Credo (DOGMA); and that is how I have remained firm in the Catholic faith.
St. Vincent de Paul regarding in dealing with the Jansenist
No, Drew, you're just not very bright. You kept using the term "part of Revelation" without defining it. Revelation can refer either to the truths revealed or to the act/process of revealing. I made it clear which one I meant. And, despite that, you kept attacking me while using the term in the OTHER sense. I tried to untangle this several times.
And you stubbornly persist in this Protestant error.I think his error is just a misunderstanding of terminology. I doubt he believes in sola scriptura. If my understanding is correct, the rule of faith in Catholicism is scripture + the traditions of the Church. But these traditions are also dogmatically defined, so it not necessarily sola scriptura to say that dogma is the rule of faith.
http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-heretical-pope-fallacy.html (http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-heretical-pope-fallacy.html)
D. M. Drew comment
How can dogma be a rule of faith? It's one thing to say the Apostles Creed, or the Athanasius Creed is a rule of faith, and another to say dogma is that rule of faith.
How do we differentiate ourselves from Protestants? They claim, do they not, to believe in dogma? They seek it through scripture, while Catholics seek it through the magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church.
To say the magisterium and dogma are equivalent is to say we obtain our dogma from dogma; it's nonsensical .
Teaching authority and dogma are two related, but distinct things. The latter proceeds from the former.
Not at all. Revelation = "God's act of revealing." (my usage) vs. how you keep using it: Revelation = "What God has revealed."
And you know those are dogmas because the Infallible Magisterium of the Church told you so. It's that simple.
Otherwise, you would not know them.
Does the Magisterium go "dormant" when a pope dies?
Quote from: Cantarella on Today at 02:37:05 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg603734/#msg603734)QuoteAnd you know those are dogmas because the Infallible Magisterium of the Church told you so. It's that simple.
Otherwise, you would not know them.
No kidding? It has been repeated several times already, but how about once more. The Magisterium is the insufficient but necessary material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma. God is the formal cause and the final cause of Dogma. Without the Magisterium, which is one of the necessary means, the end, that is, Dogma, would not be produced. "It's that simple."
Drew
You keep saying that as if you were in actual communion with the Pope of Rome you recognize.
Has it never occurred to you, that if Francis is indeed the Roman Pontiff, your situation before God may actually be more precarious than mine? For, at least, in my current reasoning, there is an actual impostor usurping the Seat of Peter whom I owe absolutely no obedience or submission. As a Roman Catholic, I am completely aware of my duties towards the Pope, not towards the impostor. Whereas you, fully recognizing and knowing in your intellect who the Vicar of Christ on earth is, still obstinately refuse to render him due obedience and personal submission to His God-given authority.
This has been, throughout history, the quintessential mark of the heretic.
You also keep saying this but it is because you do not understand that, at least in Sedeprivationism, those who are legally designated to ecclesiastical offices (in the College of Cardinals, for example) still preserve their legal designation until this designation is taken away from them by competent authority. They keep the right of designating or nominating therefore, even when they lose their authority or jurisdiction. In other words, possible electors of the pope still remain.
This merely material continuity is able to indefinitely continue, to the extent that the conclaves intend to elect a pope and that those elected intend to nominate electors.
The Cassisiacuм thesis focuses on the loss of Authority because of an impediment (namely, the habitual intention of doing harm to the Church); not the power of designation. The false popes can still designate electors and also bishops for the purpose of succeeding to sees of authority.
How is it inaccurate?
How is it gone forever?
Cantarella,
Given that your position is that..
1. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.
2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
3. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.
.. what would you answer to the following questions?
A. Because a validly elected pope can not fall into heresy (#1), if ever we come across a pope that falls into heresy, it can only because he was never valid to start with. But since immediately after the election, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid or not (#2), the impediment that caused the election to be invalid must be a hidden or secret impediment. Can you give me an example of such a hidden impediment that causes a papal election to be invalid?
B. Since after the election of a Pope a Catholic may not be able to immediately determine whether the election was valid or not (#2), and since a Catholic must treat such a pope as valid (#3), do you believe that it is possible for the whole Church to follow an invalid pope?
Please just stop. You can't even understand English words like "Revelation" ... and it goes downhill from there. So you're going to lecture +Guerard des Laurier with his degrees and qualifications in philosophy and theology as if he were some idiotic kindergarden student who doesn't understand basic concepts like this. Matter and Form are Philosophy 101 ... and +Guerard is supposed to have made such an egregious blunder? There are no words for your hubris. Even I can easily dispatch your ignorance. I'll do so tomorrow when I have more time.+Guerard des Laurier 1898-1988
If "Dogma" was indeed your rule of Faith, instead of a name given to a personal construct of yours to reject legitimate authority, then you would know that comparing the Pope of Rome, the Vicar of Christ on earth, to a Scribe and a Pharisee, is nothing less than blasphemy.
In the old good times of the Holy Inquisition, you would not have been able to getaway with this belief.
Please keep in mind that in Sedeprivationism, the elections are considered valid. This must be so, to insure there is continuity (at least materially) of the Papal office. The thesis only concerns itself with the external manifestation of the habitual intention of doing harm to the Church; no the secret impediment, so whether the heresy is material or formal, it does not matter. As Pope Leo XIII taught in the encyclical Apostolicae Curae,"The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it".
We know that it is impossible that the authentic Vicar of Christ on earth, when engaging either the Extraordinary Solemn Magisterium of the Church (ex-cathedra papal pronouncements), or the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (teaching in union with the Bishops of the world, either dispersed or gathered, which Vatican II Council falls into this second category at the very least) teaches something against the Faith, against an already revealed doctrine.
That is how we can tell.
You dodged the question, but the contradiction in your position remains.
If you believe #1 and #2 of your stated position..
1. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.
2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.
3. After the election of a pope, a Catholic must treat him as a valid pope, unless and until he is proven invalid.
.. then it logically follows that you believe there must have been a secret impediment which caused the election of the pope to be secretly invalid, i.e. at the time of his election. We're not talking about the manifestation of this impediment, we're only talking about "what is", and "why it is". If you are unable to name me one example of a secret impediment, in other words, if there is no such thing as a secret impediment which secretly invalidates a papal election, then at least one of your premises must be wrong, and possibly both. Which one(s)?
So, we're not even considering intention/guilt, or material/formal heresy. All we are talking about here is public vs secret heresy. Shifting towards sedeprivationism will make that problem only worse. You will simply have to deal with the contradiction and change some of your premises, sooner or later.
PS: Please, rethink your position sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the deeper you will dig in and the harder it will be to get back on track.
It is interesting (and quite telling) to see two down votes already.What the hell are you on about? Sedevacantists don't believe a valid Pope cannot become a heretic. Well maybe some do, but it's not an axiom for the position. What sedevacantists believe is that a heretic cannot be a elected Pope, and that a heretic cannot be Pope(so if the Pope becomes a heretic, he stops being Pope automatically). Both those axioms are Catholic doctrines.
If there is something wrong with my reasoning, then why not say so? If not, then I can only assume that those two down votes came from people who don't like the conclusion, i.e. based on "feelings" rather than on "thinking". It only confirms my opinion of the (lack of) integrity of the vast majority of sedes, and of the reason why so many people fall for sedevacantism. Even the staunch sedevacantist John Daly admitted that most sedevacantists hold that opinion not because they understand it, but because it "feels" better.
What the hell are you on about? Sedevacantists don't believe a valid Pope cannot become a heretic. Well maybe some do, but it's not an axiom for the position. What sedevacantists believe is that a heretic cannot be a elected Pope, and that a heretic cannot be Pope(so if the Pope becomes a heretic, he stops being Pope automatically). Both those axioms are Catholic doctrines.
Cantarella's positions have nothing to do with sedevacantism. In fact, she contradicts sedevacantism when she says "those who are legally designated to ecclesiastical offices (in the College of Cardinals, for example) still preserve their legal designation until this designation is taken away from them by competent authority".
Stop trying to conflate opposites. It doesn't do you any favours.
Cantarella's position is that "the pope is not the pope". If that is not sedevacantism, then tell me, what is?No, Cantarella believes they have to be deposed. She's a sedeprivationist. Sedevacantism means there is no Pope now. Her positions are entirely incompatible with that belief.
What you are fussing about is not the conclusion, but the many false paths that lead to the same false conclusion: sedevacantism.
No, Cantarella believes they have to be deposed. She's a sedeprivationist. Sedevacantism means there is no Pope now. Her positions are entirely incompatible with that belief.
Sedeprivationists believe the pope is only a material pope, but that he is not formally the pope.True - I started just calling it sedeism or sedewhateverism a few months ago for that reason.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
As I said, sedeprivationism is just one of the many flavors of sedevacantism.
If there is something wrong with my reasoning, then why not say so?You're asking a group of individuals whose view on the current papal crisis was duct-taped together by 'piecemeal logic' to explain their view in a systematic and complete way. Not going to happen.
Sedeprivationists believe the pope is only a material pope, but that he is not formally the pope.Her position still contradicts the sedevacantist position and the flaws you found in her position do not apply to ours.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
As I said, sedeprivationism is just one of the many flavors of sedevacantism.
Her position still contradicts the sedevacantist position and the flaws you found in her position do not apply to ours.
You're asking a group of individuals whose view on the current papal crisis was duct-taped together by 'piecemeal logic' to explain their view in a systematic and complete way. Not going to happen.what crisis is there if the Popes are valid as you believe?
The secret impediment could be that the elected is actually a mason or a marrano, and therefore an enemy of the Faith who has the intention to do harm.
For all other ecclesiastical offices, a freemason or any other person is deprived of his position by due canonical process. When it comes to the Pope however, there is no such process. That is why the Thesis doesn't waste time focusing on "proving" formal heresy or appealing to canon 288, etc. because it is a dogma of the Faith that the Roman Pontiff is above Canon law and can be judged by no one on earth. (Unam Sanctam)
A legal declaration to remove then, not the Pope; but the impostor from office would be necessary eventually, declaring the fact that he never had the pontificate. However, the Thesis teaches that Catholics do not have to wait for such a declaration to occur in order to separate themselves from the false pope, once they are able to recognize him.
1. Yes. The association to the lodge must be public in order to incur automatic excommunication. I believe in the case of the impostor, he never held the Catholic Faith to begin with. But was a freemason from the beginning. If it is secret, well... nobody knows but God.
2. Yes, because occult heretics are still considered visible members of the Church. "Occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope", says Bellarmine.
3. This has been explained several times. The loss of Authority occurs because of the habitual intention of the false pope to do harm to the Church and the external manifestation of heresy. How do we know that there was an impostor? The indication of the impostor usurping the Seat of Peter was the Magisterial contradiction happening in the setting of an Ecunemical Council on December 7, 1965 with the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae. That was the sign of the false pope because a true successor of St. Peter could not teach contra verdades (against the Faith) or harmful doctrines in a General Council.
Also, this is not my Thesis, but that of Mons. Guerard Des Lauriers, highly respected Dominican theologian; advisor and confessor of Pope Pius XII.
4. The impostor would be removed from office following due canonical process when dealing with heretics as stipulated in Canon 2315. There would be a process trial therefore, and a way to retract if the heretic abjures his heresy. The Thesis considers that this could be a possible solution to the Holy See vacancy, as well.
5. Yes
:facepalm: Oh, for crying out loud, Drew. Just look up "revelation" on Dictionary.com. You'll notice that the FIRST definition is my usage, and the SECOND is yours.
Please just stop. You can't even understand English words like "Revelation" ... and it goes downhill from there. So you're going to lecture +Guerard des Laurier with his degrees and qualifications in philosophy and theology as if he were some idiotic kindergarden student who doesn't understand basic concepts like this. Matter and Form are Philosophy 101 ... and +Guerard is supposed to have made such an egregious blunder? There are no words for your hubris. Even I can easily dispatch your ignorance. I'll do so tomorrow when I have more time.
None of these quotes actually refer to "Dogma" as the rule of faith. They do not teach what you think it does.
The Rule of Faith for Catholics is the Infallible Magisterium, the teaching Church.
Even the quote you provided from Constantinople IV, disprove you:
It has already been explained that the words "canons" and "decrees" have been used in different ways throughout history, either referring to those teachings which are dogmatic or those which are disciplinary in nature.
It is the teaching Church throughout the ages, (having the assistance of the Holy Ghost and with the successor of St. Peter as the head), and not the canon itself, which is the Rule of faith.
And I am going add here that if you have no problem in comparing the successor of St. Peter to the scribe and Pharisee of the Scripture, is because you lack complete Catholic understating of the significance of the Papal office for the Church, and how this Office relates to "Dogma" to begin with.
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 Jews; 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
Samuel, you’re like Perry Mason with your precise questions. Bravo.
Cantarella, thank you for answering honestly. I’ve yet to understand what you believe and these questions will hopefully explain it. I’m fascinated.
Mr. Drew,
The bottomline is that Catholics are not allowed to reject the decrees of an Ecunemical Council "in the name of Dogma", without falling into the Tridentine dogmatically condemned error which you never addressed.
Also, it is an unquestionable sign of being poorly grounded upon the Faith, to believe that it is possible that a General Council ratified by the sucessor of St. Peter, (and therefore representing the Universal Church and having the assistance of the Holy Ghost), can actively teach heresy to all faithful.
If Francis is indeed Pope, then there is no other option for you but to return to being in full communion with him. And if you happen to prefer the "Extraordinary" form of the Mass as a matter of choice, then you need to attend a Mass offered by the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, or a diocesan priest who offers the Mass "in Latin".
Also, the Church does not promulgate evil or defective rites, so you are not allowed to think of the Novus Ordo rite promulgated by Paul VI (if he was indeed Pope), as an an invalid, impious, sacrilegious, schismatic. etc. form of the Mass. If you do, then you are an Anathema as per infallible condemnation of Trent:
You are allowed to "prefer" the Latin Mass over the Novus Ordo, sure, if it is more appealing to your taste; but you need to accept that if Paul VI was Pope, both ecclesiastical rites are valid and therefore, pleasing to God. You cannot say otherwise. I would hope you are fully aware of that, given your preoccupation with "Dogma".
“They (the modernists) exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of Tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those ‘who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind.... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church’; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: ‘We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.’ Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: ‘I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church’”
St. Pius X, Pascendi
“If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed to other new rites by any church pastor whomsoever : let him be anathema”(emphasis mine) (Council of Trent, Den. 856).
:facepalm: Oh, for crying out loud, Drew. Just look up "revelation" on Dictionary.com. You'll notice that the FIRST definition is my usage, and the SECOND is yours.Quote
noun
1. the act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.
2. something revealed or disclosed, especially a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized.
This is half an answer, at the most. I hope those in the fence with honest integrity can see it. You go around in circles getting into other topics irrelevant to the question in hand.
First, you omit to respond how is it exactly that your position does not fall directly into this dogmatic Lutheran error # 29, infallibly condemned in the Council of Trent:
CONDEMNED:
I suspect it is because you know that from your position, you really do not have a credible way to say that Vatican II Council was NOT a Council of the Church. And considered not only a General synod, but an Ecunemical Council if that!. Mr. Hesse is plain wrong on that account. Vatican II Council is considered an Ecunemical Council of the Church; not a mere "extraordinary synod".
What is the crucial element which makes a Council Ecunemical? the approbation of the Pope of Rome. A General Council is only Ecunemical when the Roman Pontiff ratifies it. A general Council WITHOUT the Pope approval means nothing. It is a "extraordinary synod" at best, as Mr. Hesse suggests. That is why, under the sedevacantists theory, we can actually say that Vatican II Council was NOT an Ecunemical Council at all, because it lacks the papal approbation necessary to make it so, given that it was not a true Pope, but an impostor, who promulgated it.
Remember, the world - wide assembly of Bishops WITHOUT the Pope is NOT Infallible.
The Church does not contradict Herself, because God does not contradict Himself.
There are two highest vehicles for infallible truth: Papal ex-Cathedra pronouncements, and Ecunemical Councils. These two cannot teach AGAINST the Faith. If you find a contradiction in any of the 20 Ecunemical Councils approved by the Church, please let me know.
If as a Roman Catholic, I cannot trust the Pope of Rome, the Vicar of Christ Himself, and I cannot longer trust the Ecunemical Councils of the Church either, then, only despair awaits for me. I may as well declare my Bible my Rule of Faith, which is Protestant.
Only an anti-Pope could promulgate VII Nostra Aetate.
There is a misunderstanding in premise #1.
To the question:
I said yes, because occult heretics are still visible members of the Church. I quoted Bellarmine saying that "the Pope who is an occult heretic remains a valid Pope" and this would make sense because nobody knows his heresy but God.
However, I personally believe that because the Pope's Faith is infallible and cannot fail (I have Catholic sources of the highest reputation to support this assertion), he cannot be an occult HERETIC to being with. Yes, the successor of St. Peter is still human and may imprudently err in private writings, perhaps have a sinful, even depraved life, but he cannot lose his Roman Catholic Faith because Our Lord prayed for it. Bellarmine himself accepts my reasoning as a pious belief.
I am presently on the opinion that we have been having no Catholics, but perfidious Jews for "Popes" since Vatican II Council.
There is a misunderstanding in premise #1.
To the question:
I said yes, because occult heretics are still visible members of the Church. I quoted Bellarmine saying that "the Pope who is an occult heretic remains a valid Pope" and this would still make sense because nobody knows his heresy but God, so there is no human way he loses office.
However, I personally believe that because the Pope's Faith is infallible and cannot fail (I have Catholic sources of the highest reputation to support this assertion), he cannot be an occult HERETIC to being with. Yes, the successor of St. Peter is still human and may imprudently err in private writings, perhaps have a sinful, even depraved life, but he cannot lose his Roman Catholic Faith because Our Lord prayed for it. He cannot officially or judicially teach heretical error to the faithful either. You may as well become a Protestant if you believe this is even possible. Bellarmine himself accepts my reasoning as a pious belief.
I am presently on the opinion that we have been having no Catholics, but perfidious Jews for "Popes" since Vatican II Council.
Now, it is most certainly true that even sedevacantists begin with their PRIVATE JUDGMENT that the V2 teachings are erroneous. Based on the nature of this crisis, there's no getting out this."Motives of Credibility" is right up there with your "Universal Discipline", "Canonical Submission", "Infallible Safety", "Fallible (in inconsequential matters) Magisterium" and at least a few other NO terms I can't recall at the moment . All are deemed infallible by you and the NO. The difference between you and the NOers is, the NOers actually believe in those terms.
But there's a reason why this is much more acceptable than the R&R use of private judgment.
HINT: It has to do with the theological concept of "motives of credibility".
When Drew keeps claiming that dogma is the proximate rule of faith, what Drew is saying is that Drew's interpretation of dogma is the proximate rule of faith, that his own private judgment is the proximate rule of faith.You do not comprehend the most fundamental truths of Catholic faith, so you have zero room to talk about others' theological reading comprehension.
You see this kind of thing ALL THE TIME here on CathInfo from the "as it is written" crowd like Stubborn. Unfortunately, half the time the "as it is written" means that we are to assume Stubborn's misreading of what's written due to poor theological and reading-comprehension skills on his part. But he keeps bloviating over and over again about how his reading of the dogma = dogma itself. Same with Drew. Drew's INTERPRETATION of dogma = dogma itself.
The despair you mention is exactly like the despair of the Apostles immediately after the Passion and Crucifixion.If Ecuмenical Councils are not infallible, then we don't even know for sure if our Bibles are correct or if Christ is divine you silly fool. All solemn definitions given at Ecuмenical Councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. This is Church teaching. To deny this is to deny the Catholic Faith in its entirety, as you are then declaring that NOTHING the Church teaches is certain, and you merely rely on the Bible(which again wouldn't even be certain if you don't take Ecuмenical Councils as infallible) like some Protestant heretic.
They failed to distinguish between Christ's humanity and His Divinity: "If Christ was truly God, then He would have never died on the cross, but since He did die on the cross, how can He really be God?"
Likewise, you refuse to distinguish between the Ordinary and the Authentic Magisterium. You erroneously believe that the Authentic Magisterium is infallible, so when it does err you believe it cannot be the Authentic Magisterium and you reject it.
The same obstinate mind block, the same resulting error to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".
Do you believe Vatican II should have been infallible? Prove it!
PS : Meanwhile, I'm still interested in hearing your explanation of how we got a Paul VI. Was he orthodox, an occult heretic or a public heretic at the time of his election?
PPS : Your answer, whether true or false, still does not solve the problem of your version of infallibility. It is not a Catholic version.
All solemn definitions given at Ecuмenical Councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible.
Absurd argument. I don't really care what YOU "conclude", all Catholic theologians teach to the contrary. Nice waste of time. Every step of the way you're just making something up that sounds good to you.
Dogma is not PROXIMATE. Otherwise people would never have gotten it wrong about the Immaculate Conception. Otherwise there would never have been heresies in the Church and myriad heretical sects leaving the Church.
Loss of faith
From what has been said touching the absolutely supernatural character of the gift of faith, it is easy to understand what is meant by the loss of faith. God's gift is simply withdrawn. And this withdrawal must needs be punitive, "Non enim deseret opus suum, si ab opere suo non deseratur" (St. Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 145 — "He will not desert His own work, if He be not deserted by His own work"). And when the light of faith is withdrawn, there inevitably follows a darkening of the mind regarding even the very motives of credibility which before seemed so convincing. This may perhaps explain why those who have had the misfortune to apostatize from the faith are often the most virulent in their attacks upon the grounds of faith; "Vae homini illi", says St. Augustine, "nisi et ipsius fidem Dominus protegat", i.e. "Woe be to a man unless the Lord safeguard his faith" (Enarration on Psalm 120).
If Ecuмenical Councils are not infallible, then we don't even know for sure if our Bibles are correct or if Christ is divine you silly fool. All solemn definitions given at Ecuмenical Councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. This is Church teaching. To deny this is to deny the Catholic Faith in its entirety, as you are then declaring that NOTHING the Church teaches is certain, and you merely rely on the Bible(which again wouldn't even be certain if you don't take Ecuмenical Councils as infallible) like some Protestant heretic.
The Rule of Faith, is it Dogma or the Magisterium?
Let's start with the definition of the Rule of Faith:
The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. (New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm))
So, we're looking for the proximate and animate or living Rule of Faith. Whatever that rule is, what are it's necessary attributes?
1. It must be Divine and infallible. Private interpretation for example cannot be our Rule of Faith, because it is neither Divine nor infallible.
2. It must be proximate. In other words, we must have access to it, here and now. Whenever a dispute arises we must be able to go to our Rule of Faith to "measure" and settle the dispute.
3. It must be animate or living. What does that mean? Since Scripture and Tradition are called inanimate because they "cannot interpret themselves", we know that animate or living means that it must be able to interpret itself. In other words, if we don't understand what the Rule of Faith means, we must be able to ask that same Rule of Faith to further explain itself.
Let's apply these criteria to our two contenders, Dogma and the Magisterium. We'll start with Dogma.
1. Is Dogma Divine and infallible? Yes.
2. Is Dogma proximate? Yes, we all have access to all the dogmas of our Faith anytime we want to. (Except.. the first Christians..see further down!)
3. Is Dogma animate or living? No, since Dogma cannot interpret itself, for the same reason as Scripture and Tradition cannot interpret themselves.
So, I conclude that Dogma is NOT the proximate and animate Rule of Faith. At best, we can consider Dogma as part of Tradition, i.e part of the proximate and inanimate Rule of Faith.
What about the Magisterium?
1. Is the Magisterium Divine and infallible? Yes, although this is where the distinction must be made between the Extraordinare and Ordinary Magisterium on the one hand, and the Authentic Magisterium on the other. The former is indeed infallible and Divine, while the latter is not infallible and can therefore not be part of our Rule of Faith.
2. Is the Magisterium proximate? Yes, because the Church will always remain with us as Christ promised He will always remain with us. But just as during Christ's passion His humanity was disfigured and his Divinity thereby obscured or hidden, so also is in today's crisis of the Church the Authentic Magisterium so disfigured that it is obscuring or hiding the Ordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, the Infallible Magisterium remains proximate to those who are willing to see past appearances. We still have Catholic bishops who are willing to remain faithful to Tradition and teach what the Church has always and everywhere taught.
3. Is the Magisterium animate or living? Yes, because the Magisterium is able to interpret itself. Whenever a new dispute arises, the Magisterium does not add any new doctrines to Divine revelation (which it can't do), but it explains and settles the disputes that arise. The Magisterium cannot contradict itself, but it can interpret itself.
Therefore, I argue that the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary) is the proximate and living Rule of Faith for Catholics.
Further questions and arguments:
1. If you believe Dogma is the Rule of Faith, what about the first Christians then, what was their Rule of Faith? No Dogmas had been promulgated yet. But whenever a dispute arose they brought the matter before the Apostles, and especially before Peter who would settle the matter once and for all. Hence the saying, "Rome locuta, causa finita est".
2. Our Lord told the apostles to "go and teach", not to "go and distribute dogmas", and "whoever believes you believes Me, whoever rejects you rejects Me". So it makes sense that our proximate and living rule of Faith is the living Magisterium, who is the sole legitimate interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
3. What about all the truths of our faith which must be believed but which are not explicitly defined in dogmas? For example, "Doctrines of Ecclesiastical Faith" and "Truths of Divine Faith"? (see What are Theological Notes? (http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/what-are-theological-notes-28450)) They too must be believed with different levels of assent. And those who reject them without a sufficiently grave reason are likewise to be treated as bad Catholics or even "suspect of heresy".
4. As Fr. Berry and Cardinal Billot explain, not everyone who holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic, but rather he is a heretic who rejects the teaching authority of the Church. The former is a Catholic in error, but the latter is properly defined as a heretic, because he rejects the teaching authority of the Church, in other words, the Magisterium.
Important Note:
1. As I mentioned before, the error which leads either to Conciliarism or Sedevecantism is a failure to distinguish between the Extraordinary/Ordinary Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium.
2. The above is how I understand the teachings of the Church, but since I could be wrong, I subject everything I said to the Infallible Magisterium, who shall have the last word! :)
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 Jews; 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
Absurd argument. I don't really care what YOU "conclude", all Catholic theologians teach to the contrary. Nice waste of time. Every step of the way you're just making something up that sounds good to you.
Dogma is not PROXIMATE. Otherwise people would never have gotten it wrong about the Immaculate Conception. Otherwise there would never have been heresies in the Church and myriad heretical sects leaving the Church.
Samuel,
Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Furthermore, unless traditional Catholics understand this essential principle, there can be no defending of the faith.
Your post is a nice review of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry but offers nothing new. This is where Ladislaus began his argument using this article as his authority. This is where Ladislaus got the idea that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to the faith and therefore, he claimed, that "the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation." Unfortunately for Ladislalus, he cannot get beyond this first error and nothing can profitably be discussed with him.
The articles in the Encyclopedia are only as good as the person making the entry. The members of the board assembling the Encyclopedia are not competent in every field and look to other experts to write on specific subjects. Earlier in this thread I commented on the entry, "Tradition and Living Magisterium" by Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J. who is the author of Is There Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church? This heretical book is still published and referenced by Catholic authors today. It is still passed around though even Fr. Joseph Fenton, since Pope Pius XII declared that the "Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church," considered Bainvel's radical separation of the soul and body of the Church as untenable. Bainvel posits that anyone untied to the "soul" of the Church is saved including Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc., by being good Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc. Every single Dogma touching upon what is necessary for salvation is ignored or taken in a merely metaphorical sense. The seed of his doctrine are evident in hindsight in his encyclopedic entry.
The Bainvel article in the Encyclopedia is important because it demonstrates the heresy of Neo-Modernism and how it works.
The first thing that needs to be understood it is the heresy of Neo-modernism and how does it differ from Modernism? This link offers a good introduction and is worth reading for those who do not know this essential difference:
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html
Basically, Modernism and Neo-modernism have the same subject, divine revelation, and the same object, the destruction of dogma, but differ in methodology. Modernism denies dogma in its very nature. St. Pius X in Pascendi, in Lamentabili, and the Oath Against Modernism, uses the word "dogma" and its cognates over 50 times in his effort to defend dogma in its very nature. After St Pius X the Modernists simply changed their methods but not their ends. Neo-modernism attacks dogma indirectly by 1) changing the definition of words, 2) by altering categorical propositions to conditional ones, and 3) (most importantly) by moving dogmatic definitions from the category of truth/falsehood to the category of authority/obedience and then applying all the moral qualifications that excuse from obedience to excuse from submitting to divinely revealed truth. Neo-modernist posit a fundamental disjunction between the truth of dogma and its linguistic formulation. They consider the language as only an approximation of truth, therefore, dogma must go through a never ending process of reformulations to progressively distill the truth from the human accretions.
Bainvel does this in his article on "Tradition and Living Magisterium" in the Catholic Encyclopedia by firstly redefining the meaning of "living magisterium." The Magisterium is living only in the sense that a living pope holds the Magisterial keys to access the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility of the Church, and it is living in the sense that divine revelation is the subject of dogma which is the revelation of a "living God." For Bainvel and all Neo-modernists, the "living" refers primarily to the content of divine revelation that progresses through an organic development of constant changes within a form. For Neo-modernists, dogma cannot be the rule of faith because dogma must constantly progress. For Neo-modernists, the "Magisterium" is the rule of faith because it must constantly update dogmatic definitions that never reach their term.
This is what Ladislaus really believes. He has posted that no Catholic has any right to interpret Dogma. He calls a Catholic who takes Dogma literally a "Protestant" because he is engaging in "private interpretation." A Catholic therefore must always return to the Magisterium to find out what the current meaning of any Catholic teaching happens to be. It is axiomatic for all Neo-modernists that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium. For Ladislaus he must necessarily be either a sedeprivationist/sedevacantist or return to the Novus Ordo religion to work his way through the hermeneutics of continuity.
Vatican II was Neo-modernist council from the opening bell where Pope John XXIII announce that truths of our faith were one thing and how they are expressed another. The purpose of the Council was to update these expressions. This fundamental principle has been repeated by every single conciliar pope. Fr. Thomas Rosica said that it is the overarching principle uniting all conciliar popes. They are all Neo-modernists.
Unfortunately for traditional Catholics the SSPX has followed this Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be constantly interpreted by the Magisterium. Bishop Felly believes that dogma does not have to be taken literally. His belief regarding what is necessary for salvation is like the Neo-modernist Bainvel. Consequently, dogma is not his rule of faith because it is never a determined thing; Dogma never reaches its term. But without dogma as the rule of faith there is no possible opposition to Neo-modernism. Take for example, Fr. Karl Rahner's thesis of nearly universal salvation excepting only those who make a fundamental option for evil. On what possible grounds can anyone object to this theory if striped of dogma as the rule of faith? Or Vatican II's Hans Küng, a periti, who denies the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. He affirms that Christ rose from the dead metaphorically. If dogma is not the rule of faith, if dogma is in a state of progressive development, who can object and on what grounds? This explains what has transpired in the doctrinal discussions between Bishop Fellay and the Vatican going back over twenty years with GREC. Both sides deny dogma as the rule of faith. Both sides deny that dogma needs to be taken literally. All they can discuss is theological opinions. If dogma were their rule of faith, the discussions would have been over in a few hours at best.
What is the Magisterium? It is the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority which are firstly Attributes of God and secondarily Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The key to the Magisterium is help by the pope alone. Without him, there is no accessing the Magisterium.
What is Dogma? Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church and offered to the faithful as a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith." The formal cause and the final cause of Dogma is God. The material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma is the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient cause of Dogma. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient means by which Dogma is created. Dogma is the end of the Magisterial act. Dogma, as divine revelation and the work of God, is irreformable in both its form (divine truth) and its matter (words of expression). Over the history of the Church, Dogma has developed in its construction as a categorical proposition that can only be universally true or false. That is, Dogma is a JUDGMENT on divine revelation relating two concepts. The necessary tools for understanding Dogma are definition and grammar, not theological competency. Dogma is formulated as accessible for all the faithful. Dogma is the Magisterium offering definitive clarification of divine revelation. The Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium is really a rejection of the Magisterium. It is as if saying, "I will not accept your judgment, go back and give me another."
Addressing your objections:
1) Dogma has been the rule of faith from Apostolic times and scripture gives evidence of this. The Council of Jerusalem was really the first ecuмenical council estimated to have occurred around 50 A.D. The "Apostles and ancients," including St. Paul returned to Jerusalem "assembled to consider the matter." The heresy addressed was that of the Judaizers. "There arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circuмcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). The judgment of the Magisterium was dogmatic for they declared that, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us" (Acts 15:28). The judgment was not a matter of mere discipline. It is directly related to worship and doctrine.
When St. Peter accommodated the Judaizers he was confronted by St. Paul in Galatians 2:11-15. St. Paul did not say St. Peter, who held the keys to the Magisterium, 'whatever you say goes.' He confronted St. Peter for he "was to be blamed" because he "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel," and because of "his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation." How did St. Paul know this? He knew because the "Holy Ghost" said so at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul, grounded upon a "formal article of divine and Catholic faith," corrected St. Peter and "withstood him to the face," who was the holder of the keys to the Magisterium.
2) The Magisterium is the means not the end. Once the dogma is established, it become the proximate rule of faith. No one has to go back to the Magisterium to know whether or not the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven. The Magisterium has judged and defined the matter and the Dogma is declared. The Dogma is the rule every faithful Catholic must believe with divine and Catholic faith or become a heretic by definition. It is grave error to claim that Catholic faithful must return to the Magisterium to find out what the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary means today.
3) Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition. Note that both the remote rule of faith and the proximate rule of faith are of the exact same nature, that is, divine revelation. The greater part of divine revelation has not been dogmatically defined but remains a formal object of divine faith. Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Doctrines of mere "ecclesiastical faith" do not exist. This has been discussed in detail in another thread and has been briefly mentioned in this thread. Suffice to say, there is an excellent article by Fr. Joseph Fenton in AER that concludes with the opinion that mere ecclesiastical faith is a myth.
4) This explanation offered will lead to confusion. It is true that not everyone who "holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic," such as St. Thomas in his denial of the Immaculate Conception. Once the divine revelation of the Immaculate Conception (a formal object of divine faith) was defined by the Magisterium, the Immaculate Conception became a Dogma, that is, a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith." Anyone holding St. Thomas' opinion of the Immaculate Conception today would now be a formal heretic. It is the denial of Dogma that makes the heresy. If someone denies the "teaching authority" of the Church, that is just another heresy because the Magisterium itself is a Dogma.
Contrary to what Ladislaus believes, the Magisterium is part of divine revelation. It is also the object itself of Dogma. The definition of a heretic is the rejection of Dogma. According to Vatican I, the "teaching authority" of the Church is part of the primacy of St. Peter continued by his "perpetual" successors in the Chair of Peter. The primacy of the pope refers to his universal jurisdiction. The rejection of the primacy of the pope is firstly an act of schism (by definition) and a secondly, a heresy because this divine revelation has been itself dogmatized.
The definition of heresy is the rejection of Dogma. Most who reject Dogma also reject the Magisterium which is the necessary but insufficient material cause of Dogma.
In conclusion, 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":
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.
The only weapon to combat Neo-modernism is to hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith. It is also the only weapon to combat sedevacantism and sedeprivationism which necessarily end in the overturning of Dogma. You are correct that these two errors are due to an improper understanding of the Magisterium but that improper understanding rests in the belief that Dogma can be reinterpreted by the Magisterium.
Drew
Samuel,It is also Catholic dogma that the Extraordinary Magisterium and universal Ordinary Magisterium cannot teach in error. And while the rest of the Ordinary Magisterium may sometimes be in error, we are still obliged to give religious assent to it. While yes, we may read and interpret dogma, we cannot as Catholics contradict or reject the Magisterium. Your fear of the Magisterium is unfounded. The Church will not and cannot revise the Magisterium to contradict existing dogma.
Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Furthermore, unless traditional Catholics understand this essential principle, there can be no defending of the faith.
-snip-
The only weapon to combat Neo-modernism is to hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith. It is also the only weapon to combat sedevacantism and sedeprivationism which necessarily end in the overturning of Dogma. You are correct that these two errors are due to an improper understanding of the Magisterium but that improper understanding rests in the belief that Dogma can be reinterpreted by the Magisterium.
Drew
It is also Catholic dogma that the Extraordinary Magisterium and universal Ordinary Magisterium cannot teach in error. And while the rest of the Ordinary Magisterium may sometimes be in error, we are still obliged to give religious assent to it. While yes, we may read and interpret dogma, we cannot as Catholics contradict or reject the Magisterium. Your fear of the Magisterium is unfounded. The Church will not and cannot revise the Magisterium to contradict existing dogma.
If you are really so afraid of the Magisterium, it suggests you are rejecting its teachings. You are separating yourself from the Church. If you believe that it is the true Catholic Church with a valid Pope at its head, why are you doing that?
It is good that you bring up this verse once again. This has been addressed before but here it is again, in case someone missed it in this long thread. The following is the annotation for such verse found in a Catholic Bible from XVI century:
Your interpretation of St. Paul's correction to St. Peter in the context of R&R is completely corrupt. The heretics use this verse maliciously to promote "Resistance to the Face" towards a true Pope; instead of brotherly fraternal correction which this verse does allow for. The protestants infer that Peter did fail in Faith and therefore, that popes can fail in Faith also; but this is not true. If you notice, St. Peter's error was not in Faith, but in conversation or behavior. In such a case, when popes have personal faults, they may and have indeed been reprehended and admonished in the past in a zealous spirit of charity (St. Paul, Jerome, Augustine, Cyprian, etc.); instead of a contentious spirit of malice (think Luther, Calvin, Novatus, etc). Again, popes may err in their private teachings and writings, but their Faith cannot fail. It is certain they cannot err in doctrine. This is yet another scriptural verse whose annotation mentions this impossibility of Peter's Faith failing.
I have absolutely no idea what made you think that I am "afraid of the Magisterium"!?I didn't even quote you. I quoted Drew.
Yes, I am aware of and agree with the distinctions between and the limitations of the Extraordinary, the Ordinary and the Authentic Magisterium. That is why believe in R&R and reject SV.
Was you reply maybe meant for someone else?
Mr. Drew,
You cite Sheeben as a Magisterial reference when defending "Dogma" as the Rule of Faith. This same Sheeben (among many others) is telling you that it is a dogma that a General Council in union with the Pope has the assistance of the Holy Ghost, therefore cannot err.
Yet you regret this. Why? I wonder then, What "Dogma" really is your Rule of Faith? Is it the Council of Trent in exclusivity? (your position is infallibly condemned in Trent under the errors of Luther). Is it perhaps the thrice infallible EENS dogma? (then, what makes a Catholic to be in "submission" to the Holy Father? one of the premises of EENS)
I ask questions but you provide no relevant answers; only contradictions. I am in agreement with some of your statements but most are off-topic.
As Scheenben's says: "Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344a.htm) (Acts 15:28 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act015.htm#vrs28)), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the DOGMA it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element.
Just as with Vatican II, Sheeben is to be considered an authority when he agrees with Drew and mistaken (no longer an authority) where he disagrees with Drew. Drew subjects Vatican II to the same criterion or truth/falsehood, his own private judgment and superior theological (and reading comprehension) skills ... unlike that bumbling idiot +Guerard who, with his multiple degrees and credentials, can't hold a candle to Drew.Such puerile reasoning as this could be understood if coming from prots or NOers, I guess, sadly, coming from sedes is also to be expected.
There's nothing puerile about this. You just can't get your mind around it. I say that Van Noort agrees with the Church, whereas Drew says he does not. So, then, does he or doesn't he? I say Fenton agrees with the Church, but you say he does not. So does he or does he not? You're saying that YOUR perspective is consistent with dogma, and the other one is wrong. I guess that leaves each one of us to decide what is consistent with dogma and what is not ... without a final arbiter. So then our own private judgment becomes our own rule of faith.And 23,000 sects doesn't cover the half of it. Each Protestant pastor feels comfortable disagreeing with his own sect on whatever issues he pleases, and even Protestant laymen feel perfectly free to disagree with their own pastor. Not to mention the so-called "non-denominational" "Christians". Truly the road Drew would have us follow is a road to ruin.
That's where the Magisterium comes in ... for Catholics anyway, as that objective arbiter. This is Catholicism 101 vs. the Protestant heresies.
Why do you think the Prots have split up into some 23,000+ sects. Person A decides that X is consistent with Scripture, Person B decides that X is not consistent with Scripture. And for each person there's a unique rule, his own private judgment.
It's already happening to a degree. Look at how many Traditonal groups there already are out there. It's because there's a vacuum of Magisterium. It's because the Shepherd has been struck that the sheep are scattered.You refuse to believe what the Magisterium even is. The Magisterium is not the hierarchy, nor does it become what the hierarchy teaches - and it certainly is not the pope. See if it is possible for you to wrap your mind around this - at least give it a try for once..........
You refuse to believe what the Magisterium even is. The Magisterium is not the hierarchy, nor does it become what the hierarchy teaches - and it certainly is not the pope. See if it is possible for you to wrap your mind around this - at least give it a try for once..........The ordinary Magisterium is what the hierarchy teaches. You are conflating it with infallible Magisterium. The universal ordinary Magisterium are issues on which all Bishops and the Pope are in agreement on, and are infallible. The extraordinary Magisterium are teachings from Ecuмenical Councils or ex cathedra.
Magisterium:
"...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter
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. - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council
Start wrapping - (not rapping).
The ordinary Magisterium is what the hierarchy teaches. You are conflating it with infallible Magisterium. The universal ordinary Magisterium are issues on which all Bishops and the Pope are in agreement on, and are infallible. The extraordinary Magisterium are teachings from Ecuмenical Councils or ex cathedra.Did you not just read from V1 those things that we are bound to believe? He does not say we are to give religious ascent to ALL the Magisterium because THAT makes no sense whatsoever. Read his instructions again read it over and over until you fully understand what he is saying.
We are required to give religious assent to ALL of the Magisterium, whether infallible or not.
He's conflating about 3 or 4 different things in that last post. He's always conflating things.FYI, you are the conflation expert, I am simply reading what is written.
It does not matter what Drew personally interprets the dogma to mean. Catholic are still required to give faithful assent to ALL MAGISTERIUM. Rejecting the Magisterium in favour of your own interpretations of dogma is Protestant heresy.
If you accept Pope Francis as a valid Pope and the V2 Church as the true Catholic Church, you MUST assent to its teachings. There's no way around that.
St. Peter was not teaching the things that St. Paul resisted him for. That was not a question of Magisterium at all but of bad example and scandal.
>>>"Rejecting the Magisterium in favour of your own interpretations of dogma is Protestant heresy." Is this not in a nutshell the definition of sedevacantism?
In fact, that is Catholicism in a nutshell.
What does it say here?
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30705396_10155588410078691_4171739362217061638_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=86a7ec02ae77011c1f662d6d6f42063c&oe=5B5BE2A9)
Can you please give a reference, as my Haydock bible seems to say something else. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong gospel/verse?
Your emphasis on the word "in" suggests that the Magisterium is the Deposit of Faith? Or the actual "teachings" from the Popes?I emphasized the word "in" to designate two things that Pope Pius IX said.
We discussed this earlier in the thread, but we never ventured any further than our agreement that the Magisterium (no matter the adjective placed in front of the word) is, indeed, infallible.
Just looking for some clarity...
Really?Sedevacantism does not reject the Magisterium at all, it rejects that the V2 Popes are real Popes at all. Discerning whether someone who claim to be a member of the Church hierarchy is telling the truth or not is something every Catholic must do. Or else you'd have to believe every random crazy who declared themselves Pope and follow their teachings. Just because we disagree on whether or not Francis is Pope does not mean that you do not discern whether someone is Pope or not just as we do. And of course, you would only follow the teachings of a real Pope, just as we would.
Was St. Paul wrong not to assent to St. Peter's Magisterium and to resist him to the face instead?
Was the Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople wrong not to assent to pope Honorius's Magisterium but to posthumously condemn and excommunicate him?
I think there's something wrong in your post, and in your thinking!! Can you "posthumously" detect the fallacy in your own short post? ;D
In fact, like Caiphas, you said something very deep and meaningful, without really realizing what you said: "Rejecting the Magisterium in favour of your own interpretations of dogma is Protestant heresy." Is this not in a nutshell the definition of sedevacantism?
"III. The act of promulgation must be a teaching (magisterium), and not a mere statement; this teaching must witness to its identity with the original Revelation, i.e. it must always show that what is taught is identical with what was revealed; it must be a "teaching with authority" - that is, it must command the submission of the mind, because otherwise the unity and universality of the Faith could not be attained." - ScheebenEven the fallible teachings of individual Bishops must be shown religious assent. Not even the post Vatican 2 Church supports your Protestant heresies.
This agrees with the Church's teaching from Pope Pius IX's both Ordinary teaching and infallible teaching - which disagrees with Ladislaus' idea of what the Magisterium even is - which in Lad's estimation, means I conflated 3 or 4 different things, when all I actually did, was quote the pope.
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
Just to be clear, you believe that the Magisterium is the body of teachings of the Church...yes?Sorry, my job kept side tracking me..... yes, the truths (teachings) we must believe are contained in the Magisterium. Those are his words, not mine.
Sorry, my job kept side tracking me..... yes, the truths (teachings) we must believe are contained in the Magisterium. Those are his words, not mine.We are required to give religious assent to the "day to day teachings" too. If the Pope, or even a Bishop, says x is y regarding faith or morals, you give religious assent unless it clearly contradicts existing universal or extraordinary Magisterium.
These truths (teachings) contained in the Magisterium consist of Scripture, Tradition and ex cathedra teachings - these are where the teachings are to be found and how we learn these truths which we must believe. We also learn "them" by the Church's "day to day teachings" aka the "Church's Ordinary Magisterium".
By "them", I mean, as Pope Pius IX explained; "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."
I believe that the Pope's personal Roman Faith cannot fail. Our Lord specifically prayed for this intention. It was not only for St. Peter but for his legitimate successors as well. If Christ prayer is inefficacious, what hope is there for mine?
Of one thing I am certain though and it is not an opinion of mine: It is impossible that the Pope teaches judicially against the Faith...as teaching heretical error in an Ecunemical Council.
Popes may err personally; not judicially or definitely.
For to what other See was it ever said I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy Faith do not fail? so say the Fathers, not meaning that none of Peter's seat can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing, but that they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic Faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determinations of such controversies, doubts, questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protected them therein for conformation of their Brethren.
Comment to Luke 22:31, Douay Rheims, 1582
>>> If I am not mistaken, then "judicially conclude or give definitive sentence" is another way for saying "bind". So they cannot bind us to error. And if they cannot bind us, we can resist them in these errors.
You are mistaken.
Decrees promulgated by an Ecunemical Council are universally binding to all faithful.
What does it say here?
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30705396_10155588410078691_4171739362217061638_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=86a7ec02ae77011c1f662d6d6f42063c&oe=5B5BE2A9)
“But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not”.
For thee, because I destine thee to be the head and chief of the Apostles and of My Church, that thy faith fail not in believing Me to be the Christ and the Saviour of the world. Observe that Christ in this prayer asked and obtained for Peter two especial privileges before the other Apostles: the first was personal, that he should never fall from faith in Christ; for Christ looked back to the sifting in the former verse, that is the temptation of His own apprehension when the other Apostles flew off from Him like chaff and lost their faith, and were dispersed, and fled into all parts. But Peter, although he denied Christ with his lips, at the hour foretold, and lost his love for Him, yet retained his faith. So S. Chrysostom (Hom. xxxviii.) on S. Matthew; S. Augustine (de corrept. et Grat. chap. viii.); Theophylact and others. This is possible but not certain, for F. Lucas and others think that Peter then lost both his faith and his love, from excessive perturbation and fear; but only for a short time, and so that his faith afterwards sprang up anew, and was restored with fresh vitality. Hence it is thought not to have wholly failed, or to have been torn up by the roots, but rather to have been shaken and dead for a time.
Another and a certain privilege was common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith. So S. Leo (serm. xxii.), on Natalis of SS. Peter and Paul; S. Cyprian (Lib. i. ep 3), to Cornelius; Lucius I., Felix I., Agatho, Nicolas I., Leo IX., Innocent III., Bernard and others, whom Bellarmine cites and follows (Lib. i. de Pontif. Roman).
For it was necessary that Christ, by His most wise providence, should provide for His Church, which is ever being sifted and tempted by the devil, and that not only in the time of Peter, but at all times henceforth, even to the end of the world, an oracle of the true faith which she might consult in every doubt and by which she might be taught and confirmed in the faith, otherwise the Church might err in faith, quod absit! For she is as S. Paul said to Timothy, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. iii 15). This oracle of the Church then is Peter, and all successive bishops of Rome. This promise made to Peter, and his successors, most especially applies to the time when Peter, as the successor of Christ, began to be the head of the Church, that is, after the death of Christ.
Rev. Cornelius a Lapide, The Great Commentary, Luke 22:32
Vatican I, Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
I was referring to the last part of your sentence "we can resist them in these errors"
We know that General Councils ratified by the Pope do not promulgate heretical errors, so there should be nothing to "resist".
That is why Vatican II Council is so relevant to us, in our struggle against International Jewry, Masonry and Modernism, because if this Council indeed taught error, then the only way that this could have ever happened was if an anti-Pope, an illegitimate successor of St. Peter ratified it.
It is the indication of an official infiltration to the Holy See.
Besides, it is not only one or two errors in a Letter somewhere that we as Traditionals are "resisting", or an imprudent interview in a plane. It is a complete swift of the Magisterium as to appear coming from a completely alien religion. It is an overwhelming succession of evils for Roman Catholicism. Wouldn't you agree?
I was referring to the last part of your sentence "we can resist them in these errors"Canterella,
We know that General Councils ratified by the Pope do not promulgate heretical errors, so there should be nothing to "resist".
That is why Vatican II Council is so relevant to us, in our struggle against International Jewry, Masonry and Modernism, because if this Council indeed taught error, then the only way that this could have ever happened was if an anti-Pope, an illegitimate successor of St. Peter ratified it.
It is the indication of an official infiltration to the Holy See.
Besides, it is not only one or two errors in a Letter somewhere that we as Traditionals are "resisting", or an imprudent interview in a plane. It is a complete swift of the Magisterium as to appear coming from a completely alien religion. It is an overwhelming succession of evils for Roman Catholicism. Wouldn't you agree?
We are required to give religious assent to the "day to day teachings" too. If the Pope, or even a Bishop, says x is y regarding faith or morals, you give religious assent unless it clearly contradicts existing universal or extraordinary Magisterium.I would give religious assent to your teaching if it is a Catholic truth. It does not matter who teaches it, if it is truth, we give our religious assent to it. As I previously said, it is the truth that binds us. Truth, is the matter. The way in which we receive that truth, is the method. It is the matter that binds us, not the method. People can be wrong, people can lie - we do not give our religious assent to any person, only to God. V1 plainly says "all those things", not "all those popes" or "all those bishops" or "all those hierarchies".
Yet, you believe that an Ecunemical Council promulgated by the legitimate Pope (which represents the Church Universal) did just that.
It is probable and may piously be believedA probability and a pious belief are not official teachings of the Church. St Bellarmine was basing his OPINION on history. If he were alive today he would NOT be preaching that those who disagreed with him were heretics. He would realize that V2 is a historical anomaly for the papacy and his view that popes cannot lost the faith was WRONG. Saints make mistakes too. How could anyone predict the horrors of V2? Only God knew, which is why He sent His Mother to Fatima to warn us.
Sir, YOU do not do the defense of the Catholic faith any good by trying to whitewash historical facts.
Saint Robert Bellarmine says otherwise...
Don't you believe that Paul VI erred by promulgating the Novus Ordo Mass?The promulgation of that new missal was legal. The use of it is not. Legal technicalities which the devil loves.
Besides, the PERSONAL never-failing faith is a red herring tossed out here by R&R. That's a pious belief that may be held ... or it may not be held. I personally believe this.The only people who have EVER said the pope’s personal faith can’t fail, on this thread, is Cantarella and Bellator. Cantarella says it’s a doctrine. And she repeats it every 4th post. And she’s not “R&R” so you are WAAAAY OFF.
What Vatican I teaches is that Peter AS PETER (not personally as Jorge Bergoglio for instance) has a never-failing faith, that as a public teacher exercising his teaching office, he cannot lead the Church into error.
I would give religious assent to your teaching if it is a Catholic truth. It does not matter who teaches it, if it is truth, we give our religious assent to it. As I previously said, it is the truth that binds us. Truth, is the matter. The way in which we receive that truth, is the method. It is the matter that binds us, not the method. People can be wrong, people can lie - we do not give our religious assent to any person, only to God. V1 plainly says "all those things", not "all those popes" or "all those bishops" or "all those hierarchies".Protestant heresy.
V1 states "all those things" we must believe, and he says that all those things are contained in Scripture and tradition and proposed by the Church as matters we must believe - "all those things", is the matter - the matter is the truth, it is the matter that binds us.
The way in which we know what "all those things" are, is the method. The method, is via the Church teaching us which of those things we must believe whether via ex cathedra decrees aka "solemn judgement", "or are contained in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium" which means those teachings which are contained in "...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith" - which *is* the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Your options depend on your opinion that Honorius was definitely a manifest and obstinate heretic in the same sense as these current apostates. This is NOT definitive. There is a difference between failing to stamp out Heresy and explicitly teaching heresy to the entire Church in his official capacity.
CE on Honorius: "No doubt Honorius did not really intend to deny that there is in Christ a human will, the higher faculty; but he used words which could be interpreted in the sense of that heresy, and he did not recognize that the question was not about the unity of the Person Who wills, nor about the entire agreement of the Divine Will with the human faculty, but about the distinct existence of the human faculty as an integrant part of the Humanity of Christ."
CE on Honorius: "They praise with enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken, according to his claim, with the voice of Peter. The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra."
You should read the whole entry about this Pope.
Yep. As I said, you clowns don't even believe in the Magisterium, the existence of a teaching AUTHORITY extrinsic to and formally distinct from the truths themselves. So John Paul II writing an encyclical is the same as some poster on CI? You're hopelessly daft and have gone completely astray from Catholicism. This is the logical consequence of Drew's "dogma is the rule of faith" garbage.In your obstinate refusal to listen to truth, you do not even know what the magisterium even is, but I'll say this much for you, sure looks like you've innovated another branch of sedeism, you should name it sede-magisteriumism.
Protestant heresy.Spoken like a true NOer. Also, I won't take you word for it. Lad thinks like you, he knows better than infallible teachings, just like you and the poor fella, he is as lost as a puppy in a rain storm.
Since you're a person who, up until a couple of years ago, thought the Magisterium was nothing other than the hierarchy, I don't think you should be trying to teach anybody about the Magisterium or debating anything about it. Just my opinion. Also, the person that heeds anything you say about it would be quite foolish.You're an even bigger clown than Ladislaus is - at least he was formally brainwashed, what's your excuse? Did you study under +Sanborn too?
You're an even bigger clown than Ladislaus is - at least he was formally brainwashed, what's your excuse? Did you study under +Sanborn too?You've openly contradicted Catholic teaching and declared that you need not give religious assent to the teachings of the Pope or Bishops unless you personally believe them to be true. That is as Protestant as it gets. We are required to give religious assent to all teachings of the hierarchy unless they contradict existing infallible Magisterium.
I have said nothing regarding the personal guilt of Pope Honorius excepting that the matter is of no importance to anyone except Pope Honorius. It is a historical fact that two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes, more than two hundred years apart, condemned Pope Honorius by name for the crime of "heresy" and "anathematized" him again by name.
So what are you claiming? Pope Honorius was not guilty of "heresy" and two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes erred in their condemnation? Or that Pope Honorius' heresy was only material and not formal? So what! For those who make the pope their rule of faith, it makes no difference whatsoever if the pope's error is formal or only material. The consequences are the same.
Those who worship the pope seem very anxious about this fact but the effort to excuse Pope Honorius creates a much bigger problem. The claim that the popes possess a personal never-failing faith is not true. Those who keep peddling this myth should simply read the biblical commentaries that draw upon the Church Fathers and Doctors and previous Popes. Not St. Thomas' Commentary, not Rev. George Haydock's Commentary, nor the Great Commentary of Rev. Cornelius a Lapide claim that any Church Father ever held this opinion. It's not as if it were debated question. Not one held this opinion that every pope possesses a personal never-failing faith. As previously posted, Lapide brings it up only to directly and explicitly deny it.
They do the same thing with St. Peter, who did possess a personal never-failing faith, by claiming that the problem with Judaizers was a simple matter of discipline rather than a grave doctrinal and moral error which it most certainly was and remains today. It would have eventually made the Church of Jesus Christ a sect within the ѕуηαgσgυє. They also ignore the fact, as St. Thomas affirms, that faith can be denied by actions as well as words. It can also be denied by failing to act when duty obligates. The "dissembling" of St. Peter lead St. Barnabas into the same error that had been corrected at the Council of Jerusalem. If St. Paul had not "withstood him to the face," he would have continued to lead others into the same grave error. The accusation was for falling away from the "truth of the gospel." That is a most serious charge, not a question of simple discipline.
This is why we pray for the pope.
Drew
You've openly contradicted Catholic teaching and declared that you need not give religious assent to the teachings of the Pope or Bishops unless you personally believe them to be true.No, I did not say nor "declare" that at all. You would know this if you actually read what I wrote. You probably do know this, but like Lad, you are likely on a mission to work iniquity.
So all of the other popes do not have a promise of "never ending faith" like St. Peter, right? So when Francis ratifies in the future an ecuмenical council's decree that there can be women priests........We have a fortune teller joining in on the argument now! C'mon KW, you're really it stretching here.
No, I did not say nor "declare" that at all. You would know this if you actually read what I wrote. You probably do know this, but like Lad, you are likely on a mission to work iniquity.From your last post:
It does not matter who teaches it
we do not give our religious assent to any personThese are Protestant heresies. Putting laymen interpreters on the level of Bishops and declaring we owe no religious assent to their teachings. Yes their ordinary teachings are fallible, but we are still obliged to give them religious assent. You are falling into the exact same trap the "reformers" of the Reformation did.
From your last post:These are Protestant heresies. Putting laymen interpreters on the level of Bishops and declaring we owe no religious assent to their teachings. Yes their ordinary teachings are fallible, but we are still obliged to give them religious assent. You are falling into the exact same trap the "reformers" of the Reformation did.As I said before, spoken like a true NOer.
We have a fortune teller joining in on the argument now! C'mon KW, you're really it stretching here.So it is not going to happen. Ya right. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Really big things are happening in Europe. You need to get out of your ghetto of trad blog sites.
As I said before, spoken like a true NOer.Novus Ordo'er? I'm a sedevacantist.
Indeed, Stubborn has to be one of the least informed folks on this forum, and yet he believes himself to be in sole possession of absolute truth.LOL definitely false.
Novus Ordo'er? I'm a sedevacantist.Well the you're a recent convert to sedeism from the NO.
He's completely lost touch with what basic Catholicism even is due to the novel invention of R&R.I was only born and raised a trad. You must have studied your errors under +Sanborn not long after we left him due to his preaching of errors. So to you, yes, I'm the one that has completely lost touch with Catholicism. See how that works?
I was only born and raised a trad. You must have studied your errors under +Sanborn not long after we left him due to his preaching of errors. So to you, yes, I'm the one that has completely lost touch with Catholicism. See how that works?How is it Traditional Catholicism to put one's own interpretations over the Ordinary Magisterium?
So it is not going to happen. Ya right. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Really big things are happening in Europe. You need to get out of your ghetto of trad blog sites.If you says so. I only frequent trad forums in my spare time, I don't need to get out of what I don't get into.
How is it Traditional Catholicism to put one's own interpretations over the Ordinary Magisterium?You do not know what the OM even is. I posted to you what the pope's explanation of it is, but you call me protestant - and Lad is all onboard with you - for posting the pope's explanation of it.
LOL definitely false.
The truth is, I believe you to be the biggest worker of iniquity on this forum, the reason I believe it is because you demonstrate it with almost every post.
You do not know what the OM even is. I posted to you what the pope's explanation of it is, but you call me protestant - and Lad is all onboard with you - for posting the pope's explanation of it.That quote refers to the universal ordinary Magisterium, when all Bishops agree and the Pope are in agreement on a teaching of faith or morals. Such teachings are infallible. Not all of the ordinary Magisterium is universal however. The teachings of individual Bishops, while not infallible, are part of the ordinary Magisterium and must be given religious assent.
So until you understand what the Magisterium even is, don't include it in silly remarks and accusations you don't even understand. We get our fill of that around here from Lad - he shovels all we can take.
You've openly contradicted Catholic teaching and declared that you need not give religious assent to the teachings of the Pope or Bishops unless you personally believe them to be true.Religious assent is defined as CONDITIONAL whereby we accept the teaching BUT...we are allowed to question any contradictions and ask for clarifications. This is not protestantism, which seeks to do the same thing with DEFINED DOCTRINE. Big, big difference.
That quote refers to the universal ordinary Magisterium, when all Bishops agree and the Pope are in agreement on a teaching of faith or morals. Such teachings are infallible. Not all of the ordinary Magisterium is universal however. The teachings of individual Bishops, while not infallible, are part of the ordinary Magisterium and must be given religious assent.Your understanding of what the magisterium even is coincides perfectly with Lad's and Cantarella's, and the only place that idea is found, is as an official teaching of the conciliar church and only within the docuмents of V2 - Go read Lumen Gentium 25.2.
Your understanding of what the magisterium even is coincides perfectly with Lad's and Cantarella's, and the only place that idea is found, is as an official teaching of the conciliar church and only within the docuмents of V2 - Go read Lumen Gentium 25.2.Even your quote, which again is about UNIVERSAL Magisterium, mentions the "ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world". This does not mean Stubborn's authority to interpret dogma as he pleases. This means the authority the Bishops all over the world have to teach doctrine, doctrine we are required to give religious assent to.
OTOH, I gave you the explanation of what the Magisterium is as explained by Pope Pius IX himself, but like Lad and Cantarella and AES and most other sedes and even non-sedes, you reject that explanation, choosing instead Pope Paul VI's NO explanation - then you all go on spouting that his explanation is a dogma of the Church - and like the rest, you don't even realize the "doctrine" you are promoting is strictly a new, NO doctrine from a conciliar pope, while you and the rest constantly attempt to pass it off as if that doctrine is an infallible teaching of the Church. Sedes are sooooo screwed up!
So you all can feel free to keep calling those of us heretics who disagree with and expose that NO doctrine, a NO doctrine which you all say you believe is an infallible teaching of the Church.
While your reasoning to call us heretics is based on your false belief and therefore is understandable, your obstinate refusal to accept correction when the truth is indisputably proven and presented to you over and over again is not only not understandable, it is downright iniquitous already.
Religious assent is defined as CONDITIONAL whereby we accept the teaching BUT...we are allowed to question any contradictions and ask for clarifications. This is not protestantism, which seeks to do the same thing with DEFINED DOCTRINE. Big, big difference.But Stubborn has made it clear he rejects that he needs to submit to the fallible Magisterium at all, deciding that any source of what he perceives to be true is as good as any other. Thereby elevating his own interpretations to be on equal footing with the Magisterium. That is exactly what the Protestants did, and now they have 23,000 sects because of people just like him.
Even your quote, which again is about UNIVERSAL Magisterium, mentions the "ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world". This does not mean Stubborn's authority to interpret dogma as he pleases. This means the authority the Bishops all over the world have to teach doctrine, doctrine we are required to give religious assent to.Again, you do not understand what is written, I can say this because you are proving you are giving what is written your own mis-interpretation, instead of what is actually written. Such is the normal result of being brainwashed either through years spent in the NO or by the formal training under heretics.
But Stubborn has made it clear he rejects that he needs to submit to the fallible Magisterium at all,
deciding that any source of what he perceives to be true is as good as any other. Thereby elevating his own interpretations to be on equal footing with the Magisterium.
That is exactly what the Protestants did, and now they have 23,000 sects because of people just like him.
In all my debates with sedevacantists, with very, very few exceptions, the vast majority are quick to call fellow catholics heretics, schismatics, protestants, etc. They are always very quick to judge, condemn and crucify. Deep down, they don't argue to learn or grow, but "to win". It goes to show the true motive of most of these individuals, which is not charity, nor the search for truth (for they have too much pride to be open to the truth, or to admit they could be wrong). Their search is ultimately for the juvenile and immature "feeling" of security, which they MUST have, at all costs, because the crisis in the Church is too much for them to handle emotionally.
I doubt he believes that. Secondly, how can one "submit" to a magisterium that doesn't require submission?
Many of you throw around the word "submit" without understanding what the word means. The Church requires submission to teachings that are necessary for salvation. V2 and new rome have not required submission and have REPEATEDLY SAID that any novelties should be interpreted 'in the light of Tradition'. Ergo, they are saying that TRUE SUBMISSION is to be given to TRADITION and CONSTANT TRUTHS of our Faith. All else does not require submission, only conditional assent. Conditional assent IS NOT SUBMISSION. It is impossible to submit to a condition.
V2 new-rome has said that any novelties should be interpreted in the light of tradition. If you want to argue that Stubborn's INTERPRETATION is wrong, fine. But you must admit that he's not making stuff up; he's quoting Traditional passages.
Protestants questioned INFALLIBLE, DOCTRINAL, DEFINED TEACHINGS. Any catholic who questions V2, which we are allowed to do, is not remotely close to protestantism.
---
In all my debates with sedevacantists, with very, very few exceptions, the vast majority are quick to call fellow catholics heretics, schismatics, protestants, etc. They are always very quick to judge, condemn and crucify. Deep down, they don't argue to learn or grow, but "to win". It goes to show the true motive of most of these individuals, which is not charity, nor the search for truth (for they have too much pride to be open to the truth, or to admit they could be wrong). Their search is ultimately for the juvenile and immature "feeling" of security, which they MUST have, at all costs, because the crisis in the Church is too much for them to handle emotionally.
Much like Martin Luther, whose heresies were born from a false fear of God and of extreme despair that he would be saved, and who rejected all catholic truths which were remotely connected to his having to worry over hell...So most sedes have an inordinate fear of chaos and error, and of not trusting in their knowledge of Tradition or their prayers for God's wisdom, so they throw out the entire roman curia, even the pope, so to remove the temptation that they would be corrupted. And those catholics who do not follow them into this rash reaction, this self-anointed judgement of rome, and this extreme view of papal adulation, they cast out of their 'pope-less church' and they declare they are the only catholics who "have it right". In their false efforts to protect the Truth, they make themselves the sole authority, to the detriment of their humility and the unity of tradition.
Speaking about Professions of Faith, here is the Tridentine Profession of Faith, which also mentions the Roman's Pontiff infallible teaching and to whom we swear true obedience:
In the Tridentine Profession of Faith Roman Catholics swear TRUE obedience to the Pope.
Your position is not that of TRUE obedience.
Actually, your position advocates quite the opposite. It promotes disobedience towards the Roman Pontiff, "resistance to his face", as they say.
In our position, we ignore the impostor. In yours, you disobey the Pope, in opposition to the Tridentine profession of Faith.
Which of the two do you think is more in accord with the Roman Catholic religion?
In the Tridentine Profession of Faith Roman Catholics swear TRUE obedience to the Pope.Cantarella, his position is that of TRUE obedience, same as all Catholics. Your issue is that his position is not one of BLIND obedience.
Your position is not that of TRUE obedience.
Actually, your position advocates quite the opposite. It promotes disobedience towards the Roman Pontiff, "resistance to his face", as they say.
In our position, we ignore the impostor. In yours, you disobey the Pope, in opposition to the Tridentine Profession of Faith.
Which of these two above do you think is more in accord with the Holy Roman Catholic religion?
We reject the Novus Ordo Mass simply because it is promulgated by an anti-Pope,You reject the novus ordo because you believe Paul VI was an anti-pope, yet you believe he was an anti-pope BECAUSE the novus ordo is not catholic.
At the end of the day, you reduce the Magisterium to nothing more than a man (the Pope) or a group of men (Fathers of Vatican II) opining about doctrinal matters. If what they happen to say is true, then it has authority. If what they happen to say is false (by my judgment), then it has no authority.If they do not engage the solemn magisterium and teach 'with certainty of faith' then their magisterium is FALLIBLE and CONDITIONAL, ergo, yes - they are teaching with their simple authority inherent in their offices as simple bishops, or theologians.
Do you think that rejecting an Ecunemical Council and a Liturgical Rite promulgated by the legitimate Pope is true obedience in any way?Neither V2 nor the novus ordo is required to be accepted 100%, nor attended at all. You can't reject what is not required.
It is a quintessential sign of the heretic and the schismatic to think and act in hostility against the Roman Pontiff.
Also, I notice another contradiction in your position. Whereas you reject Vatican II Council and the conciliar Popes on the basis of not having defined any "dogmas" or ex-cathedra statements; you are rather quick to condemn Pope Honorius of formal heresy when it is obvious that he did not engage the infallible Magisterium, defined any doctrine, or pronounce an ex-cathedra statement.There's no contradiction. Pope Honorius was labeled a heretic. The post-conciliar popes are/will be labeled as heretics (at some point). Neither taught error using their infallibility (which God would never allow anyway). All of these pope's errors should be (and must be) ignored, if one wants to get to heaven. A layman in either case has the responsibility to 'stick with Tradition' and worship God in the only, True way. There is nothing else for the layman to do - his job is not to judge the pope, nor consider his seat vacant, nor run around to try to "fix" the Church. This is all God's responsibility, for it is HIS Church, not ours.
Yet another case of conflating simple obedience with assent to Magisterium and Universal Discipline ... on purpose in order to make this specious argument over and over again.
Regarding the case of Pope Honorius, I could take side with the Gallicans and other enemies of the Papacy on his case, but as a Roman Catholic why in the world should I ever do that?
I rather take side with the Church fathers in Vatican I Council when defining the dogma of Papal Infallibility, as well Pope Leo XII when in the letter of confirmation of the Council, when he clearly interprets it as intending to criticize Honorius not for error of belief, but rather for "imprudent economy of silence". In other words, he was condemned, not for having taught error, nor as a formal heretic, but only for not acting proactively against the propagation of Monotheletism.
This is the Catholic version.
Also, I notice another contradiction in your position. Whereas you reject Vatican II Council and the conciliar Popes on the basis of not having defined any "dogmas" or ex-cathedra statements; you are rather quick to condemn Pope Honorius of formal heresy when it is obvious that he did not engage the infallible Magisterium, defined any doctrine, or pronounce an ex-cathedra statement.
It is the quintessential sign of the heretic and the schismatic to think and act in hostility against the Roman Pontiff.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg586898/#msg586898
D. M. Drew:
There are a number of problems with your reply to Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve on December 20.
Firstly, no Church father or doctor or magisterial docuмent has ever claimed that each individual pope possessed a "never-failing faith." St. Thomas and Rev. Haydock do not even address the question in their commentaries. Rev. Cornelius a Lapide in his great Commentary specifically addresses this question and says that the "never-failing faith" was a personal grace granted to St. Peter alone. The promise to his successors was that they would never engage the Church's attribute of infallibility to teach error. Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by at the Sixth Ecuмenical Council that was approved by the Pope Leo II. It matters not whether his heresy was formal or only material except to Honorius himself. If the pope is taken as the rule of faith, then he must be preserved from even material heresy because for the faithful following his example it would make no difference.
Furthermore, there is not logical contradiction between Infallibility and a pope being a heretic and more than the heretic, Caiaphas being the high priest, who was a Sadducee and denied the doctrine of the resurrection, prophesized being the High Priest, that Christ should die for the nation. Even Balaam's Ass can be used by God to teach the truth.
St. Thomas' denying the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with this argument. St. Robert Bellarmine may or may be correct that a pope has never fallen into formal heresy but the point is moot. Again, it makes no difference whatsoever, except to the pope himself, whether or not the heresy is formal or merely material...
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg587166/#msg587166
This is a good point, Mr. Drew. Whether the heresy is material or formal, is completely irrelevant as the effect would be the same.
Indeed... Once again we see that Pax is making things up to suit his agenda.First off, I don't care if he was a heretic or not. I'm not the one who thinks papal heresy affects his chair (unless the Church deposes him). It is irrelevant to my "agenda" whether Honorius believed the heresy, or simply kept quiet.
Also, I notice another contradiction in your position. Whereas you reject Vatican II Council and the conciliar Popes on the basis of not having defined any "dogmas" or ex-cathedra statements; you are rather quick to condemn Pope Honorius of formal heresy when it is obvious that he did not engage the infallible Magisterium, defined any doctrine, or pronounce an ex-cathedra statement.In conclusion, Cantarella, your above statement then is retarded. You're saying that Drew has a contradiction because he treats V2 popes the same as Honorius. I explained that the treatment being the same is not a contradiction. Then you said the situations AREN'T the same, and my explanation is wrong. Well...YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SAID THEY SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME IN THE FIRST PLACE.
First off, I don't care if he was a heretic or not. I'm not the one who thinks papal heresy affects his chair (unless the Church deposes him). It is irrelevant to my "agenda" whether Honorius believed the heresy, or simply kept quiet.The Church cannot depose a Pope. All it can do is recognise the seat as having been vacant.
Secondly, there are 9 ways to be an accessory to someone else's sin - silence being one of them. And since the pope has the SUPREME duty to condemn error, and Honorious did not, then it's logical to say that his silence accepted the heresy, in some degree - and the pope to a higher degree is guilty, since his duty is greater. As St Thomas Moore, a lawyer, always said of the law: "Silence gives consent". Thus, it is just that Honorius is connected to heresy and rightly condemned.
But really, it doesn't matter if he was a heretic officially. He's not one in the same manner as the V2 popes, but you're the one who thinks this matters, not I.In conclusion, Cantarella, your above statement then is retarded. You're saying that Drew has a contradiction because he treats V2 popes the same as Honorius. I explained that the treatment being the same is not a contradiction. Then you said the situations AREN'T the same, and my explanation is wrong. Well...YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SAID THEY SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME IN THE FIRST PLACE.
You even contradict yourself in a matter of posts. Amazing.
Universal DisciplineThe current magisterium can never have a universal discipline, because universal refers to all magisteriums, ever, in the history of the Church. Universal refers to time; it does not refer to 'the present church'. Something is only universal if it has ALWAYS been taught, everywhere, and by all.
The Church cannot depose a Pope. All it can do is recognise the seat as having been vacant.That's debatable. There's no clear teaching on the matter, unless you are a 'sola bellarmina' (i.e. you only follow St Bellarmine, and reject the 100s of other theologians.)
Yep. He's been exposed for this about 4 or 5 times now.Oh, please. Either Honorius was a heretic, or he just supported heresy by being silent. Potato, potatoe.
You're wrong. I'd say it was outright calumny, except that you just can't understand what I'm saying ... even after I've explained it half a dozen times. I have never accused anyone of heresy for considering Francis to be the pope ... as the status of a heretical pope is disputed among theologians. What I have problems with is the heretical ecclesiology that VERY OFTEN accompanies R&R.
In the Tridentine Profession of Faith Roman Catholics swear TRUE obedience to the Pope.
Your position is not that of TRUE obedience.
Actually, your position advocates quite the opposite. It promotes disobedience towards the Roman Pontiff, "resistance to his face", as they say.
In our position, we ignore the impostor. In yours, you disobey the Pope, in opposition to the Tridentine Profession of Faith.
Which of these two above do you think is more in accord with the Holy Roman Catholic religion?
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604503/#msg604503
Cantarella,
This is as mindless a post as you have made. The Tridentine profession of faith, which was used at the opening profession of Vatican I, is a litany of dogmas which I believe and hold as divinely revealed truths that constitute my proximate rule of faith. It was at Vatican I that papal infallibility was formally defined and, if your read it, you will learn that the pope’s never-failing faith only means that he will never Magisterially bind the Church to doctrinal or moral errors as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.
You on the other hand, deny dogma as the rule of faith. You, like Ladislaus, must go to your “dormant” magisterium to find out what these dogmas really mean because, if you try to figure that out on your own, you will be guilty of “private interpretation” like the “Protestants.”
So since your magisterium is “dormant,” let me help. “True obedience” is always regulated by the virtue of Religion. Therefore, we find in the Tridentine profession of faith the acceptance of the “received and approved” rites that were dogmatized at the Council of Trent. “True obedience” demands the rejection of the Novus Ordo because of this dogma. Your false obedience believes that the Novus Ordo must be accepted and dogma be damned.
I attribute bad will to your posts. You just repeat the same mindless cants as if reiteration is the soundest sign of truth. Your church has not pope, no magisterium, no councils and no creeds and never will. No creeds because creeds are just a bunch of unintelligible dogmas that are not your rule of faith. This church that you now belong to is not the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.
By the way, the Tridentine profession of faith reaffirmed the "anathemas" of all previous councils. That would include the "anathema" against Pope Honorius for "heresy." Only those who practice "true obedience" would have avoided following him in his error. Just as St. Barnabas, if he had practiced "true obedience" would have withstood St. Peter to his face before St. Paul arrived instead of following him in his "dissimulation."
Drew
Do you think that rejecting an Ecunemical Council and a Liturgical Rite promulgated by the legitimate Pope is true obedience in any way?Absolutely it's true obedience. Again, you are confusing blind obedience to error, with true obedience to truth.
Drew-
Thank you for all of your writing on this topic. For myself I am learning a lot through your knowledge on this subject regarding the rule of faith. Do you happen to have a stand alone article on this particular topic in contrast to the rule of faith in the magisterium you are describing?
If not, will you consider making one for the good of the church we can pass around? It is superb.
If and when you do, please post a copy of it and or PM me with it. It will be much appreciated and forwarded in emails.
Thanks again for your time on this important subject.
The current magisterium can never have a universal discipline, because universal refers to all magisteriums, ever, in the history of the Church. Universal refers to time; it does not refer to 'the present church'. Something is only universal if it has ALWAYS been taught, everywhere, and by all.Incorrect. Anything that is taught by all the Bishops and the Pope in unity is infallible. It does not have to always have been taught.
Incorrect. Anything that is taught by all the Bishops and the Pope in unity is infallible. It does not have to always have been taught.So you’re saying that the pope/bishops can teach something new? How is this possible? They can teach a doctrine different from what Christ handed down, or different from Scripture? OF COURSE NOT!
So you’re saying that the pope/bishops can teach something new? How is this possible? They can teach a doctrine different from what Christ handed down, or different from Scripture? OF COURSE NOT!By your warped logic, any dogma or doctrine defined after the 1st Century is heresy. No, new teachings and doctrines do not in any way contradict the old. They invent nothing, they merely make clear the correct interpretations of beliefs that had previously been contested and undefined by the Church. There are many cases in history where the Saints held beliefs that would be heretical today but were not then, as the doctrine had not been defined yet. Nothing new is created, merely old contested issues are clarified and made clear for all the faithful to believe, resolving the debate around them.
This is where many people’s specific/modernist view of the magisterium is wrong. You want to argue that the current magisterium is free from error - always. Yet, you also want to say that it must jive with Tradition/Scripture. IT CANT BE BOTH. So what’s the solution?
As has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, the solution is that 1) the current magisterium is infallible when they teach SOLEMNLY, or 2) when they teach non-solemnly, yet infallibly, and they are RE-AFFIRMING TRADITION.
The third option is they teach non-solemnly, and non-infallibly and therefore can err. Like at V2.
There are no new truths, no new doctrine, no new cathechism. We must believe today the SAME EXACT TRUTHS as Christians of the 1st century. If the current hierarchy isn’t RE-TEACHING what has always been taught, as St Paul said “They are anathema!”
There are no new truths, no new doctrine, no new cathechism. We must believe today the SAME EXACT TRUTHS as Christians of the 1st century. If the current hierarchy isn’t RE-TEACHING what has always been taught, as St Paul said “They are anathema!”This is just blatantly false. The Assumption of Mary was dogmatically defined in 1950 you tool. And there's a new cathechism every couple of decades. I never said the truth changes, but what we know and are required to believe does. As I said before, many dogma we hold as infallibly defined now were under debate for much of Church history with even Saints disagreeing with what the Church would later conclude was the truth. To deny that the Church has expanded its teachings is just to deny history plain and simple. It is to deny teachings such as the Assumption of Mary. It is a denial of reason and faith.
But your acknowledgment/recognition of this fact (assuming it can be proven) means nothing. What you or I believe, as we are laymen, means nothing. The Church was built on Christ/pope. When we die, the Church will continue. It exists outside of us and whatever we “acknowledge” is irrelevant. How can our opinion matter, when it is Christ’s Church?Freemasons cannot be Popes.
How has your acknowledgement of your theory affected Rome? How has it affected your local diocese? It hasn’t affected them at all, because our vote doesn’t count...
Care to explain how is it that the Novus Ordo Mass is not an "approved and received" rite when we see the "Popes" offering the Sacrifice of the Mass daily and publicly with it?
To avoid this Tridentine Anathema...
How can you say that the Church does not use the Novus Ordo rite?
How can you say that Paul VI did not approve it?
Faith does not contradict reason.
The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.” The “received and approved rites” are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII). Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever.”
Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy
Freemasons cannot be Popes.That's debatable. Can they be validly elected popes, since they are excommunicated for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? Yes. Pope Pius XII changed the rules of the conclave (as did Pius X) and ordered that even those who are excommunicated shall not be prohibited from voting or being voted for, in the conclave.
34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)
Incorrect. Anything that is taught by all the Bishops and the Pope in unity is infallible. It does not have to always have been taught.Then you are a NOer.
That was because there was not a Pope, and therefore not a council. That is why there is error.That whole idea is a lie, don't you fall for it Cantarella. Slap your face a few times and shake yourself out of it!
So, if dogma is the rule of faith, then why wasn't it heresy for people not to believe in it before it was defined by the Church? Hmmmmm? This ALONE puts the lie to Drew's invention (or reinvention of Protestant heresy that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.I'm not arguing that 'dogma is the rule of faith' or whatever. Both doctrine and pope are necessary. I don't understand the debate; it's like arguing over which is more important - scripture or tradition? Who cares? You need both.
YOU CLOWNS are the ones who say it's possible.I've never said the Church can teach something new. That was forlorn. I'm the one preaching that the Church can only teach "what has always been taught". Remember? Or you just like to post witty comments, which make no sense?
To say that the Church can depose a Pope is Conciliarism.You can call it whatever you want. You act like it's a condemned idea (which it's not). Theologians have debated the idea for DECADES, if not centuries. It's still a matter the Church has never decided.
Drew, Stubborn, and Pax -- you are manifest heretics who no longer publicly profess the Catholic faith. You haven't even the slightest clue about what Catholicism actually is.Says the man with 1 piece of evidence - a quote from Fenton. Your entire idea on the magisterium is based on this, which is weak. You use the word 'universal' incorrectly. You refuse to accept that there is a fallible magisterium. You reinterpret the word 'fallible' to mean 'infallible'. You have no facts to back up your case. Your agenda keeps you from the truth.
from worshiping some bozo wearing white robes and walking around the Vatican gardens.Isn't it odd that the two main people who are arguing 1) for the inordinate elevation of the magisterium (Ladislaus) and 2) the "never failing faith" of the pope (Cantarella), inadvertently let slip comments similar to the above, where their hatred comes out for the current pope?
It's critical.Define critical. The first i've EVER heard of this 'proximate/remote' debate is 2 months ago here. If it's SOOOO critical, why isn't it in the catechism, or talked about in a council, etc.
So, if dogma is the rule of faith, then why wasn't it heresy for people not to believe in it before it was defined by the Church? Hmmmmm? This ALONE puts the lie to Drew's invention (or reinvention of Protestant heresy that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.
Profound refutation this.Sorry Lad, but it is so simple - you can't find your pope = you lost your faith. Crazy as it is, there's your problem in under 10 words.
No, buddy, it's you who have lost your way and have lost touch with Catholicism.
This is a discussion of the deaf.This. Absolutely this.
Simple questions are "down thumbed" and ignored, in typical sedehypocrisy style.
I have better things to do. I hope to see you all in Heaven one day. Good luck!
PS : Drew, I am still thinking about your position on the Rule of Faith. I am not convinced, but I will let you know via PM if I want to further discuss this with you.
If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.Retarded argument. It's USE is already condemned by Quo Primum.
First, Paul VI made absolutely no changes to the actual Tridentine Latin Roman Rite; he simple promulgated a new order of Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is not an upgrade or modification to the Tridentine Mass. It is a completely brand new rite.Yes and no. It started out as a modification/replacement of the old rite. But when the sspx kept using the 1962 missal, new-rome said their new missal was just a "different usage of the same rite". It's a new rite, based off an old one. It's not brand new, because not everything changed.
Second, if Paul VI was indeed Pope, then he was just exercising his proper authority "when introducing and approving a new rite or modifying those he judged to require modification”. Historical evidence proves this fact. There are many rites out there that the Church has used and approved. Pope Pius XII clearly teaches this in Mediator Dei:I've pointed the above error out to others and I will point it out to you, to give you once chance to have integrity and accept correction.
"The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”
If Paul VI was indeed Pope, he could promulgate a new Latin rite given that no Pope has an authority higher than another Pope.Paul VI could've changed the law of Quo Primum, but he did not. Yes, he had the authority to issue a revised missal, but he did not. Pope Benedict XVI confirmed that Quo Primum is still in force. Ergo, the 1962 missal, which is a legal revision of Pope St Pius V's missal, is THE MISSAL of the latin church. Paul VI's missal is not allowed to be used without sinning, and is not required to be used.
And if you think otherwise, that is an indication of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Papal authority.
1) Quo Primum does not bind any of the legitimate successors of St. Peter.Quo Primum does bind his successors if the successors do not revoke or revise the law! Once a pope is elected, all previous laws do not just go away! If a pope wants to change a law, he must change it BY NAME. This is how laws work.
2) Paul VI didn't make ANY changes to the Tridentine Rite and this is what St. Pius V was forbidding.Go re-read Quo Primum again. It's a very dense, but short, law. It has 5 different parts:
3) Quo Primum is a disciplinary decree.No one is arguing that Paul VI didn't have the authority to change Quo Primum; he did have the authority. But he never changed the law, so it's authority is still in effect, as Pope Benedict confirmed in 2007.
Is Pope Pius XII wrong?
"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the ѕυιcιdє of altering the Faith in her liturgy..."
...Puis XII Devant L'Histoire
Forlorn, your understanding of dogma is a little off. The Assumption is a dogma now, and was not before the 50s but it was ALWAYS held to be true, until Protestants cane around. The Assumption is not a new truth; it’s from Apostolic times.I repeated countless times that the truth doesn't change you bumbling idiot, but it was not a Church dogma until the 50s. The truth never changes, but as the Church's understanding of the truth expands the room for personal opinions narrows. Nothing changes, nothing old is contradicted or discarded. But formerly contested issues become settled and the truth of it clearly enshrined in dogma.
The Immaculate Conception is also from Apostolic times. It started being debated in the Middle Ages and was RE-TAUGHT as a dogma in the 1800s.
ALL TRUTHS of our faith are Apostolic. Just because the immaculate conception was debated in the Middle Ages does not mean it was NEW, it just means the truth was corrupted and not understood.
The Roman pontiff can introduce and modify new rites, as long as the substance is intact.No one said he couldn't. But if he does, he has to FOLLOW CHURCH LAW in doing so. If you read Quo Primum (and all laws which follow it, which revise the missal of Quo Primum), each pope specifically names the previous missal he is revising and specifically says what is changing. Paul VI's law did not revise Quo Primum, nor the 1962 missal, and he never claimed he did.
What makes Mr. Kramer and you think that the Pope of Rome falls into the rank of "any ecclesiastical pastor"?
Paul VI does not fall into this condition of "every pastor of the Church" here for two simple reasons:
First, Paul VI made absolutely no changes to the actual Tridentine Latin Roman Rite; he simple promulgated a new order of Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is not an upgrade or modification to the Tridentine Mass. It is a completely brand new rite.
Second, if Paul VI was indeed Pope, then he was just exercising his proper authority "when introducing and approving a new rite or modifying those he judged to require modification”. Historical evidence proves this fact. There are many rites out there that the Church has used and approved. Pope Pius XII clearly teaches this in Mediator Dei:
If Paul VI was indeed Pope, he could promulgate a new Latin rite given that no Pope has an authority higher than another Pope.
And if you think otherwise, that is an indication of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Papal authority.
If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13
Why do you keep changing the topic?
Cantarella:
I had to laugh at this question. Fr. Ringrose dropped out of the discussion at least 25,000 views ago. The original topic has changed over and over again. It’s become stream of consciousness non stop. Whatever is on the poster’s mind, he blurts out on this topic. The very meaning of ‘Topic’ has been obliterated. The thread has become a dumping ground for any and all so-called “topics.”
Matthew, you have taken the liberty in times past to either change the wording of certain topics, or eliminate them altogether. Why don’t you at least take this particular “topic” and name it simply
MISCELLANIA, or, CATCH ALL, or BASH AN ERRANT PRIEST, or SEDEVACANTISM MADE EASY, or I’M CONFUSED, or YOU’RE AN IDIOT, or, DOES FR. JENKINS DYE HIS HAIR,etc.? Anything! But please, let’s not pretend that it has anything to with Fr. Ringrose and the Resistance. Folks lost interest in Father weeks ago and hundreds and hundreds of comments earlier.
Also, Mr. Drew, you did not address the other contents of my posts, firstly, that Paul VI made absolutely no changes to the actual Tridentine Latin Roman Rite; he simple promulgated a new order of Mass. The Tridentine cannon is explicitly referring to changes made to "received and approved rites". The Novus Ordo is not a "change" to the Tridentine rite; but a completely brand new rite.I addressed it completely. If you're going to allow Ladislaus to answer for you, then you have to allow others to answer for Drew.
Why should I have to go through such exhausting mental gymnastics to realize what is evident?It's not mental gymnastics, it's a matter of law. To enact, revise or revoke a law requires a PROCESS and one that cannot be done willy-nilly, haphazardly, etc. Law is very precise and must be.
The Novus Ordo Mass is an invalid rite, not because it did not come from the "Infallible Magisterium" or because the wording "all vs. many" or the priest facing the people, nor the altar girls or the immodest women at the rail; but for the simple reason that the ONLY person on earth with the power of introducing and approving new rites for the Church, this is, the Sovereign Pontiff, was an illegitimate impostor.
He was a false Pope.
I suspect it because of the Magisterial contradiction in the setting of an Ecunemical Council. Mainly in the docuмents Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate; and Dignitatis Humanae.Ok, so you're saying Paul VI was a false pope because V2 contradicts Tradition, right? But WHEN did he become a false pope? Before or after the council?
This must be the silliest argument I have heard for a while. Hopefully, those who are not participating in this thread realize the extent that R&R must go in order to support their nonsense.
I am starting to wonder, Mr. Drew, if you are actually responding to ME in this thread or just copying and pasting from other articles you write, which are actually quite irrelevant to my replies.
In the previous post, I used the exact wording posted by Fr. Kramer. Posted by YOU:
My question:
What makes Mr. Kramer and you think that the Pope of Rome falls into the rank of "any ecclesiastical pastor"?
And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep".
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
The Tridentine Catechism makes mention of the existence of "many solemn rites and ceremonies" used in the Sacrifice of the Mass, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.
If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.
“Not by any stretch of the imagination. Every good builder begins by removing the gross accretions, the evident distortions; then with more delicacy and attention he sets out to revise particulars. The latter remains to be achieved for the Liturgy so that the fullness, dignity and harmony may shine forth once again.”
The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Fr. Alcuin Reid
I guess we can both agree that the canon in Latin is the most accurate, so here it is:
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31044598_10155596642173691_630274250600117338_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=9e4fd498d7cace51895c5c09e55d4fca&oe=5B534E43)
"Aut in novus alios per quencuмque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse".
"To be changed by any pastor of the Churches".
You are drowning in a glass of water because regardless of the English translation that is used, every pastor, any pastor, a pastor....Trent is not referring to the Pope of Rome!. The Roman Pontiff does not fall into this condition. The Pope alone as a Vicar of Christ on earth can approve and introduce new ecclesiastical rites as he has done in the past. Also, Paul VI didn't make ANY changes to the "approved and received" Tridentine Rite. He promulgated a new order of Mass, a new Rite.
You are really going to excruciating efforts to defend what is indefensible. And really, you got nothing but your personal deductions.
The Tridentine Catechism makes mention of the existence of "many solemn rites and ceremonies" used in the Sacrifice of the Mass, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.Quo Primum was made a law AFTER the council of Trent. The only rites and ceremonies allowed AFTER Quo Primum are 1) those rites 200+ years old as of 1570ish, 2) Tridentine rite. That's it.
If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.
I am reposting Canon Gregory Hesse's video at the time (19:10) that he directly answers and corrects your error. You only need to listen for a couple of minutes. It won't hurt.Good research, Drew. I'm going to have to listen more to Fr Hessee; i've never heard him speak before.
https://youtu.be/2gPX7XEBdUQ?t=1148 (https://youtu.be/2gPX7XEBdUQ?t=1148)
Pope Pius XII is explicit and clear about this teaching in Mediator Dei:
Which is based upon the 1917 Code of Canon Law, # 1257.
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30727807_10155596813798691_8826181681467649312_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=13180fb9f5663aff69fd64b12ca2446a&oe=5B6C63C3)
The Holy See alone has the right to enact the form of the Sacred Liturgy, as well as to approve the liturgical books.
Because the Holy See is vacant (on account of an impostor acting as "Sovereign Pontiff") the Novus Ordo Mass IS NOT A RITE EITHER PROMULGATED OR USED BY THE CHURCH.
I believe Montini's election was invalid because he was not Catholic.Do you mean he was excommunicated because he was a freemason, or that he apostatized?
I only heard of him off and on and *wrongly*, did not think much of Fr. Hesse until just recently - I changed my tune quick after I actually listened to his talks. I have downloaded them all and listened to most of the ones posted here. (https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Hesse/MP3-Remastered/Fr.%20Gregory%20Hesse%20Audio%20Files%20(Remastered)/)
We were blessed to be able to attend his conferences whenever possible. We listened to this yesterday. There is another video on Papal Infallibility which is highly recommended and covers what we have been discussing on this video. Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVh2vdhDeQ
(https://www.youtube.com/)
Ma'am, there's nothing wrong with the source I provided.
However, there is definitely something wrong with a quote you provided on this thread...
There is no such person as Bishop Brizen...he does not exist
If this quote is true, where is the letter?
A more reason for despair is to think that a legitimate successor of St. Peter could authorize an invalid or sacrilegious Mass worldwide without the gates of Hell having prevailed against us. And we know, infallibly, that that is impossible.
Guarding the Sacred Liturgy is part of the duty of the Church. Pope Pius XI made it clear in his Apostolic Constitution, Divini Cultus:
A child can see that if the conciliar popes are true popes, then the Holy See has indeed "received and approved" the Novus Ordo rite given that the Popes themselves along with the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy and millions of Catholics throughout the world have been saying it publicly for decades. If the Church, in promulgating the NOM has failed in her duty to safeguard divine worship, then the Church has defected from an essential part of her mission.
So instead of entertaining the possibility of an actual crypto - Jew infiltrating the Seat of Peter (directly proportional to the raising socio-economic Judaic power over the globe), which would explain every.single.thing. and more, you stubbornly cling to the fact that the Pope has defected, the Magisterium has defected, the Liturgy has defected. Basically, in your position, the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church.
If Paul VI was indeed pope, you have a defected Church.
Cantarella's contradiction #904:
Why was Paul VI not the pope?
Her Answer: I suspect it because of the Magisterial contradiction in the setting of an Ecunemical Council. Mainly in the docuмents Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate; and Dignitatis Humanae.
So, her reason for Paul VI not being the pope is because V2 contradicts Tradition.
Why is the new mass wrong?
Her Answer: The Holy See alone has the right to enact the form of the Sacred Liturgy, as well as to approve the liturgical books. Because the Holy See is vacant (on account of an impostor acting as "Sovereign Pontiff") the Novus Ordo Mass IS NOT A RITE EITHER PROMULGATED OR USED BY THE CHURCH.
So, her reason for Paul VI's mass being wrong is because V2 contradicts Tradition. For if V2 did NOT contradict Tradition, then the pope would have authority to create the new mass.
So where is the contradiction?
1. She has said repeatedly, ad nauseum, that an ecuмenical council is infallible. Yet when V2 teaches something against Tradition, she says it's no longer infallible, it's an error and is a "proof" that Paul VI wasn't pope. Circular logic.
2. She has said repeatedly, ad nauseum, that a pope's personal faith "cannot fail". Yet when Paul VI "taught" error at V2 which was against Tradition, she says his faith didn't fail - it's just "proof" he wasn't pope. Again, Circular logic.
On the one hand, she says it's a "dogma" that an ecuмenical council is infallible. On the other hand, she says it's a "dogma" that the pope's personal faith "cannot fail". One of them (and most likely both) are wrong; obviously, they aren't dogmas. But, the V2 situation has shown her views to be contradictory. Either one of the above MUST BE FALSE (and probably both.) Which one is wrong, Cantarella?
The only answer you can make is to say that Paul VI was NEVER pope to begin with, which would be ANOTHER CONTRADICTION of your above, first statement. Of course, that begs the question of "why wasn't he the pope?". And since you don't have objective, public evidence like a V2 to point to, your reasons would be highly subjective and very uncertain.
Thus, the foundation of sedevacantism is shown to be quite shaky...
It is was as simple as this then we were still be hearing Mass in Aramaic and Hebrew. Evidently, there must be an Authority in charge to make the necessary modifications in all liturgical matters, as long as the substance of the Sacrament remains intact. This authority is the Sovereign Pontiff alone. St. Peter himself began to offer the Mass in the Greek language modifying it from what had been "received" in the Last Supper.
As the 1917 Code of Canon Law states and Pope Pius XII confirms it, it is the Holy See alone which has the right to enact the form of the Sacred Liturgy, as well as to approve the liturgical books. The ecclesiastical docuмents that deal with Divine worship, this is, the prayers, ceremonies, and rites of the Holy Mass belong to the realm of discipline; not dogma.
They (the Modernists) exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of Tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind.... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church”; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: “We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.” Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: “I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church”
St. Pius X, Pascenedi
"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.' To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
"There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.” The ‘received and approved rites’ are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII). Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever.”
Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy
"They wander entirely away from the true and full notion and understanding of the Sacred Liturgy, who consider it only as an external part of divine worship, and presented to the senses; or as a kind of apparatus of ceremonial properties; and they no less err who think of it as a mere compendium of laws and precepts, by which the ecclesiastical Hierarchy bids the sacred rites to be arranged and ordered."
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
The Liturgy cannot be compared to a piece of equipment, something made, but rather to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development. In the West there has been, of course, another factor involved. This was the Papal authority, the Pope took ever more clearly the responsibility upon himself for the liturgical legislation, and so doing foresaw in a juridical authority for the forth setting of the liturgical development. The stronger the papal primacy was exercised, the more the question arose, just what the limits of this authority were, which of course, no-one had ever before thought about. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression has been made that the Pope, as far as the Liturgy goes, can actually do everything he wishes to do, certainly when he was acting with the mandate of an Ecuмenical Council. Finally, the idea that the Liturgy is a predetermined ''given'', the fact that nobody can simply do what he wishes with her, disappeared out of the public conscience of the Western [Church]. In fact, the First Vatican Council did not in any way define that the Pope was an absolute monarch! Au contraire, the first Vatican Council sketched his role as that of a guarantee for the obedience to the Revealed Word. The papal authority is limited by the Holy Tradition of the Faith, and that regards also the Liturgy. The Liturgy is no ''creation'' of the authorities. Even the Pope can be nothing other than a humble servant of the Liturgy's legitimate development and of her everlasting integrity and identity.
Pope Benedict XVI, Spirit of the Liturgy
“What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy, the fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced -- as if in a technical production -- by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true visionary and with the fearlessness of a true witness, opposed this falsification and tirelessly taught us the living fullness of a true liturgy, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge of the sources. As a man who knew and who loved history, he showed us the multiple forms of the evolution and of the path of the liturgy; as a man who saw history from the inside, he saw in this development and in the fruit of this development the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, which is not the object of our action, but which may marvelously continue to blossom and to ripen, if we join its mystery intimately.”
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, from his introduction in the French edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s book, The Reform of the Roman Rite
Once one realizes that liturgical worship is not and could never be a matter of mere discipline it make perfect sense. St. Prosper of Aquitaine’s maxim, “lex supplicandi legem statuat credenda; let the law of prayer determine the law of belief,” was first used in the context of his apology for the doctrine of grace when he said, “let our tradition of prayer confirm this particular belief.” It has been since widely cited in papal docuмents.
There is a primacy of worship over belief. “Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.” Matt. 22: 37-38. God is the author of Divine worship.
“And the liturgy is an undoubtedly sacred thing; for, through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our faith, and we are obligated to it by a most serious duty because of the benefits and helps received, of which we are always in need. Hence a kind of intimate relationship between dogma and sacred liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Celestine I proposed and expressed a canon of faith in the formulas of the Liturgy: ‘Let the law of supplication establish the law of believing. For when the leaders of holy peoples administer legislation enjoined upon themselves they plead the course of the human race before divine Clemency, and they beg and pray while the entire Church sighs with them.’”
Pope Pius XI, Divini cultus
“Reflective of the primacy of prayer over understanding is the semantic development of the term ‘orthodoxy’ in the Christian context. The Classical Greek compound noun orthodoxia originally signified ‘right opinion’. However, since the second component doxa had also the secondary meanings of ‘glory’ and ‘praise’, the word came, in the usage of Greek speaking Christians, to mean ‘right worship.’ Hence the Old Slavonic loan-translation pravoslavie (‘orthdoxy’, but literally ‘right praise’) adapted the secondary (Christian) rather than the primary (classical) meaning of orthodoxia”.
Geoffrey Hull, Banished Heart
Once this thread reaches 100 pages, I'm out.
Mons. Des Lauriers has much more credentials that Fr. Hesse.Dominican Theologian who became Sedevacantist - Novus Ordo Watch (https://novusordowatch.org/2018/02/in-memoriam-guerard-des-lauriers/)
Liturgical rites being of a disciplinary nature; not dogmatic, is easily proved by the fact that they are not universal, which you yourself have mentioned several times is a crucial element of "Dogma".
A "dogmatic definition" automatically means that it is UNIVERSALLY applicable to all Catholics of every rite, universally binding on all Catholics, and FORMALLY revealed by God as dogma.
That is how we can tell that Quo Primum for example, is a disciplinary decree, because it is only applicable to the Western Rite church and it had absolutely no binding power on the Eastern Rite churches.
Those who are looking from the fence can realize the plain falsehood of this statement and this is just a quick example among many.
Here is the canon in question:
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30727807_10155596813798691_8826181681467649312_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=13180fb9f5663aff69fd64b12ca2446a&oe=5B6C63C3)
Please read what is explicitly stated. This is not a mere "supervision" function. The canon is very clear that the Holy See alone has the right to ENACT the form of the Sacred Liturgy. Enacting is not merely supervising.
Looking at the dictionary definition of the word ENACT:
Make (a bill or other proposal) law.
"Make" is not the same as "supervise".
... it's just that conversations get sidetracked.We all need a good laugh at least once a week. :jester:
But the sidetracks which sidetracked the ORIGINAL sidetracks were worth exploring.
Why, it could push viewing totals well beyond 50,000One can dream
.
Fr. Hesse on Pope Honorius:
https://youtu.be/VVVh2vdhDeQ?t=660
The fundamental error you are making here is that you forget that it is the Holy See alone; and not Mr. Drew, who gets to decide which rites are those "received and approved" by the Church to be used in both Western and Eastern churches. If Paul VI was indeed Pope, then it must be said that the Novus Ordo rite is valid, good, and also pleasing to God, because we know infallibly that the Church does not put forth "incentives to impiety" for the faithful. This is only of course, if Paul VI was a legitimate authority.
The Church has all authority in the promulgation of liturgical rites and the administration of the sacraments, as long as the substance remains untouched. You may not like it; but it is just the way it is. Nothing in the Church gets accomplished however, without the express approval of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Pope of Rome.
The Council of Trent stated concerning "the power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist":
"What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced -- as if in a technical production -- by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment."
Pope Benedict XVI, introduction to the French edition of Msgr. Klaus Gamber's book
After the Second Vatican Council, the impression has been made that the Pope, as far as the Liturgy goes, can actually do everything he wishes to do, certainly when he was acting with the mandate of an Ecuмenical Council. Finally, the idea that the Liturgy is a predetermined ''given'', the fact that nobody can simply do what he wishes with her, disappeared out of the public conscience of the Western [Church]. In fact, the First Vatican Council did not in any way define that the Pope was an absolute monarch! Au contraire, the first Vatican Council sketched his role as that of a guarantee for the obedience to the Revealed Word. The papal authority is limited by the Holy Tradition of the Faith, and that regards also the Liturgy. The Liturgy is no ''creation'' of the authorities. Even the Pope can be nothing other than a humble servant of the Liturgy's legitimate development and of her everlasting integrity and identity.
Pope Benedict XVI, Spirit of the Liturgy
We are now involved in a liturgy in which God is no longer the center of our attention. Today, the eyes of the faithful are no longer focused on God’s Son having become Man hanging before us on the cross, or on the pictures of His saints, but on the human community assembled for a commemorative meal. The assembly of people is sitting there, face to face with the ‘presider,’ expecting from him, in accordance with the ‘modern’ spirit of the Church, not so much a transfer of God’s grace, but primarily some good ideas and advice on how to deal with daily life and its challenges.
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
Great summary, Drew. By and large, personal sedevacantism (i.e. outside of a Church decision) is an extreme over-reaction to the extreme errors of heresy. It is a human attempt to deal with spiritual chaos. While it is psychologically and emotionally understandable, it is not catholic because it views supernatural things - the Faith, the Mass, and Divine Truth - through a natural lens. It attempts to fix a Divine problem without following God's Divine Plan - which is to wait for the Church to act. As has been said many times by various posters, it is proven that personal sedevacantism is fruitless, both on a practical level and from God's point of view, when the result of accepting this view leads to the final and unanswerable question: "So we've gotten rid of the bad pope...now what?"Wait for the Pope who actively preaches heresy and celebrates a false rite every Sunday to condemn himself? A Pope who, by virtue of his heresy, is not a member of the Church he leads. A Pope who is still somehow apparently valid and yet you completely ignore and reject all his authority.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVh2vdhDeQ&feature=youtu.be&t=660
https://youtu.be/VVVh2vdhDeQ
God can use the Church to correct a pope (as some Cardinals recently corrected 'Amoris Laeticia'). God can also end a papacy anytime He likes, through death, a fact which you fail to remember. Just as war is a punishment for sin; bad leaders are also a punishment. God can end the punishment at anytime. For the present, I suspect He is using it to separate the sheep from the goats. Nothing happens by accident with God or without His permission.To separate the sheep from the goats? All the Vatican 2 Church is doing is welcoming in the modernists and relativists, while excommunicating good honest traditionalists like +Lefebvre. It's kicking out the sheep and welcoming the goats with open arms.
Within the first several minutes Fr. Hesse says: "I am not today discussing if the sedevacantists are right or not. I personally believe that the pope is the pope because he is not yet in formal heresy."
This is the meat and potatoes of the Recognize and Resist position. It was, as far as I know, the official position of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. John Paul 2 had a distorted notion of Tradition but believed he was acting in accordance with Catholic Tradition. I can understand this position.
However, some of those in the Resistance claim that they are the only ones continuing in the true path blazed out by Archbishop Lefebvre just because they are militant anti-sedevacantists (sometimes apparently more so than anti-modernists or anti-Feeneyites). This doesn't help the Crisis but only adds to it because they attack their fellow Catholics on the grounds in the name of being true to Archbishop Lefebvre, which if examined closer doesn't exactly seem to be the case.
Most recently and especially with the alleged pontificate of Bergoglio we see those of the Recognize and Resist position come out as being dogmatic sedeplenists. Books are written entitled "the heretical pope" affirming that a pope can indeed fall into (or always have been) a manifest and formal heretic. Sean Johnson argues in official Resistance publications that the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact and applies this to the alleged pontificate of Francis, thus excommunicating his fellow Traditional Catholic brethren from the tiny remnant in which he finds himself.
Suddenly, those claiming to be the only true spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, while casting into doubt the Catholicity of all other Traditional Catholics, waste great energies to defend the alleged papacy of Bergoglio because, they claim, a formal and manifest heretic continues to be pope and it is a dogmatic fact. You have to be extremely ignorant or foolish to truly believe that Fr. Hesse, Bishop De Castro Mayer and Archbishop Lefebvre would support such claims had they been alive today.
5) The Bishops around the world in union with the Pope do not need a gathering of a General Council in order to teach infallibly. These teachings are free from heretical error, also and Catholics must give assent.This doctrine is strictly Novus Ordo Cantarella. This NO doctrine you keep referencing entirely ignores that universality in time is also necessary for a doctrine to be guaranteed infallible. V1 decreed that “all those things are to be believed as found in scripture and tradition...”
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.
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 "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world. (...and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith.")
To bring things back on topic, does Fr. Ringrose believe in Flat Earth? ;D :o ??? ;)We're working on it.....
These types of authorities have no effect on DrewComing from the man who disagrees with Cantarella that everything from a council is infallible, it’s the height of contadiction for you to declare Drew is in the wrong, when you would be as well.
Coming from the man who disagrees with Cantarella that everything from a council is infallible, it’s the height of contadiction for you to declare Drew is in the wrong, when you would be as well.Cantarella never said that. What she said is what the Church teaches, that all matters of faith defined at Ecuмenical Councils are infallible. Disciplines are not, because disciplines are not matters of faith or religion. They are neither fallible or infallible. They're just rules of Church governance that may be changed, and therefore can neither be true or false. They are just either in effect or are not. And if they are in effect they must be obeyed until revised.
:jester:
Well, OK, Drew, if you say so. Hey, at least it avoids the ACTUAL heresies of your position ... rather than the imagined ones of ours.
What Sean Johnson hasn't figured out is that the Salza/Siscoe critique of Fr. Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine is based on the totally gratuitous and false assumptions that, 1) Fr. Kramer does not understand Cajetan's argument, which Bellarmine refutes. (Although Salza & Siscoe speak only of Bellarmine's "attempted refutation" of Cajetan.) Cajetan's argument is presented in my book. I know perfectly well what Bellarmine was refuting; and I present a much more in depth critical examination of Bellarmine's doctrine on this point than anyone else who is writing on the topic at the present time; and 2) that Fr. Kramer fails to take into account Bellarmine's refutation of the Second Opinion; according to which a pope who is put into the papacy by men is not removed from the papacy without the judgment of men. I have fully explained this point in Part III of my soon to be published book; which is that a secret heretic cannot simply fall from office in the manner of a manifest heretic who publlicly defects from the faith and ceases by himself to be pope. Only when the formal heresy becomes publicly manifest can an officeholder in the Church fall from office automatically (ipso facto); without any declaration (sine ulla declaratione), and without any judgment by authority, but by operation of the law itself (ipso jure); as is explicitly set forth in canon 188 n. 4 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and is so explained in the 1952 Commentary the Pontifical Faculty of the University of Salamanca, (and remains the same in the 1983 Code, as Ecclesiastical Faculty Canon Law of the University of Navarre explain in their 2005 Commentary). Salza & Siscoe have exhumed a defunct opinion that was totally abandoned after Vatican I (Pastor Æternus) solemnly defined that the pope is the supreme judge in ALL CASES THAT REFER TO ECCLESIASTICAL EXAMINATION , and condemns the proposition that anyone can reject his judgment or judge against his judgment; or appeal to an ecuмenical council against his judgment:
Constitutio Dogmatica «Pastor Aeternus» Concilii Vaticani I: Et quoniam divino Apostolici primatus iure Romanus Pontifex universae Ecclesiae praeest, docemus etiam et declaramus, eum esse iudicem supremum fidelium (Pii PP. VI Breve, Super soliditate d. 28 Nov. 1786), et in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticuм spectantibus ad ipsius posse iudicium recurri (Concil. Oecuм. Lugdun. II); Sedis vero Apostolicae, cuius auctoritate maior non est, iudicium a nemine fore retractandum, neque cuiquam de eius licere iudicare iudicio (Ep. Nicolai 1 ad Michaelem Imporatorem). Quare a recto veritatis tramite aberrant, qui affirmant, licere ab iudiciis Romanorum Pontificuм ad oecuмenicuм Concilium tamquam ad auctoritatem Romano Pontifice superiorem appellare.
The definition makes no allowance for any exception; and its wording positively excludes such an interpretation; ERGO: The Salza/Siscoe doctrine which professes against the above quoted dogmatic definition, to wit, that papal heresy is an exception to the doctrine of papal injudicability defined in the quoted text of that Dogmatic Constitution, is HERESY.
You really need to stop posting, Drew. You do nothing but embarrass yourself more with each post.You have turned into a complete moron. Yuk.
So St. Thomas was a heretic for not believing in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? After all, it has always been dogma. So if dogma is the rule of faith, then he was a heretic, right?
I assume that you would respond that it's because the dogma was not yet proximate to him, right? At the time, that particular dogma was not the proximate rule of faith for him.
Do you know the difference between "doctrine" and "dogma"?:facepalm:
It was a doctrine before (as Pius IX is teaching here).
It becomes a DOGMA once the INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH DEFINES IT SO.
You have turned into a complete moron. Yuk.He said it's always been a dogma you blithering idiot. That was exactly his point. It has always been a dogma and yet St. Thomas was not a heretic for not believing it. Because it had not yet been defined in the infallible Magisterium. But now that it has been, any Catholic who denies it would be a heretic.
Yes, it has always been a dogma.
As Pope Pius IX puts it:
The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts........
And indeed, illustrious docuмents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner — this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient docuмents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grown only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning. - Pope BI. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus
From the CE under the entry "dogma":A Dogma is nothing other than a doctrine, solemnly defined by the pope. It is not whatever the pope or the pope in union with the bishops teach.
What is the condition of a "dogma" before it is proposed and defined solemnly by the Church as such?
Dogmas are "revealed truths" but until they are not defined by the Infallible Magisterium as such, they are not DOGMAS.
That is why St. Thomas was not a heretic for not believing in the Immaculate Conception because at the time the dogma had not been defined yet by the Church.
Subborn, just admit it. You have no idea what we're even arguing about and what it's implications are.Nope, you've turned into a complete moron alright. You are so screwed up that you don't even realize half the crap your pushing is pure Novus Ordo lies and the other half is a mixture of truth with lies - hence, your firm belief in sededoubtism.
A Dogma is nothing other than a doctrine, solemnly defined by the pope. It is not whatever the pope or the pope in union with the bishops teach.Again you completely dodge the point. If one today did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, they would be a heretic. They do not have to preach against it, holding heretical beliefs is sufficient to be a heretic. But as you yourself said, St. Thomas was not a heretic despite not believing in the Immaculate Conception.
St. Thomas was not a heretic for not believing it, but had he preached against that doctrine, he could have been a heretic if the Church judged him as one. Now the Church could judge you and the poor Lad and the forlorn fool as heretics for preaching the NO "totality doctrine" as if it is a "Dogmatic truth", as you call it.
The reason your "totality doctrine" is heresy is because in order to adhere to that NO doctrine, you MUST reject defined dogma, which is exactly what you have been doing.
Again you completely dodge the point. If one today did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, they would be a heretic. They do not have to preach against it, holding heretical beliefs is sufficient to be a heretic. But as you yourself said, St. Thomas was not a heretic despite not believing in the Immaculate Conception.You have a Novus Ordo understanding of the whole issue. This means that you can discus this issue at length and on the same merry-go-round as poor Lad and get just as far as he's gotten - right into sededoubtism.
So what changed? The Immaculate Conception was dogmatically defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium. That proves that it is adherence to the Magisterium or lack thereof that decide whether one is a heretic or not. One can have beliefs that are contrary to the truth, such as St. Thomas had, but if said truths(such as the Immaculate Conception) have not yet been defined by the infallible Magisterium, then one is not a heretic for said beliefs.
You have a Novus Ordo understanding of the whole issue. This means that you can discus this issue at length and on the same merry-go-round as poor Lad and get just as far as he's gotten - right into sededoubtism.Nice try, but the Immaculate Conception was defined ex cathedra.
As for what dogma is and when to believe it - all you need to do is confirm that all the bishops in the world are in union with the pope when whatever he / they teaches suits you - because that is what you say is dogma, everyone else is a heretic. Remember now?
The Immaculate Conception has been a feast of the Church on December 8th for Centuries, since WAY before it was defined in the 1800s. It has been an IMPLICIT part of the Faith since Apostolic times. St Thomas Aquinas never denied this truth; he never denied that Our Lady had a special grace, or that She was sinless from birth. What was being debated was when conception occurred and when the soul was infused, which St Thomas thought was AFTER the physical cells had formed. The Church, by defining this dogma, clarified in a sense, (and in advance of the age of abortion) that life began at conception. Before that time, scientists debated when life actually happened.Indeed it has. But since it had not been defined by the infallible Magisterium, St. Thomas was not a heretic for his false beliefs. And yet someone with the same beliefs today would be. Showing that Magisterium is the rule of faith.
The distinction you are not making is that the Church issues dogmas to CLARIFY the truths that have been around since the beginning. It's not accurate to say that these truths could be denied in the past; it is only accurate to say they were not believed IN THE SAME LEVEL OF DETAIL that they are required to be now.Exactly. The truths have always been around. And yet St. Thomas was not a heretic for believing contrary to certain truths of the faith, as said truths had not been dogmatically defined by the Magisterium. But if one were to deny the Immaculate Conception now, they would be a heretic. The Immaculate Conception was just as true in St. Thomas' time as it is now, but if the Magisterium does not teach something then we are not heretics for not believing in that thing. Ergo the Magisterium is the rule of faith.
The protestants like to accuse the pope of issuing "new" dogmas. Of course, the pope does not have the power to do so, nor does he actually do so, because the Church has TRADITION, which the Protestants reject. ALL TRUTHS of the Faith have been around since Apostolic times. It is only after the Apostles that the Church CLARIFIES and adds DETAILS to such Truths, as necessary, (usually when they come under attack from heretics). But ALL TRUTHS have been around, and must be believed implicitly as part of our Faith.
Nice try, but the Immaculate Conception was defined ex cathedra.The dogma was defined, not invented. The Immaculate Conception of Our Lady always was one of the doctrines of the Church, it was never some new idea, some new concoction or pious innovation that the pope in union with all the bishops of the world decided to make a dogma. But that is how you and Cantarella and Lad preach the whole process works. Ridiculous!
Now please address the issue instead of dodging it. What was it, if not the defining of the dogma ex cathedra(i.e by the Extraordinary Magisterium), that made St. Thomas not a heretic but someone who denies the same truth today a heretic?
So if someone in 1250 had denied the Immaculate Conception he would have been a heretic and outside the Church?I am 100% with Pope Pius IX's teaching when it comes to this, he says we are obliged in conscience to submit to this and other teachings not solemnly defined which are contained in the ordinary and universal magisterium. According to the pope, we will be guilty of serious error, perhaps even heresy if we deny teachings contained in the ordinary and universal magisterium, even though they are not solemnly defined.
PS -- nobody is saying that the Church's definition invented the dogma, just that it made it obligatory for faith and endowed it with the requisite absolute certainty required of supernatural faith. In other words, it's the Magisterium which acts as the proximate rule of faith.When you have a NO doctrine that Cantarella calls a "dogma of faith" and you say you believe the same as her (I'm speaking of this NO doctrine of whatever all the bishops in the world in union with the pope teach is infallible), that is exactly what you are saying.
Let's concede that someone who denied the Immaculate Conception before its definition was an objective/material heretic...You wouldn't say that he was a formal heretic, however, would you?Agree, probably not a formal heretic. If some dude was just running around saying all matter of things against the Blessed Virgin, then he would've been told to stop, I'm sure. Had he kept going, I'm sure he would've been set straight or else. But this is hypothetical; I have no idea.
You really need to stop posting, Drew. You do nothing but embarrass yourself more with each post.
So St. Thomas was a heretic for not believing in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? After all, it has always been dogma. So if dogma is the rule of faith, then he was a heretic, right?
I assume that you would respond that it's because the dogma was not yet proximate to him, right? At the time, that particular dogma was not the proximate rule of faith for him.
But, hmmmm, WHAT made it proximate to Catholics so that now denying it is in fact heresy whereas it wasn't proximate for St. Thomas and was not heresy for him? Hmmmm. Oh, yeah, right, the Church DEFINED it at some point. Yes, the Church, indeed, the Pope.
So that, the Church's teaching and definition, is what turns dogma from the state of being non-heretical to reject to the state of being heretical to reject. It's the Church's definition that is the PROXIMATE RULE that makes it heretical to deny it.
You at one point claimed that what "Proximate" meant for a dogma was that it was "close in time" to Revelation? :laugh1: And you were dead serious. No, proximate doesn't mean close in time to Revelation, but close to our intellects for belief ... the complete opposite of being close to the revealed truth. Remote/Proximate are in relation to our acceptance of it and not in relation to God's revealing of it.
So you have the basic TERMS under discussion here completely BACKWARDS and you have the hubris to lecture us about what they mean.
:jester:
"By appealing to DOGMA over the Magisterium, what you're really saying is that my, Drew's, INTERPRETATION of said DOGMA, TRUMPS the INTERPTATION OF THE MAGISTERIUM. YOU ARE MAKING YOUR PRIVATE JUDGMENT YOUR PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH." (sic)
Ladisalus
“No, proximate doesn't mean close in time to Revelation, but close to our intellects for belief ... the complete opposite of being close to the revealed truth. Remote/Proximate are in relation to our acceptance of it and not in relation to God's revealing of it.”
Ladislaus
St. Thomas therefore was guilty only of material heresy because he misunderstood the remote rule of faith on this truth.I think he was not guilty of ANY heresy at all. He was debating a specific area of the doctrine which had yet to be defined, ie when is the soul infused into the body of a child?
I don't really think he is trying to mask his identity at all. He already had posted this publicly on his Facebook page before he commented publicly about having posted it here. No need to get all aggressive about it. Especially when you consider that "Don" and the first name is the normal way of naming a priest in Italian.
Don Paolo,
Why do you speak of Fr. Kramer in the third person? You ARE, Fr. Kramer.
No, the Immaculate Conception was not held as divinely revealed by the OUM. Otherwise, there need not even have been a solemn definition.I told you one of the reasons for solemn definition - "One of the many reasons the pope solemnly defines a doctrine, is to erase all opposing opinions - for all time."
I don't really think he is trying to mask his identity at all. He already had posted this publicly on his Facebook page before he commented publicly about having posted it here. No need to get all aggressive about it. Especially when you consider that "Don" and the first name is the normal way of naming a priest in Italian.I wonder if he realizes that he posted his comments in the wrong thread though. Wouldn't his response make more sense if it was included in the other SJ thread?
You reduce the non-infallible Magisterium to nothing more than a man or a group of men opining about various doctrinal matters.The magisterium can be infallible outside of solemn pronouncements. One of the ways is the determination that something has been taught 'everywhere, always and by all'. This means that such teaching is CONSTANT (i.e. taught everywhere) and UNIVERSAL (taught always) and TRADITIONAL (i.e. taught by all the Apostles or all the Church Fathers).
What an utterly dishonest liar you are, Drew. It was apparent that you misunderstood my use of the term REVELATION and that you were using in the sense of "truths revealed" whereas I was using it to mean "God's act or process of revealing". You then denied that it could have the second sense, claiming that I was ignorant of English ... all to promote your ridiculous ad hominem narrative that I had committed some kind of "colossal error". Then I shut you up (but I guess only temporarily) with a post from Dictionary.com which lists MY use of the term revelation as definition #1 while yours was definition #2. So much for my ignorance of English.
You are a liar and a calumniator. You started out with the lie that we hold the Pope to be the rule of faith whereas we clearly said it was the Magisterium. Then you backed down for a while, but then kept reasserting this lie.
You are really a disgrace. You are the one who's absolutely consumed with vanity ... to the point of promoting Protestant heresy rather than admitting a mistake you made editorializing on some public blog.
Let's revisit this briefly, since you continue with your calumny. Dictionary.com:
So the meaning that I was using for the term "revelation" is listed as #1 above ... which I cited to you after you claimed that it could no be used that way and that I was ignorant of English.
And, despite the above, you continue to falsely accuse me of heresy, asserting that I claimed that the Magisterium is not #2, a revealed truth. And I explicitly rejected the heretical proposition of which you accused me as being false and indeed heretical.
You so commit a grave sin now by falsely accusing me of Protestant heresy yet again ... AFTER this has been brought to your attention.
I demand a public retraction and apology. And you need to go to Confession, buddy.
The result is a qualitative decline in the quality of post,Ladislaus has great posts and I have learned very much from his views, even those I occassionally disagree with. He just has an annoyingly bad habit of calling people names. He shouldn't be banned for this but I wish he would act more mature and stick to the facts.
And while your stated purpose for letting
sedes post is because you want high traffic, ironically, their bitter spirit is chasing the more intelligent traffic away, while attracting all manner of fringe craziness (sede, flat earth, etc).
Why don't you stop whining and better learn your position instead, so you can represent the Resistance with actual solid theological arguments?
There's no probably about it. Someone who didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception before its definition would most certainly not on that account have been a formal heretic.What is absurd is that you word for word contradict Pope Pius IX's teaching on the matter, ignore correction, site NO doctrines as if they are dogma, and call being bound to truth absurd. That's what is absurd.
So the question is WHY?
You guys keep evading the question of what exactly the role of the Magisterium is if it's not the Proximate Rule of Faith. You reduce the non-infallible Magisterium to nothing more than a man or a group of men opining about various doctrinal matters. Stubborn here said that he would give "submission" to some anonymous poster here on CI as much as he would to the Magisterium ... because what he was submitting to was the truth and not to the teaching authority. How absurd! Some of you guys have completely lost any concept of what Catholic Magisterium actually is.
It is not uncommon for a writer to refer to himself in the 3rd person.Hello Fr. Kramer,
I can't help but laugh at this one ^^^
Sean Johnson and Samuel have proven that they can't handle any type of discourse - so instead, like little children they pick up their toys and leave.
What a bunch of babies...
Hello Fr. Kramer,I have not read his article, but if a man is a valid pope, it is impossible for him not to have jurisdiction. In virtue of his holding the office, the pope possesses the "fullness of power" (plenitudo potestatis). If it is doubtful whether a man is pope or not, he would morally not be able to demand obedience to his laws or precepts. A true and valid pope who manifests material heresy would by that fact be suspect of formal heresy, and therefore would become a doubtful pope (papa dubius). Since his jurisdiction would be doubtful, no one could be morally obligated to obey his laws or precepts; but if he were in fact only materially in heresy, he would still objectively possess papal jurisdiction; but no one would be morally obligated to obey him. Francis is certainly not a valid pope: First, because Benedict XVI did not unequivocally renounce the papal munus as is required as a condition for a valid renunciation of office (can. 332). Benedict has maintained his claim on the munus in the manner he stated he would in Feb. 2013. Secondly, if Francis had ever validly held office, he would have already lost office for having publicly lapsed into manifest formal heresy. No other papal claimant in history has ever manifested such inexcusable pertinacity in explicit heresy as Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio; who not only professes heretical doctrines like the conciliar popes have done, but explicitly, unequivocally, and adamantly, not merely contradicts, but outright rejects dogma. This point will be explained at length in vol. 2 of my book. As Bellarmine, Ballerini, and Cappellari (Gregory XVI), explain, such a one would fall from office, and manifest by his obstinate heresy, that he had (in Ballerini's words) "in some manner abdicated" the supreme pontificate. This doctrine of tacit abdication was incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and remains essentially unchanged in the 1983 Code. Such loss of office takes place ipso facto, i.e. automatically; ipso jure, i.e. by operation of the law itself; and therefore, sine ulla declaratione, without any judgment pronounced by competent authority -- as set forth in canon 188 n. 4 (and explained by the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca in their 1952 commentary); and similarly explained in the 2005 commentary of Canon Law of the Ecclesiastical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Navarra.
What is your take on Father Ringrose's new position which (if I understand correctly) he seems to recognize Pope Francis as a Pope without valid jurisdiction, a Pope in name only.
I have not read his article, but if a man is a valid pope, it is impossible for him not to have jurisdiction. In virtue of his holding the office, the pope possesses the "fullness of power" (plenitudo potestatis). If it is doubtful whether a man is pope or not, he would morally not be able to demand obedience to his laws or precepts. A true and valid pope who manifests material heresy would by that fact be suspect of formal heresy, and therefore would become a doubtful pope (papa dubius). Since his jurisdiction would be doubtful, no one could be morally obligated to obey his laws or precepts; but if he were in fact only materially in heresy, he would still objectively possess papal jurisdiction; but no one would be morally obligated to obey him. Francis is certainly not a valid pope: First, because Benedict XVI did not unequivocally renounce the papal munus as is required as a condition for a valid renunciation of office (can. 332). Benedict has maintained his claim on the munus in the manner he stated he would in Feb. 2013. Secondly, if Francis had ever validly held office, he would have already lost office for having publicly lapsed into manifest formal heresy. No other papal claimant in history has ever manifested such inexcusable pertinacity in explicit heresy as Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio; who not only professes heretical doctrines like the conciliar popes have done, but explicitly, unequivocally, and adamantly, not merely contradicts, but outright rejects dogma. This point will be explained at length in vol. 2 of my book. As Bellarmine, Ballerini, and Cappellari (Gregory XVI), explain, such a one would fall from office, and manifest by his obstinate heresy, that he had (in Ballerini's words) "in some manner abdicated" the supreme pontificate. This doctrine of tacit abdication was incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and remains essentially unchanged in the 1983 Code. Such loss of office takes place ipso facto, i.e. automatically; ipso jure, i.e. by operation of the law itself; and therefore, sine ulla declaratione, without any judgment pronounced by competent authority -- as set forth in canon 188 n. 4 (and explained by the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca in their 1952 commentary); and similarly explained in the 2005 commentary of Canon Law of the Ecclesiastical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Navarra.Thank you for your reply and explanation.
I can't help but laugh at this one ^^^:baby:
Sean Johnson and Samuel have proven that they can't handle any type of discourse - so instead, like little children they pick up their toys and leave.
What a bunch of babies...
Wow.Bummer. I was hoping Matthew might consider banning you for your dogmatic sedeplenism. You know implying fellow Catholics (sedes) are non-Catholic and referring to them as a sect?
I guess Matthew has found the “loud and
proud” sedes he was looking for.
Enjoy your sedes Matthew: They are now your primary contributors.
Hasta luego.
Wisdom is the right knowledge about the right things in the right order. You don’t have anything right. None of your posts contain any greater authority than yourself. They have no reasoned arguments or appeals to recognized authority.
“The Magisterium is NOT part of God’s Revelation… Indeed”? This beyond stupidity. The Magisterium is the “teaching authority” of the Church. It has exercised this authority since the first Pentecost in fulfillment of the great commission of Jesus Christ: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20). “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” (Luke 10-16).
The Magisterium is grounded upon the attributes (powers) of Infallibility and Authority which Christ endowed His Church and are expressed explicitly in these two quotes. The Church therefore always teaches with the authority of God and without the possibility of error. Every Catholic book on apologetics, every one, will confirm this truth of the “teaching authority” of the Church based upon Scripture and Tradition, which are the sources of revelation and the remote rule of faith.
Forms of thought and action have distinct areas of operation as well as interrelated areas. You draw distinctions where they cannot be drawn and are blind to areas of necessary interaction. No one conflated Revelation of God and the Authority of God in all things. What was never affirmed needed be refuted. BUT the Revelation of God and the Authority of God are most certainly related. That relation is called supernatural Faith “without which it is impossible to please God.” And what God has united together you cannot divide. I remind you, that until I posted and corrected you, you did not even know the definition of supernatural faith.
And yes, I can distinguish between the Pope and the Magisterium and I can also recognize their mutual dependency. It is God who has united the exercise of the Magisterium to the person of the Pope and you cannot divide them. Yet again, just as you fractured the virtue of Faith, you attack the papacy by another impossible distinction: dividing the form and the matter and pretending that what you have done does not constitute a substantial change in what Jesus Christ has dogmatically affirmed cannot be done.
You cannot explain how the Magisterium is exercised, without a pope without which no one is in potentia to the attribute of infallibility. You cannot explain how, if the Magisterium cannot be exercised, you still have a rule of faith?
Dogma is the fruit of the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the means and Dogma is the end. Dogma is the articulation of divine revelation in the form of categorical propositions that are suitable to all the Faithful. The relationship between Dogma and the Magisterium is neatly summed up in the quote from the Fr. Norbert Jones (1908).
The Magisterium is the teacher, Dogma is what is taught. Dogma is then called the “formal object of divine and Catholic faith” and as the rule of what we are to believe. As Fr. Jones says, when “supreme magisterium of the Church, defines a doctrine as de fide the dogma in question remains, both in se and in its external formula or terminology, unchanged and unchangeable, like God, Whose voice it communicates to us, in the shape of definite truth.”
Dogma communicates to us the “voice” of God. The claim that we must turn to the Magisterium to interpret Dogma is ridiculous because Dogma is the interpretation of the doctrine by the Magisterium. To ask the Magisterium to explain Dogma is analogous to the Pharisees demanding from Jesus a “sign” after He just performed a miracle. The miracle itself is the sign and if that sign was unacceptable no other would be given. Dogma is whatness of our faith.
Every heretic who is reconciled to the Church must make an abjuration of heresy and a profession of faith. The profession of faith is the Creed which is nothing more than a litany of dogmas. Ecuмenical councils historically begin with the common recitation of the Credo and then affirm the dogmatic declarations of previous councils. What these ecuмenical councils are doing is affirming the Catholic faith by renewing its dogmatic canons, the proximate rule of their faith. From the Fourth Council of Constantinople they Council Fathers, after affirming all the dogmatic canons of the each of the first seven ecuмenical councils individually said:
Here we have the Magisterium of the Church declaring that dogmatic canons are referred to as “lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God.” They are to be ‘esteemed’ as “a second word of God.” They are “canons which have been entrusted to the Church by the ‘apostles and the councils’. Consequently, they are the “rule (of) our own life and conduct by these canons.”
As a sedeprivationist you have destroyed the papal office by diving its form and matter. You like to distinguish between the pope and the Magisterium but the sorry fact of the matter is that without a pope, there is no access the the Magisterium of the Church. You call the Magisterium your rule of faith but you have been cut off from the land of the living… you have no rule of faith at all. And you insist upon this when the Magisterium itself commands that the dogmatic canons are to by our “rule of our own life and conduct.” I do not expect that you will have any more respect for this decree affirmed by Pope Leo II than you did for the council decree affirmed by Pope Zosimus who used the terms “dogma” and “rule of faith” as synonyms. You see no authority beyond yourself. But while your rule of faith has been destroyed by sedeprivationism, faithful Catholics will have the dogma as their rule of faith to “alight and illuminate our steps” in this most difficult time.
Drew
Accept correction from the likes of you ... who has stated that he would give the same submission to a poster on CI as he would to the Magisterium?Accept correction when you are wrong - wherever it comes from. The reason you accept it is because you are wrong, that's how it's supposed to work for Catholics. Since you've grown away from the faith and into a Moron, you reject it because of where it comes from, in this case, the pope - your rule of faith.
Pathetic, SeanJohnnson.
Drew is objectively guilty of calumny. He has accused me of embracing the Protestant heresy that the Magisterium is not revealed truth, and then has persisted in this calumny after I demonstrated to him that I did no such thing. His accusation was based on his ignorance of the English language. I corrected him with with a citation from dictionary.com which showed my use of the term as definition #1, and his definition #2. Yet even after that he persists in making this accusation, that I have embraced and promoted this heresy.
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »
Drew, your fight is against St. Thomas and all Catholic theologians, not with me.
I'm not even going to bother with your last post. You can't seem to understand concepts as being formally distinct from one another. You act stunned when I wrote that the Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation. Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation. In Revelation, God reveals His truth to us. With Magisterium, the Church teaches and interprets and explains said truth. It is not the Church's teaching authority which REVEALS the truth. In fact, Vatican I clearly explained that papal Magisterium (in the context of infallibility) is to given to reveal new truth but merely to explain and protect it. If you cannot understand how these are different, then I just can't help you. Then your post goes downhill from there.
Bellarmine clearly specifies the two most important elements involved in a Pontiff and he himself mentions an existing distinction between the "matter" (person) and the "form" (Divine Assistance) of the pontificate:
Thank you for your reply and explanation.The resistance position is clear. It has always been clear.
No other papal claimant in history has ever manifested such inexcusable pertinacity in explicit heresy as Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio; who not only professes heretical doctrines like the conciliar popes have done, but explicitly, unequivocally, and adamantly, not merely contradicts, but outright rejects dogma. This point will be explained at length in vol. 2 of my book. As Bellarmine, Ballerini, and Cappellari (Gregory XVI), explain, such a one would fall from office, and manifest by his obstinate heresy, that he had (in Ballerini's words) "in some manner abdicated" the supreme pontificate. This doctrine of tacit abdication was incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and remains essentially unchanged in the 1983 Code. Such loss of office takes place ipso facto, i.e. automatically; ipso jure, i.e. by operation of the law itself; and therefore, sine ulla declaratione, without any judgment pronounced by competent authority -- as set forth in canon 188 n. 4.
The Tridentine Catechism makes mention of the existence of "many solemn rites and ceremonies" used in the Sacrifice of the Mass, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.Cantarella, by holding that everything concerning the government of the liturgy is wholly a matter of mere Church discipline and by holding that the pope has the authority to create new rites for use in the solemn administration of the sacraments, you yourself are making the many "solemn rites and ceremonies" that Trent is referring to superfluous. If you think that the traditional rites can be omitted by pastors without sin and replaced by new ones then you obviously do not think that they are of great value. Drew, by expressing his belief that the received (traditional) and approved rites are necessary attributes of the Catholic faith without which the faith cannot be known or communicated to others, is showing that he understands the solemn rites to be the exact opposite of superfluous. By claiming that the pope has the authority to create a new rite of Mass you are essentially saying that if Pius XII (or whoever you consider the last true pope to have been) had created the Novus Ordo, then you would have been bound in consistency with your belief to accept the new rite as containing nothing that is not holy. You have left yourself no standard by which to judge otherwise. It is no surprise that many sedevacantists end up becoming practitioners of the Novus Ordo religion. You share the same error as the "conservatives."
If Paul VI was indeed Pope, you are not allowed to condemn his Novus Ordo rite without falling into Anathema.
If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him: let him be anathema.
For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you…” (1Cor 11:23). St. Paul says again: “For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received” (1Cor 15:3). In these and other verses, St. Paul emphasizes that we must believe and practice only what we have “received” from Christ and the apostles which has been “delivered” unto us, and which includes the liturgical rites of the Church. This is a divinely revealed truth and a matter of Faith.http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/divinelaw.htm
Man being constituted of a body and a soul, it is just that the body, with its various capabilities, which are so many gifts of God, should come forward on the side of religion, especially as it is the nature of man to need external assistance to enable him to rise to the meditation of divine things.https://archive.org/stream/holymasssacrific00ml#page/510/mode/2up/search/received+and+approved
Internal piety, therefore, requires to be excited and nourished by ceremonies, or certain sensible signs.
Moreover, every man ought to be religious and pious, not only so as to be conscious within himself that he worships God, but also to the extent of promoting the piety and instruction of his fellow-men, especially of those who are entrusted to his care; and this cannot be done, unless we profess by some external sign the intimate sense of religion with which we are animated.
In the ceremonial and discipline of the Church there is no part without its use. That which might seem the most trifling has its proper object, and serves in some way or other to promote habits of humility, order, patience, recollection, and religion, so as to build up the Catholic character. Hence the Fathers of the Council of Trent pronounce an anathema against all who should say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church may be despised or omitted ac libitum by the priests, or that they may be changed [to new ones] by any pastor of the churches [whomsoever]. A most important and incalculably beneficial sentence, which saves Catholic piety from being at the mercy of weak, ignorant, though perhaps well-meaning men, who, in proportion to their weakness and ignorance, are generally vain of being reformers or modifiers of ancient things.
Why is it that you folks keep resorting to circular arguments? It's not POSSIBLE for a Pope to promulgate a Rite of Mass to the Universal Church (or just to the Latin Rite Church) that is not holy and pleasing to God.More ladisms. Here Lad declares the pope is incapable of doing what the pope actually did, he then falsely accuses those of us who accept this reality for what it is, namely, reality, of being guilty of resorting to circular arguments.
You guys are constantly guilty of begging the question.
You often formulate your argument as ...
"If the Pope were to teach grave/substantial error to the Church ..." then draw conclusions.
We do NOT GRANT YOUR PREMISE. Get it?
Again, this is nothing more than the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church ... which is held to be theologically certain (aka not optional and gravely sinful to reject) by all theologians. And yet you openly question it here.This NO ladism has already been exposed and you've already been corrected on this (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/msg605455/#msg605455). For convenience.....
Demonstrate please that it's possible for a Pope to promulgate a harmful Rite of Mass by citing one example of this prior to Vatican II.
If you reject this infallibility of the Church, then it is you indeed who are in serious need of prayers.
This NO ladism has already been exposed and you've already been corrected on this (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/msg605455/#msg605455). For convenience.....Given the Catholic Encyclopedia was written/compiled in 1909 "recent treatises" can not mean "NO" (Novus Ordo).
I had to look this ladism up - just as I thought, not only is such a thing ["Disciplinary Infallibility"]*not* "held by all theologians" at all, it was never even discussed by any of them. This means Disciplinary infallibility is a new term and like all things NO, has multiple, novel meanings. It did not even exist prior to 19th/20th century. "Disciplinary infallibility" is another NO innovation, a product of the unanimous vote of NO authors that poor Lad is promoting again as if it is something traditionally Catholic.
From the CE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm):
"What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility?
It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent [NO] treatises on the Church.
The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favor of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility blah blah blah..."
Given the Catholic Encyclopedia was written/compiled in 1909 "recent treatises" can not mean "NO" (Novus Ordo).Ladism: "Again, this is nothing more than the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church ... which is held to be theologically certain by all theologians."
Ladism: "Again, this is nothing more than the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church ... which is held to be theologically certain by all theologians."Meanwhile, the Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who speaks negatively of the Church's liturgy (aka discipline). This is what all trads do regarding the Novus Ordo.
CE: It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians...
CE: It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church.
Recent treaties = not of tradition = began with 19th / 20th century theologians speculations, which is the only place such an idea is found - per the CE. Likely it is also found among V2 docuмents or other false teachings of the NO.
The Church's Disciplines, depending on one's opinion of what that even is, the Church changes with cultures and over time - that is just a fact. Anything that is subject to change, is subject to corruption, not infallibility, therefore, there is no divine guarantee of safety regarding the Church's disciplines.
This particular Ladism attempts to extend the Church's infallibility to the general discipline of the Church as if that false idea actually is teaching of the Church. But this is wrong. There is no teaching of the Church agreeing with him on this.
As the CE states, prior to V1 there was no such thing even discussed at all. Per the CE, this idea is a recent, aka not traditional idea that ladism raises to the level of "theologically certain" because he wrongfully states that "all theologians" held it, but by default, being a recent idea it is not traditional.
All this ladism is, is a false idea that NOers wrongly believe to be a teaching of the Church - which if it actually is a Church teaching, then we are all wrong for not being NO and all trads are at least stupid for being trads in the first place.
Meanwhile, the Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who speaks negatively of the Church's liturgy (aka discipline). This is what all trads do regarding the Novus Ordo.The NO liturgy is not the Church's liturgy and Trent itself would have condemned it had it been perpetrated before Trent.
Disciplinary infallibility is no "Ladism", idiot.It is ladism. We see that now, your promoting negative infallibility - a Nadoism.
Here are the parts of CE that you left out (since you cite CE as an authority):
All this article was saying is that disciplinary infallibility is a negative and indirect infallibility ... to the extent that discipline has doctrinal implications.
Hey, baboon, you keep assuming that Paul VI was the pope to prove that he's the pope. "the pope is incapable of doing what the pope actually did". Again, this is the very argument of sedevacantism that he was NOT in fact the pope. You assume that he's the pope to prove that he's the pope. Yes, that's a circular argument where you assume the conclusion in your premise.No, I do not have to prove the pope was the pope - it is you who have to prove he was not the pope - until then, the pope is the pope.
The NO liturgy is not the Church's liturgy and Trent itself would have condemned it had it been perpetrated before Trent.The NO liturgy was promulgated by the man you call the Pope of the Catholic Church. Therefore, according to you (regardless of what you say), it was promulgated by the Catholic Church. As such you have no right to condemn it.
If Paul VI was the legitimate Pope, then indeed the NO is the Church's Liturgy.Bingo.
No, I do not have to prove the pope was the pope - it is yo0u who have to prove he was not the pope - until then, the pope is the pope.Then the NO is the pope's and the Church's liturgy.
That's just the way that works in the Catholic Church.
If Paul VI was the legitimate Pope, then indeed the NO is the Church's Liturgy.^^^^Confused.
The NO liturgy was promulgated by the man you call the Pope of the Catholic Church. Therefore, according to you (regardless of what you say), it was promulgated by the Catholic Church. As such you have no right to condemn it.You are confused.
You are confused.No, you (and the rest of the sedeplenists) are confused. Evil liturgy doesn't come from the Catholic Church.
Catholics condemn evil no matter where it comes from.
No, you (and the rest of the sedeplenists) are confused. Evil liturgy doesn't come from the Catholic Church.That's why it is not the liturgy of the Catholic Church. Understand or are you still confused?
That's why it is not the liturgy of the Catholic Church. Understand or are you still confused?If THE POPE promulgated the NO liturgy then it IS the liturgy of the Catholic Church.
If THE POPE promulgated the NO liturgy then it IS the liturgy of the Catholic Church.You were correct the first time when you said: "Evil liturgy doesn't come from the Catholic Church."
Understand or are you still confused?
You were correct the first time when you said: "Evil liturgy doesn't come from the Catholic Church."So you mean to say that the main liturgy used by the clergy of Catholic Church, and the only one allowed in the Latin Rite for lengthy periods of time(Latin mass was barred except under very specific circuмstances for YEARS), is not the Church's liturgy? The liturgy celebrated by the Pope and the only liturgy which may be performed by every priest without restrictions and special circuмstances, is not the Church's liturgy?
The pope might be many different things to many different people, but what he is not, is the Church.
You were correct the first time when you said: "Evil liturgy doesn't come from the Catholic Church."The pope is the Visible Head of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ to ALL Catholics. And whatever liturgy he promulgates is the liturgy of the Catholic Church.
The pope might be many different things to many different people, but what he is not, is the Church.
The only licit, 100% certainly valid and 100% pure liturgy is the 1962 rite/missal, which is the descendant from Pope St Pius V's Quo Primum. It is the only rite which is REQUIRED under pain of sin, and which is legally certain to be approved by the papacy.Are you suggesting that Pope Paul VI didn't approve his own mass?
The novus ordo liturgy is illicit, most probably invalid, and immoral (to varying degrees, both in form and circuмstances). It is also not required for salvation, hence it is not the rite of the latin church. Quo Primum's rite is still the rite.
The pope is the Visible Head of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ to ALL Catholics. And whatever liturgy he promulgates is the liturgy of the Catholic Church.You are still confused 2V. Trent's teaching is certainly true, so why do you believe that the conciliar church's liturgy is the Catholic Church's liturgy? Trent is most assuredly not referring to the conciliar liturgy, a liturgy it surely would have condemned. Not sure how that is not obvious to you.
If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent
(http://cdn.slowrobot.com/62920142008105.jpg):jester:
Except that evil cannot come from the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church. Period.This is clear. That's why I believe that a large percentage of dogmatic sedeplenists/anti-sedevacantists are of bad will.
Could the Pope stand up there and solemnly promulgated a bad/evil dogma? That's why your statement above is entirely moot from a logical standpoint.
Lots of "Catholics" believed that the definition of infallibility was evil, and they condemned it. Why were they wrong to do so?
You are still confused 2V. Trent's teaching is certainly true, so why do you believe that the conciliar church's liturgy is the Catholic Church's liturgy? Trent is most assuredly not referring to the conciliar liturgy, a liturgy it surely would have condemned. Not sure how that is not obvious to you.Liturgy promulgated by the leader of the Catholic Church = the Catholic Church's liturgy.
Because the pope promulgated the conciliar church's liturgy, you wrongfully declare that liturgy to be Catholic - but you making that claim, thankfully does not make it so. Seems like the fact that the pope promulgated a liturgy for the conciliar church should be obvious by now, I mean, you left the NO what, 8 or 10 years ago now?
(http://cdn.slowrobot.com/62920142008105.jpg)^^^^To all of his ladisms.
Except that evil cannot come from the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church. Period.Come back when you figure out what the magisterium is and explain what the ladism idea of Universal Discipline even is - you know, that's discipline that all theologians agreed is a part of the Church's infallibility. Should be easy for you to explain by quoting a dozen or so pre-V1 theologians.
Could the Pope stand up there and solemnly promulgated a bad/evil dogma? That's why your statement above is entirely moot from a logical standpoint.
Lots of "Catholics" believed that the definition of infallibility was evil, and they condemned it. Why were they wrong to do so?
From Vatican I Pastor Aeternus:I explained this to you already, can you remember what "True Obedience" is?
Liturgy promulgated by the leader of the Catholic Church = the Catholic Church's liturgy.And if Pope Paul was a valid pope, what stopped him from promulgating a conciliar liturgy?
If Pope Paul VI was a valid Pope, then Novus Ordo is valid.
Ah, OK, Drew, so when the Pope defines a dogma, he's actually revealing that dogma, right?
No, the rule of faith (by definition) is "extrinsic" to the dogma itself. That's what it means for something to be a rule of faith. And "formally distinct from" is not the same thing as "extrinsic to". You blurred those two things together.
This distinction between "content of revelation" and "act/process of revelation" is not "esoteric". It's two different usages of the word "revelation" (look it up again on dictionary.com). It's only esoteric if you have a poor grasp of the English language.
And if Pope Paul was a valid pope, what stopped him from promulgating a conciliar liturgy?I'd assume the fact that he commanded the Catholic Church to teach it, and that he never created or mentioned any entity called the Conciliar Church. The Conciliar Church is just a term R&Rs invented for people who actually obey the Pope they see as valid. Unlike R&Rs who bafflingly believe that Pope Paul VI was valid but that his liturgy is false and impious.
Sedes are crazy.
The Popes have spoken ex-cathedra only a handful of times. 6 or 7 times in the entire history of the Church.Did I or did I not already explain that we are bound to the truth whether it be from ex cathedra pronouncements or those teachings contained in the ordinary and universal magisterium as Pope Pius IX teaches? That truth is truth no matter where it comes from, that heresy is heresy no matter where it comes from?
Does that mean that I am allowed to question and disregard the rest of the Papal teachings of 260 legitimate successors of St. Peter?
What command? See how brainwashed you are? He never commanded anything, not in the whole of his papacy. How long have you been in the NO anyway?QuoteI asked: And if Pope Paul was a valid pope, what stopped him from promulgating a conciliar liturgy?I'd assume the fact that he commanded the Catholic Church to teach it, and that he never created or mentioned any entity called the Conciliar Church. The Conciliar Church is just a term R&Rs invented for people who actually obey the Pope they see as valid. Unlike R&Rs who bafflingly believe that Pope Paul VI was valid but that his liturgy is false and impious.
I'd assume the fact that he commanded the Catholic Church to teach it, and that he never created or mentioned any entity called the Conciliar Church. The Conciliar Church is just a term R&Rs invented for people who actually obey the Pope they see as valid. Unlike R&Rs who bafflingly believe that Pope Paul VI was valid but that his liturgy is false and impious.The command that the clergy use the Novus Ordo rite.
What command? See how brainwashed you are? He never commanded anything, not in the whole of his papacy. How long have you been in the NO anyway?
Vatican I is telling you explicitly that you are bound to true obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff not only in matters of Faith and morals; but also in discipline and government.If an angel from heaven were to come down and preach lies, we are to let him be anathema - are we not? If the pope preaches lies, we are to let him be anathema - are we not? Sede's say they believe but really don't, that popes cannot preach lies - that is a lie they were taught and believe is a dogma, which only serves to prove they do not know what dogma even is.
Regardless of what you think a liturgical rite falls under: being a matter or Faith, of morals, of discipline, or government, you are required to obey the Pope, as per dogmatic teaching.
The command that the clergy use the Novus Ordo rite.Wrong. Try again.
Wrong. Try again.http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html
He never commanded that the clergy use the NO rite.
We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.htmlNo, no, it needs to say something along the lines of:
No, no, it needs to say something along the lines of:It doesn't matter how it's worded. What matters is that the Pope commanded it in both cases and both Missals became law.
"We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal."
Now THAT'S a command. Understand?
In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal.
It doesn't matter how it's worded. What matters is that the Pope commanded it in both cases and both Missals became law."We wish" to give force of law = command? Again, how long have you been in the NO now? And yes, it does matter how it is worded.
Uhm, the Holy Spirit, through the gift of infallibility.Uhm, The holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. - First Vatican Council
"We wish" to give force of law = command? Again, how long have you been in the NO now? And yes, it does matter how it is worded.The Pope decides Canon Law. Whatever he wishes to be Canon Law becomes Canon Law. And as I already quoted, he ordered that the Missal be brought into effect.
It doesn't matter how it's worded. What matters is that the Pope commanded it in both cases and both Missals became law.It does matter how it's worded, since it's a matter of law. Yes, both missals are law, but Quo Primum has a command/penalty associated with its law; Paul VI's law has no penalty for non-use. Pope Benedict confirmed this in his "motu" which is a legal docuмent. The novus ordo is not required to be attended, both as a matter of law and in practice. No one who avoids the novus ordo has ever been excommunicated or declared a heretic or a schismatic. This fact alone corroborates the lack of penalties in Paul VI's law.
Cantarella, by holding that everything concerning the government of the liturgy is wholly a matter of mere Church discipline and by holding that the pope has the authority to create new rites for use in the solemn administration of the sacraments, you yourself are making the many "solemn rites and ceremonies" that Trent is referring to superfluous. If you think that the traditional rites can be omitted by pastors without sin and replaced by new ones then you obviously do not think that they are of great value. Drew, by expressing his belief that the received (traditional) and approved rites are necessary attributes of the Catholic faith without which the faith cannot be known or communicated to others, is showing that he understands the solemn rites to be the exact opposite of superfluous. By claiming that the pope has the authority to create a new rite of Mass you are essentially saying that if Pius XII (or whoever you consider the last true pope to have been) had created the Novus Ordo, then you would have been bound in consistency with your belief to accept the new rite as containing nothing that is not holy. You have left yourself no standard by which to judge otherwise. It is no surprise that many sedevacantists end up becoming practitioners of the Novus Ordo religion. You share the same error as the "conservatives."
To say that Trent's canons on the holiness of the ceremonies of the Mass apply to new rites is like saying that Trent's decree on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture applies to the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition of the Bible. Trent's decree on the inerrancy of Scripture applies no more to Bibles which are not the Latin Vulgate than does Trent's canons on the holiness of the ceremonies of the Mass apply to rites which have not been "received and approved" by the Church.
Vatican I infallibly teaches:
God has revealed that the "received and approved" rites are what should be used in the worship that should be shown him. You can try and attempt to make the word "received" meaningless but just know that doing so would be as grave a sin as making the word "outside" meaningless when explaining the sacred dogma of faith "Outside the Church there is no salvation." John Salza puts it well in his excellent article "The Novus Ordo Mass and Divine Law":
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/divinelaw.htm
To hold that the received and approved rites can be replaced by other new ones is ultimately to deny that Catholicism is an incarnational religion. Fr. Michael Muller, CSSR wrote in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
https://archive.org/stream/holymasssacrific00ml#page/510/mode/2up/search/received+and+approved
You have always been one of my favorite posters on this forum, Cantarella, and I hope that you do not attribute a tone to my post which I do not intend to convey. I have prayed for you before I read that you became a sedevacantist and I will continue to pray for you now. Please keep me in your prayers.
It does matter how it's worded, since it's a matter of law. Yes, both missals are law, but Quo Primum has a command/penalty associated with its law; Paul VI's law has no penalty for non-use. Pope Benedict confirmed this in his "motu" which is a legal docuмent. The novus ordo is not required to be attended, both as a matter of law and in practice. No one who avoids the novus ordo has ever been excommunicated or declared a heretic or a schismatic. This fact alone corroborates the lack of penalties in Paul VI's law.The lack of specifically mentioned penalties does not mean it is not a valid form of mass. And as Trent teaches, anyone who says the Church encourages impiety in its masses is anathema.
You can't even get this part right. What I wrote was:
RULE OF FAITH is "extrinsic" to that which is believed.
and
MAGISTERIUM is "formally distinct from" Revelation.
For proposition one, I simply cited CE in defining what a rule of faith is.
And the second one is obvious. Otherwise Revelation and Magisterium are the same thing.
You continue to lie in blurring these together to calumniate me as saying that the existence and nature of the Magisterium have not been revealed.
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »
Drew, your fight is against St. Thomas and all Catholic theologians, not with me.
I'm not even going to bother with your last post. You can't seem to understand concepts as being formally distinct from one another. You act stunned when I wrote that the Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation. Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation. In Revelation, God reveals His truth to us. With Magisterium, the Church teaches and interprets and explains said truth. It is not the Church's teaching authority which REVEALS the truth. In fact, Vatican I clearly explained that papal Magisterium (in the context of infallibility) is to given to reveal new truth but merely to explain and protect it. If you cannot understand how these are different, then I just can't help you. Then your post goes downhill from there.
Ladislaus,Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. The Magisterium neither reveals dogma nor was the Magisterium revealed by God. The Magisterium just defines articles of faith based off Scripture and Tradition and commands we believe them. It does NOT reveal anything new. The Church teaches that divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Let me tell you what you said because your version changes.
Ladislaus posted:
Quote
Cling to your idiot belief that the "Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation. Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation." This is a grave error against the faith and it does not matter one whit if you mean it is not part of the "content of revelation" or not part of the "act of revelation." Either way, it is a grave error. Just another grave error that the S&S folks find useful.
No one ever said that the Magisterium was all of divine revelation so I have no idea who you are talking to. But then again, I do not suppose you know either. I have no interest in reading how your story evolves over time to excuse what is inexcusable. The Magisterium is part of the "content of revelation" and it is part of the "act of revelation." Those that deny these truths are heretics and schismatics which is necessarily where S&S leads.
Drew
Stop pretending that this is about simple "obedience". We're talking about submission to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.
Indeed, MANY R&R have anathematized themselves with this. Now, some, like +Williamson, acknowledge the disciplinary infallibility of the Church in principle but argue from the non-promulgation angle. It's not credible at all, but at least it's not a heretical denial of Trent.
I'd tell you to try again, but I don't want to be responsible for you hurting yourself.What a flippin Moron. :facepalm: You deserve to be pummeled.
That passage from Vatican I is simply the definition of Magisterium vs. Revelation.
Revelation -- "make known new doctrine"
Magisterium -- "religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation"
[Take notes here, Drew.]
R&R ALWAYS distort this passage to mean: "If the pope teaches some new doctrine, then we don't have to accept it."
But that would completely undermine infallibility itself. Infallibility is the a priori GUARANTEE that the Pope CANNOT teach such new doctrine inconsistent with Revelation under the conditions stipulated by VI.
So, Stubborn, if Jorge Bergoglio came out tomorrow and made a solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility, using the exact language of Vatican I, and even said "I infallibly define that ..."
and it turned out to be erroneous, how would you react?
Would you 1) just reject this teaching or 2) would change your mind and say that it must be right or 3) would you go sedevacantist? [those are the three possible responses]
Ladislaus,THANK YOU DREW!
Let me tell you what you said because your version changes.
Ladislaus posted:
Quote
Cling to your idiot belief that the "Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation. Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation." This is a grave error against the faith and it does not matter one whit if you mean it is not part of the "content of revelation" or not part of the "act of revelation." Either way, it is a grave error. Just another grave error that the S&S folks find useful.
No one ever said that the Magisterium was all of divine revelation so I have no idea who you are talking to. But then again, I do not suppose you know either. I have no interest in reading how your story evolves over time to excuse what is inexcusable. The Magisterium is part of the "content of revelation" and it is part of the "act of revelation." Those that deny these truths are heretics and schismatics which is necessarily where S&S leads.
Drew
Ladisalus,How exactly is Novus Ordo not received and approved?
The canons of Trent and the Tridentine Profession of Faith refer to the "received and approved" rites of which the Novus Ordo is not. It is not so by definition. You keep corrupting definitions which is your stock-in-trade. It also happens to be a sign of Modernism. The corruption of definitions is the Modernists principle weapon used to destroy Dogma.
And how can anyone who claims that Dogma is NOT the rule of faith appeal to Dogma as the rule of faith? Since your magisterium is "dormant," and really with no signs of life whatsoever, where else are you going to go? But aren't you just employing "private interpretation" of dogma making yourself a "Protestant"? Or is that argument just another of your mindless Ladialausisms? There seems to be an unlimited supply.
Drew
I'd tell you to try again, but I don't want to be responsible for you hurting yourself.
That passage from Vatican I is simply the definition of Magisterium vs. Revelation.
Revelation -- "make known new doctrine"
Magisterium -- "religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation"
[Take notes here, Drew.]
R&R ALWAYS distort this passage to mean: "If the pope teaches some new doctrine, then we don't have to accept it."
But that would completely undermine infallibility itself. Infallibility is the a priori GUARANTEE that the Pope CANNOT teach such new doctrine inconsistent with Revelation under the conditions stipulated by VI.
So, Stubborn, if Jorge Bergoglio came out tomorrow and made a solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility, using the exact language of Vatican I, and even said "I infallibly define that ..."
and it turned out to be erroneous, how would you react?
Would you 1) just reject this teaching or 2) would change your mind and say that it must be right or 3) would you go sedevacantist? [those are the three possible responses]
Ladislaus,how isn't NO a received and approved rite?
Your "three possible responses" offer speculations that presuppose that God is not faithful to His word.
It has been nearly sixty years since the election of Pope John XXIII who is held to have not been a pope by "reliable sources" waving the S&S manifesto. Since that time, Neo-modernists have held complete control of the Vatican bureaucracy and there is not a single example of a modernist pope making a "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility." Why? Why not? And since it has not happened in the last sixty years, why do you suppose it will happen in the next sixty or the next six hundred years? As a matter of fact, it has not happened in the last two thousand years.
There exists a possibility, as Fr. Kramer said, that Pope Benedict never resigned because he has no more authority than Sedeprivationists do to divide the papal office. Since the office cannot be divided, if Pope Benedict did not abdicate entirely, he did not abdicate at all. What would be certain sign of this, would be Pope Francis/Bergoglio actually making a "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility" without the substance to bind doctrinal and/or moral error on the faithful. But that is a bridge to which we have not arrived and may never arrive.
But this speculation is nothing more than speculation. Jesus Christ promised to protect and preserve His Church from the pope ever using the papal office to bind an error of faith and morals on the Church. This is a Dogma of faith. A formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Catholics who hold Dogma as their rule of faith begin with this truth which forms a boundary limiting all speculation. The fact that it has not happened in sixty years is evidence that the concilar popes have been and are valid popes. If they were not, there would be nothing preventing them from doing so.
S&S through their speculations, have arrived at conclusions that overturn Dogma. They have no pope, no magisterum, no rule of faith and no way to ever get them. They have speculated themselves outside the Catholic Church because they will not hold Dogma as their rule of faith.
Drew
:laugh1:You are such a faithless fool that even your questions make zero sense.
You're too much of an idiot to realize that this makes YOU the moron. It's laughable.
This is to illustrated the stupidity of the axiom you keep throwing out there, without qualification, that if the Pope teaches something new, we don't have to accept it.
Precisely as you answer, if a LEGITIMATE POPE were to define something that has the notes of infallibility, it's GUARANTEED a priori to NOT BE NEW. So what's under discussion is the limits of infallibility.
I ask the question to shut morons like yourself up (which I know won't happen), but at least you can be publicly scorned, for your ridiculous parroting of your made-up axiom from this distortion of Vatican I.
So top blubbering like an idiot about how "If the Pope teaches something new, we are allowed to reject it."
Now if you want to move on to a discussion of how you interpret the limits of infallibility, that's a different issue, but stop making an idiot out of yourself by continually parroting back that stupid line. If something has the notes of infallibility, it CANNOT be "new doctrine" and CANNOT be false. That is guaranteed.
That should tell you, that contrary to the Pastor Aternus R&R distortion of Papal infallibility, Catholics are bound to accept all Papal teachings; not only those few considered "ex-cathedra".
Vatican I was simply defining when the teachings of the Roman Pontiff in themselves cannot be ever reformed, not even by the Church. That is all.
See my previous post about why I put that question to Stubborn. I grow weary of the stupid R&R axioms such as that distortion of Vatican I. Hey, if the Pope teaches "new doctrine", say R&R, then has not right to do it and so we can reject it. This is NOT what Vatican I meant. If something has the notes of infallibility (the extent of which we disagree on), then it's GUARANTEED NOT TO BE "NEW DOCTRINE" a priori. So stop it with the stupid misapplied axioms already.
Not for your benefit Ladislaus, for he is immune to correction, but for others that they may not be corrupted by his errors which lead to sedeprivationism and sedevacantism.
Ladislaus said repeatedly that "the Magisterium is not part of divine Revelation." He said that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to divine revelation and formally not part of it.
When confronted with this error with the evidence of dogma, he claimed that he was referring to the "act of revelation" and not the "content of revelation." He said that the Magisterium was indeed a part of the content of revelation but not part of the act of revelation.
So is the Magisterium part of the "act of revelation"? This has already been addressed in an earlier post but it is worth repeating because the consequence are the difference between heaven and hell. Yes, the Magisterium is just as much a part of the "act of revelation" as it is a part of the "content of revelation." Now the "content of revelation" ended with the death of the last Apostle but the "act of revelation" continues.
Revelation as an act continues always, and will continue always until the last person receives this revelation. For the act of revelation itself refers to the action verb, the infinitive, to reveal, and its verb forms, revealing, revealed, (have) revealed. The verb is transitive meaning that it always requires a receiver of the action. There can be no "act of revelation" without a receiver of the revelation.
"When the Pope defines a dogma," he is engaging the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the "teaching authority" of the Church, that through the pope, engages the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority that Jesus Christ endowed His Church to teach in His name without the possibility of error. The Magisterium is a "part of the content of divine Revelation" in that it was revealed directly and explicitly by Jesus Christ. The Magisterium is "part of the "act of revelation" whenever it makes the "content of revelation" known to anyone. "He that heareth you, heareth me" and whenever anyone "heareth," the "act of revelation" is taking place.
So Ladislaus is pretending to be making an esoteric distinction that they less intelligent readers could not appreciate. The reason for this is that he is trying to cover up his error and in so doing, he is making a bigger error. When the Magisterium, engaged by the pope, defines a doctrine of divine revelation it is a "part (of the act) of divine revelation" without adding to the "content of revelation."
The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient material cause and instrumental cause of dogma. God is the formal cause and the final cause of dogma. Dogma is divine revelation defined by the Church directly by the work of the Holy Ghost. It is as St. Pius X said, "a truth fallen from heaven." It is immutable in both its form (the truth defined) and its matter (the words by which it is defined). Revealed doctrine is the formal object of divine faith found in Scripture and Tradition and constitutes the remote rule of faith. Revealed doctrine that is defined by the Magisterium is called Dogma and is called the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and constitutes the proximate rule of faith. The "rule of faith," both remote and proximate, is always divine revelation.
Proof that Ladislaus is lying is really easy to see. He claimed that "the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation" because it is "extrincic" to and "formally distinct from divine revelation" so that it can judge the content of revelation. The context of this claim requires that the Magisterium be "not part (of the content) of divine revelation" because it is the "content of revelation" that it is judging when it defines revealed doctrine. The appeal to the "act of revelation" was only done to cover up his blunder, and it is a huge blunder. But to claim that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to the "act of revelation" is just as big a blunder.
It is the Protestants who claim that the Magisterium is "not part of the content of divine revelation." It is in fact the one unifying doctrine of all Protestant sects. It is the schismatics who claim that the Magisterium is "not part of the act of revelation" when they deny the jurisdiction of the pope, and thus deny his teaching authority which is derived from his jurisdiction, to make God's revelation known.
This is where Ladislaus' sedeprivationism leads, that is, to both heresy and schism. It destroys the papal office by dividing its form and its matter. Sedeprivationists claim that the jurisdiction conferred by God on the Pope directly in his office, that we know as a dogma of faith, has been removed. By whom we may ask? What God confers on anyone, only God can remove. But Ladislaus wants to be "lord of the harvest" so he has no problem telling God what to do. Unfortunately for Ladislaus, this leads only to heresy and schism. Those who follow him in this error will find themselves in a church of their own making that is not the Catholic Church for it does have the necessary attributes which make the Church founded by Jesus Christ the Church that it is. Their church has no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, and no material or instrumental means to ever correct these permanent deficiencies. It is a church that is hopeless and can only lead to despair which is why it is not uncommon to find them returning to the Novus Ordo religion.
Drew
Drew, do you have an IQ that's even in the double-digit range?
I was not referring to Dogmas as axioms, but various R&R principles (which are wrong and misapplied). Please read the post I was responding to before inserting your foot in your mouth.
And you add another calumny that I do not believe in Dogma at all.
This is both tragic and laughable. You hold your own private judgment as your proximate rule of faith and then have the nerve to call me faithless. You don't believe that the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline cannot become thoroughly corrupted and harmful to faith, and you call me a faithless fool?
And you add another calumny that I do not believe in Dogma at all.Let's adopt one of your own ladisms to help you understand better:
Ladism: "Again, this is nothing more than the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church ... which is held to be theologically certain by all theologians."Your belief that everything after V1 is somehow invalid is not "Old Catholic" heresy.
I asked you to post some quotes from any of the above "all theologians" pre-V1, but you will not. The reason you will not is because you you are well aware that there are no theologians at all who ever held to such a ridiculous proposition - ergo, you are lying and by now, you surely *know* you are lying. Yet, you keep the lie alive in an effort to recruit other unknowing souls into error.
For crying out loud, please stop wasting my time and read the actual posts. I was referring quite specifically to the axiom articulated several times on this thread by Stubborn that if a pope teaches something new, then Catholics can never be forced to accept it. I explained that this is a meaningless axiom because if the notes of infallibility are there, the Pope is PREVENTED by the Holy Spirit from teaching something new. So if the notes of infallibility are present, even if prior to that time I considered the idea contrary to Tradition, I must reject my former belief and accept it as in fact NOT new and NOT contrary to Tradition. Now, if we want to argue about the limits of infallibility, that's a different matter. But the axiom itself is meaningless and constantly being misapplied by R&R.
"This inheritance (from recent pontificates) has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council, which John XXIII convened and opened and which was later successfully concluded and perseveringly put into effect by Paul VI, whose activity I was myself able to watch from close at hand."
John Paul II, Redemtor Hominis
"The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts."
Bl. Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus
Wrong. The Church defining dogma is not divine revelation. All dogma is divinely revealed in that it all comes from what was divinely revealed to the Apostles, but divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Basic Church teaching that you previously denied and attacked Ladislaus over due to your poor grasp on the English language, only to turn around now and contradict yourself.
Ladislaus,
"For crying out loud" about what?
Your post has nothing to do with "axioms." This is a matter of Dogma. It is a Dogma that the (the content of) revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. It is a Dogma that the subject matter of any infallible teaching is divine revelation, therefore, Dogma itself is divine revelation. It is a Dogma "if a pope teaches something new," that is, some new doctrine that is not part of divine revelation, it cannot be accepted with divine faith and if it in any contradicts Dogma, it must be rejected. For example, Pope John Paul II's opening encyclical, Redemptor hominis, addressed to the "church of the New Advent" in which he directly says
Yes, it's almost physically painful to just read the tortured logic and contradiction in Drew's posts. And yet he dismisses a theologian of +Guerard des Lauriers' qualifications and learning with the waive of his hand as a simpleton who doesn't know the basics regarding matter and form (Philosophy 101). I'm not sure how much more I can take of this guy. I'm done responding directly to him.
All this time spent on abstruse theological topics, what are we doing personally and collectively to rebuild the Catholic social order?
Obscurus,How many have the aptitude and time committed to study what the Magisterium, the manuals and the theological conclusions of the best theologians have to say? It reminds me a bit of the question of the existence of God. It can absolutely be demonstrated that God exists using reason but the reality is people have reasoned so falsely on this question and are liable to commit so many errors that God in His infinite wisdom has deemed it necessary to give us His Revelation. That is not exactly the best comparison but until the Magisterium speaks clearly on the question of the Post-Conciliar period do we need to hurl anathemas at each other? (I will agree that the S&S seem too strident)
These are not "abstruse theological topics." The consequences are eternal salvation. Those that keep dogma as there rule of faith have the possibility of salvation. Those who do not, are by definition, heretics.
The rebuilding of Catholic social order can only happen by those working together who keep the faith. S&S do not. They have reached conclusions that are incompatible with membership in the Catholic Church. The church they have created is manifestly lacking essential necessary attributes of the Catholic Church that make the her visible and knowable; that make her what she is. What is worse is that not only are the missing these necessary attributes, they have no possible material or instrumental means to ever recover them. The implications of this are grave because it implies a complacency in sin which makes repentance impossible.
The only weapon a faithful Catholic possess against the abuse of authority is truth. That is, Dogma. Those that keep Dogma as their rule of faith are the only ones who can ever contribute in the rebuilding of the Church and, from the Church, to the rebuilding of Catholic social order.
Drew
Fr. Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI
How many have the aptitude and time committed to study what the Magisterium, the manuals and the theological conclusions of the best theologians have to say? It reminds me a bit of the question of the existence of God. It can absolutely be demonstrated that God exists using reason but the reality is people have reasoned so falsely on this question and are liable to commit so many errors that God in His infinite wisdom has deemed it necessary to give us His Revelation. That is not exactly the best comparison but until the Magisterium speaks clearly on the question of the Post-Conciliar period do we need to hurl anathemas at each other? (I will agree that the S&S seem too strident)
It is also an interesting phenomenon that all the "champions" of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism are not known to do anything for really building a Catholic Social Order. I think that is somewhat of the point Fr Chazal made in one of his conferences in 2015.
Did you even ever addressed the fact that your position has already been dogmatically condemned by the Council of Trent, under the errors of Luther:
This means that if Vatican II is actually a valid Ecunemical Council, you are not allowed to "weaken" its authority, contradict its actions, nor judge its decrees.
Catholics cannot reject Ecunemical Councils, "in the name of Dogma".
Did you even ever addressed the fact that your position has already been dogmatically condemned by the Council of Trent, under the errors of Luther:.
This means that if Vatican II is actually a valid Ecunemical Council, you are not allowed to "weaken" its authority, contradict its actions, nor judge its decrees.
Catholics cannot reject Ecunemical Councils, "in the name of Dogma".
I posted a textual dogmatic definition from the Council of Trent.
Dogmatic definitions such as those promulgated in the Council of Trent are simply true, regardless of the Pope, Magisterium, Dogma, etc. being "our" Rule of Faith.
Are you really telling me now that I have to check the infallible Tridentine pronouncements against "Dogma" (as interpreted by Mr. Drew)?. That these pronouncements may not really mean what they literally say, and that they are true ONLY IF....something?
That is Modernism.
The extent you are going here to defend the R&R rhetoric is simply unbelievable.
You are contradicting yourself in your attachment to "Dogma" in order to defend the novelty of R&R. I hope one day you can see it for what it truly is.
#1 ... the first part is absolutely true. If a dogma is doubtful, it's not a dogma. By the very definition of dogma, dogma must be know with the certainty of faith, which precludes all doubt. So, if there's doubt about a dogma, it's not a dogma.Yes, it is incredibly frustrating.
#2 ... the second is a false non-sequitur conclusion. I know of no dogmas at the present time which are "doubtful", and no one is relieved from believing in "dogma at all" simply because one or another dogma happens to have a doubtful status.
This why it's so incredibly frustrating to engage with you guys on the forum. It's almost painful to read your ridiculous attempts at "logic".
I might take the time to post if you can justify your demand that it be a pre-VI theologian. What happened at Vatican I that magically invalidates all theology after that time? Even then, it's a waste of my time because you simply dismiss as wrong and invalid anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.It is actually not all that complicated.
Produce the quote.A. "Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun.....
Great, but this doesn't mean that the post-Vatican I theological treatises can all be dismissed by clowns like you who can barely read English simply because it was "better" understood back then. Nor is "misunderstood" the opposite of "better understood", rather it's "less understood". Nor does it make his statement true. +ABL also said that infidels could be saved.You either post the thing I asked you to post, i.e. quote from any of the pre-V1 "all theologians" who taught Universal Discipline that you falsely accused teaching this NO doctrine, or admit you lied. It's not complicated.
In any case, see the video I just linked to above where +ABL says that it's not possible for the Pope, who has the protection of the Holy Spirit, to do the things that he has done ... and going on to speculate that the Holy See could be vacant. It's well known that +Lefebvre went all over the place on the Pope question at various points in his life.
You either post the thing I asked you to post, i.e. quote from any of the pre-V1 "all theologians" who taught Universal Discipline that you falsely accused teaching this NO doctrine, or admit you lied. It's not complicated.V1 wasn't the beginning of NO you bumbling idiot.
Do you have even the foggiest idea what a Universal Discipline even is? Neither did the pre-V1 theologians you clown.
V1 wasn't the beginning of NO you bumbling idiot.You need to read what I wrote you bumbling idiot.
Since sometime after V1, as +ABL said, infallibility has gotten misunderstood. Infallibility is no longer limited to the pope when he speaks ex cathedra, rather, SOMEONE (some theologians after V1) has wrongfully convinced the masses that *infallibility has been extended* to disciplines, to whatever the pope wants, says or teaches, to whatever the unanimity of bishops teach, to councils, canon laws, catechisms and even to theologians themselves.
If you want to argue that Vatican II Council is NOT an Ecunemical Council of the Church, that is fine. Explain your reasons. But what you cannot do is picking and choosing what to accept and what to reject from a General Council promulgated by the legitimate authority. You cannot "recognize" errors in an Ecunemical Council and "resist" them on your own accord.
The Council of Trent says as condemned:
Mr. Drew says:
Tridentine definitions such as the one above are simply TRUE, without the "ifs"
"You are in a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no moral compass, no intention or material and instrumental means to ever correct these manifest defects. You are right here and now in a church that cannot be Catholic. Whatever problems I have to address, they are nothing compared to yours. There must have been an insufferable stench aboard the Ark but you prefer treading water. Good luck."
Drew
Stupidity is to think that the only way the Holy Ghost communicates Himself to the Militant Church is by exclusive definitions enclosed in grammatical "Canons" and "Anathemas" of times past. That is even worse than Protestants claiming they know the Word of God through "Sola Scriptura" and that is it.
Ecunemical Councils have the assistance of the Holy Ghost, period.
"Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience).
^^^^^^
What Church are you in, that even though having a Pope, you cannot trust him, having a Magisterium you cannot trust it? Recognizing who the Vicar of Christ is on earth, yet you cannot follow him. You cannot even trust the Ecunemical Councils of the Church.
The Church Herself has turned against you and your moral compass is only yourself.
No, you most certainly are not a member of the Catholic Church. You have broken communion with the man you claim to be the legitimate Pope and have also pertinaciously embraced various heresies regarding the Magisterium and general ecclesiology. Since you have your private judgment as your proximate rule of faith, you do not have the supernatural virtue of faith.Well, he has no idea if the pope is the pope, but he is certain Drew is not a member of the Catholic Church. :facepalm:
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/radtrad-thomist-mentioned-in-st.html?m=1Best to stick with Archbishop Lefebvre's and Pope Pius IX's explanations and reject another ladism. Sedes need to accept Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the magisterium is, until then, they will remain completely confused and lost in their abstract, shapeless and novus ordo ever changing magisterium.
It is significant because it is predicated on a dogmatic rejection of the R&R principle heresy: that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church.
So, when you are released from the ideological strangle-hold of the SSPX, and you study ACTUAL CATHOLIC ECCLESIOLOGY, the conclusion that R&R is not Catholic is simply inescapable.
Dumbass, I guess that Fathers Ringrose, Chazal, Pinaud, Ronoult, and Roy are just my lackey followers. So we have 5 priests here against the heretic Stubborn.
I was simply calling out your stupidity in referring to these priests as "Ladists". Guess what, bonehead, we all came to the same conclusion independently by studying Catholic theology.Well first, I never referred to those priests as "Ladists" you bone head, you sure hold yourself in high esteem.
You referred to their position as "Ladism". That would make them "Ladists", moron.You seem to wholly agree that the R&R hold to a "principle heresy", namely: "that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church."
How did you figure that one out, Sherlock?From your confused, NO inspired replies.
You, on the other hand, are confusing heresy with actual Catholicism.Really? Do I confuse Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the magisterium is too? Why don't you let us know what he really meant you NO theologian wannabe.
Absolutely. You completely distort his meaning.LOL
The condemned Errors of Heresiarch Martin Luther by Pope Leo X are not "dogmatic" enough for Mr. Drew. I guess we can all question them now even though this Papal Bull undoubtedly belongs to the Infallible Magisterium of the Church.
However, to Mr. Drew these errors are not really "DOGMA" and as such, they are fallible and I guess they may be doubted. Perhaps these errors were not that serious and Luther was not that bad, after all? On this, Mr. Drew would fit right in with Francis who is celebrating the Reformation, even though the Council of Trent condemned it with hundreds of anathemas.
I really hope those in the fence can see through this complete nonsense.
From Exsurge Domine:
What is next Mr. Drew, am I allowed to start questioning the veracity of Boniface VIII's Bull Unam Sanctam?
“Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory, and contrary to the Apostle’s teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be.”
Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine
“A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.”
Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine, article 29
Cantarella,
....................
That is why Dogma is the rule of faith. Those that keep Dogma are of the faithful, those who do not are heretics. You are accusing R&R of “heresy” without any dogma to support your
allegations. You have to make one up.
This is where you are right now, outside the Catholic Church.
Drew
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htmExsurge DomineCondemning the Errors of Martin LutherPope Leo X - 1520Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it.
Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.
We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter’s. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.
Rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. He is like the heretics “whose last defense,” as Jerome says, “is to start spewing out a serpent’s venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished.” For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves. Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, “It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man’s, or what is worse, the devil’s.”
Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.
For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory, and contrary to the Apostle’s teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed.
These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church’s advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance. Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation no less learned than true and holy of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord’s field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history.
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circuмstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present docuмent; their substance is as follows:
1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.
2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.
3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.
4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.
5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.
6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.
7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: “Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life.”
8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.
9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God’s mercy for pardon.
10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.
11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.
12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.
13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.
14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.
15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.
16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.
17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.
18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.
19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.
20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.
21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.
22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.
23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.
24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.
25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.
26. The word of Christ to Peter: “Whatsoever you shall loose on earth,” etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.
27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.
28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.
29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.
30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.
35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.
36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.
37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.
38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.
39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.
40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.
41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.
No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.
Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord’s field as harmful thornbushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it. For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): “I will be with you to the consummation of the world”; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.
With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication….
Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.
As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.
But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.
Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.
Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal docuмents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.
We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.
{And even though the love of righteousness and virtue did not take him away from sin and the hope of forgiveness did not lead him to penance, perhaps the terror of the pain of punishment may move him. Thus we beseech and remind this Martin, his supporters and accomplices of his holy orders and the described punishment. We ask him earnestly that he and his supporters, adherents and accomplices desist within sixty days (which we wish to have divided into three times twenty days, counting from the publication of this bull at the places mentioned below) from preaching, both expounding their views and denouncing others, from publishing books and pamphlets concerning some or all of their errors. Furthermore, all writings which contain some or all of his errors are to be burned. Furthermore, this Martin is to recant perpetually such errors and views. He is to inform us of such recantation through an open docuмent, sealed by two prelates, which we should receive within another sixty days. Or he should personally, with safe conduct, inform us of his recantation by coming to Rome. We would prefer this latter way in order that no doubt remain of his sincere obedience.
If, however, this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices, much to our regret, should stubbornly not comply with the mentioned stipulations within the mentioned period, we shall, following the teaching of the holy Apostle Paul, who teaches us to avoid a heretic after having admonished him for a first and a second time, condemn this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices as barren vines which are not in Christ, preaching an offensive doctrine contrary to the Christian faith and offend the divine majesty, to the damage and shame of the entire Christian Church, and diminish the keys of the Church as stubborn and public heretics.}* . . .
Mr. Drew,
I think you have completely discredited yourself with this argument, with no possible amend. This is exactly what the liberals are saying today in order to reconcile Luther and praise the Reformation....along with Francis.
This statement claims Exsurge Domine "contains no hierarchy of condemnation," and "never distinguishing which of the forty-one errors are heretical doctrinally and which are merely "offensive to pious ears.".
This is absolutely no different from what you say. This depravity is being promoted in Catholic Answers and other Modernist outlets to the satisfaction of all of these heretics thinking that Lutherans and Catholics are one and the same and that the condemned errors of Luther do not really mean what they say.
This is yet another example of you taking sides with the enemies of the Papacy and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Ladislaus has made the correct assertion of you.
But unlike dogmas that need never be contextualized, these condemnations do because, unlike dogmas that are universal truths, these are not necessarily so.Sophistry. This is an implicit statement of relativism. It’s at heart the same epistemological nonsense that the SSPX have used to deny John 3:6 and the Athanasian Creed to preach the possibility of salvation without faith and baptism.
We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.Sorry, but Exsurge Domine clearly states that the ideas it condemns are not Catholic but against doctrine and tradition.
By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . .Teaching on faith binding upon the whole Church ... oops.
Someone posted this on another thread, from John of St. Thomas (pre Vatican I theologian).:facepalm:
Paying attention, Drew? :laugh1:
Pre-Vatican I theologian, Stubborn. :laugh1:
Unbelievable. Luther promoted dogma as the rule of faith. Only difference between him and you is that he only held that there was one source of Revelation instead of the two you believe in. You are also a heretic for asserting that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church can corrupt the faith and endanger souls. [see the video from Archbishop Lefebvre below]
So when there's no pope after one dies and before another one is elected (in the past this has sometimes gone on for years), there's no Church anymore?
Nothing new here. This was already addressed. I understand that you, just as Jimmy Akins from Catholic Answers, as well as the pro-Luther "Catholics" of today, believe that Exsurge Domine is only "partially" true. And the only reason you are willing to go this far is because one of the condemned errors of Martin Luther by Pope Leo X specifically applies to you, as anyone with honest integrity can see. Otherwise, you would not be questioning the veracity of this renowned Papal Bull which makes part of the Infallible Magisterium of the Church.
If you think that my belief that Ecunemical Councils represent the Universal Church (and therefore, have the assistance of the Holy Ghost which prevents them from teaching errors, and require absolute obedience), is solely based on Exsurge Domine, you are quite mistaken, though. I have already provided many other ecclesiastical sources throughout this thread supporting this dogmatic truth. I can defend it without Exsurge Domine.
Are you claiming that it is a “dogma” that all councils at all levels are beyond criticism in all their decisions?Blah, blah, straw man.
OK, Drew, let's contrast my Church and yours.
My Church: sometimes there's no actively reigning pope, such as when one dies and before another one is elected
Your Church: there's always a pope, at every moment and instant of history, and this pope could teach all manner of heresies, endanger souls, and lead people to hell.
I'll take "My" Church over YOURS any day.
He did not promise that these popes would be faithful.Stop. Just stop.
Clowns like Drew and Stubborn confuse indefectibility with mere material continuity. But why did Our Lord found this Church and this Magisterium in the first place? Precisely in order to keep people anchored in the truth and to help save their souls. But if it does the OPPOSITE, lead them into error and endanger their souls, then it has FAILED IN ITS MISSION. That is more defectibility than if some office or another remains vacant for a length of time.
I am defending this truth:
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31743497_10155622508418691_6805740190091444224_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=35d0baade12392f8017c48fd9db7b273&oe=5B93DC44)
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31768642_10155622509133691_6510509335074832384_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=f2f8d0070d038d541e7f04804134226c&oe=5B8D1D65)
Ecunemical Councils represent the Universal Church and cannot err, because the Holy Ghost cannot err.
Stop. Just stop.
‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.’
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.
- Vatican I
The Church has therefore explicitly taught that the Pope has the gift of unfailing faith (identified by Innocent III with his personal faith through the very citation from Luke found in the preceding text of Vatican I, so spare me the nonsense about it referring to the faith of the Church). Nothing Jesus Christ prays for is refused.
I am claiming that Ecunemical Councils do not err. The fallible part of the narrative simply concerns disciplinary issues that are temporary in nature; but there are still not errors. The Holy Ghost assists Ecunemical Councils.
What part of that don't you understand?
"Secondly we note, that the holy Councils lawfully kept for determination, or clearing of doubts, or condemning of errors and Heresies, or appeasing of Schisms and troubles, or reformation of like, and such like important matters, have ever the assistance of God’s Spirit, and therefore cannot err in their sentences and determination concerning the same, because the Holy Ghost cannot err, from whom (as you see here) jointly with the Council the resolution proceedeth."
Quote provided by Cantarella
It is good that you bring up the "local, regional, or national Councils". Do you know what is it precisely which make these Councils passing from "fallible" to infallible, just as the General Councils?
It is the confirmation of the Holy See. Again, the Papal Approbation.
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31913706_10155622579703691_7723714077230366720_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=e0e8a41d71d649ed34296e4aa2264b11&oe=5B633AEF)
You have your wife, Pax Vobis, and Stubborn each following you around, up - thumbing every single one of your posts while carelessly down-thumbing mine, yet no one of you are actually reading anything that has been posted.The dogma of the Assumption is infallible, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is infallible, the EENS dogma is infallible, the dogma that we must be subject to the pope in order to get to heaven is infallible, there is no dogma that general councils are infallible.
Did you all miss the part of the visual, which clearly indicates that General Councils are infallible? And no, it is not only when they define canons and anathemas. Lyons I did not define anything. What, do you think that the Holy Ghost only makes an entrance exclusively in the exact time of proposing such dogmatic definitions, and then leaves right after? Absurd.
Furthermore, your allegation is not only that a General Council ratified by the Pope is NOT infallible merely; but that it has been actually harmful, teaching contra-verdades, leading souls to Hell. Even more absurd.
You have your wife, Pax Vobis, and Stubborn each following you around, up - thumbing every single one of your posts while carelessly down-thumbing mine, yet no one of you are actually reading anything that has been posted.
Did you all miss the part of the visual, which clearly indicates that General Councils are infallible? And no, it is not only when they define canons and anathemas. Lyons I did not define anything. What, do you think that the Holy Ghost only makes an entrance exclusively in the exact time of proposing such dogmatic definitions, and then leaves right after? Absurd.
Furthermore, your allegation is not only that a General Council ratified by the Pope is NOT infallible merely; but that it has been actually harmful, teaching contra-verdades, leading souls to Hell. Even more absurd.
If all councils are infallible as you keep insisting, and if you actually believed what you keep insisting, which you don't, but if you did, then regardless of your, mine or anyone's opinion in the matter, we would be bound under pain of sin to forsake the true faith for the new faith just the same as all the other NOers did who actually believe that which you keep insisting.
The first Ecunemical Council is the Council of Jerusalem held in the year AD 50. It is recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15.
The pictures that I posted on General Councils are precisely the scriptural annotations from the Acts of the Apostles, where the belief that the Holy Ghost assists the General Councils and prevents them from error, is derived from.
The first Ecunemical Council is the Council of Jerusalem held in the year AD 50. It is recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15.And what doctrines did the Apostles define? What was taught?
The pictures that I posted on General Councils are precisely the scriptural annotations from the Acts of the Apostles, where the belief that the Holy Ghost assists the General Councils and prevents them from error, is derived from.
The only possible way that it is not, is IF a false pope approved it.
I am in the current opinion that it is not a legitimate Council because a true marrano usurping the Seat of Peter promulgated it.
John XXIII didn't promulgate any council, legit or not.
It was ratified by Paul VI.
It wasn't promulgated by JXXIII. Just stop.
HAHA. I am neither upset nor unwilling to answer questions. I just prefer to answer ones that make sense; asked by people with all their faculties; who aren't blinded by their rage and hatred for Catholics; such as yourself.
Sedes don't like answering questions about what THEY believe. They are always attacking the non-sede position. They'd prefer to have non-sedes on the defensive all the time.Oh the irony.
You asked "would you be fine with the Vll Council if it wasn't ratified or promulgated by a non-pope?"
A) If it was ratified by a Pope, I would be bound to be "fine" with it.
B) If it were ratified by a Pope, it would not have errors in it.
C) Contradicting and judging the decrees of a Council is condemned.
D) This shows me you don't really understand Sede-vacantism.
Your question doesn't make sense to a Catholic who knows the Authority of Councils.
This is the thread that never dies. I say "thread," not topic. The original topic died tens of thousands of views ago. It's something like Henry Kissinger, he never expires, though many wish he would and deserves to. ???:applause:
You have your wife, Pax Vobis, and Stubborn each following you around, up - thumbing every single one of your posts while carelessly down-thumbing mine, yet no one of you are actually reading anything that has been posted.
Did you all miss the part of the visual, which clearly indicates that General Councils are infallible? And no, it is not only when they define canons and anathemas. Lyons I did not define anything. What, do you think that the Holy Ghost only makes an entrance exclusively in the exact time of proposing such dogmatic definitions, and then leaves right after? Absurd.
Furthermore, your allegation is not only that a General Council ratified by the Pope is NOT infallible merely; but that it has been actually harmful, teaching contra-verdades, leading souls to Hell. Even more absurd.
"Secondly we note, that the holy Councils lawfully kept for determination, or clearing of doubts, or condemning of errors and Heresies, or appeasing of Schisms and troubles, or reformation of like, and such like important matters, have ever the assistance of God’s Spirit, and therefore cannot err in their sentences and determination concerning the same, because the Holy Ghost cannot err, from whom (as you see here) jointly with the Council the resolution proceedeth."
Quote provided by Cantarella from authoritative source
Perhaps none. I guess that they may have taught errors all the way back then ... since they didn't define doctrines.Poor lad, you're all confused. Let's hope this helps clear up your confusion.
I know but it's the same reason you keep engaging Stubborn. Stubborn never has any substance either. They are way too similar. Their hatred for anything not R&R clouds their minds of all logic. Something needs to be said every once in a while.In my case, IRL I've seen too many good Catholics, including priests lose their faith for sedeism. So why wouldn't I have a hatred for it?
Theosist,That is not never-failing faith. Engaging the magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrine is not faith, nor even essentially an act of faith, for as you yourself would hold, even a pope without any faith in what he is defining can define infallibly! Therefore infallibility in this sense and never-failing faith cannot refer to one and the same thing (they can’t even refer to the same category of things; faith is faith, not an engaging of a power).
Go back to the beginning of the thread. This has been covered multiple times. You are not the first to make this claim. It is made by everyone who holds the pope as their rule of faith. If after reading the previous posts you have a problem then offer your objections. There are those like Cantarella who would agree with you but not one Church Father held that a personal never-failing faith was promised to the successors of St. Peter. The never-failing faith of the popes only means that they cannot engage the Magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrinal and/or moral error and this was dogmatically defined at Vatican I.
Rev. Cornelius a Lapide addresses this directly and explicitly in his Great Commentary.
Drew
No one has lost his faith due to sedeism; you on the other hand have clearly lost yours. You don't believe in an indefectible Church as your rule of faith. You're basically a Protestant who use your own private judgment as your ultimate rule of faith, and consequently you cannot, as St. Thomas taught, have supernatural faith.You've lost your faith to sedeism, but I don't include you IRL.
You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen. You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen. And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.Another sophistic trip off at a tangent. Notice how this distinction is never made part of a deductive argument to refute Cantarella; it’s simply stated as if the conclusion “Therefore you are wrong!” we’re to follow by magic.
The Attributes are powers that belong to the Church primarily and essentially. They belong to churchmen only secondarily and accidentally. And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.
You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen. And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.
The Attributes are powers that belong to the Church primarily and essentially. They belong to churchmen only secondarily and accidentally.
In my case, IRL I've seen too many good Catholics, including priests lose their faith for sedeism. So why wouldn't I have a hatred for it?
We just explain the simple truths best as we can so others don't trap themselves in the iniquitous web of sedeism.
Stubborn:I feel for you - the solution to your dilemma is for you to go do something other than read this thread. Simple.
Gosh, I'm in much more danger of losing my faith by following the sophistry on this particular thread than from "sedeism." I've never experienced this much long windedness on any topic thus far presented on CI. The bottomless pit of verbiage exhibited by the likes of you and Drew just defies all undestanding. Why Matthew lets it go on defies all explanation. He's closed down other threads under far less provocation, imo. He's banned many for far less offensive and ridiculous input. Maybe the moderator is addicted to blowhards. I can't think of any other reason. This thread has itself become "iniquitous."
That is a good point that MEG brought up several pages back. Where is the Holy Ghost? Does it reside now only in a few sede Bishops throughout the world? Whew, the gates of hell never prevailing against the Church is starting to sound questionable.Arian. Crisis.
That is not never-failing faith. Engaging the magisterial power of the Church to bind doctrine is not faith, nor even essentially an act of faith, for as you yourself would hold, even a pope without any faith in what he is defining can define infallibly! Therefore infallibility in this sense and never-failing faith cannot refer to one and the same thing (they can’t even refer to the same category of things; faith is faith, not an engaging of a power).
The excerpt from Innocent III’s sermon explicitly identifying the never-failing faith of Luke 22:32 belonging to the Papal office with his personal faith (“For unless I were solid in MY faith ...”) is here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HK6oDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT294&lpg=PT294&dq=innocent+iii”+“for+unless+i+were+solid+in+my+faith”&source=bl&ots=Fp7c-1CHQf&sig=iT5yRXA7BNUPAaGhwN2RjZJtW-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig_9SZh-zaAhULZ8AKHf-lBBQQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=innocent%20iii”%20“for%20unless%20i%20were%20solid%20in%20my%20faith”&f=false
I really don’t care what non-conciliar, non-Papal “authorities” you want to cite to reject these facts (not constitutive of an argument, sorry, and I will disregard any non-argumentative responses)
And I’ll ask you one more time to provide an example of a true statement which is not true everywhere and for all time in its intended sense.
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
We are not talking about Fr. Johnson down the street. The Pope of Rome is the true successor of St. Peter, which is the very foundation of the Roman Catholic Church; as well as the Bishops in communion with him, are the true successors of the Apostles. That is the way Christ instituted His Church and for a good reason. Do you think that if God had wanted "Dogma" to be the Rule of Faith he would have established His Church precisely this way? he could have just left an inanimate "Book of Dogmas" which would be the only Rule of Faith for all generations. Protestants claim the same thing you do; but they call it "Sola Scriptura". In your view, what is the then the function of the Apostolic See, which is evidently composed of a human element, "the churchmen"?
The "churchmen" you are referring here constitute nothing less than the Apostolic See.
Vatican I Council:
Then right after this, it teaches, (what is this Rule of true Faith). It is the preaching of the Apostolic See.
Even Lapide's commentary itself refutes you.
Notice the highlight below. "ANY ERROR". The Pope should NEVER openly fall from the Faith, as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the Faith. Yet, you think Paul VI officially promulgated an error in Vatican II Council.
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31870791_10155627585028691_8469905773793640448_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=dd69352b2a6c27ab5ba17fe19d2d990a&oe=5B962433)
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. For thee, because I destine thee to be the head and chief of the Apostles and of My Church, that thy faith fail not in believing Me to be the Christ and the Saviour of the world. Observe that Christ in this prayer asked and obtained for Peter two especial privileges before the other Apostles: the first was personal, that he should never fall from faith in Christ; for Christ looked back to the sifting in the former verse, that is the temptation of His own apprehension when the other Apostles flew off from Him like chaff and lost their faith, and were dispersed, and fled into all parts. But Peter, although he denied Christ with his lips, at the hour foretold, and lost his love for Him, yet retained his faith. So S. Chrysostom (Hom. xxxviii.) on S. Matthew; S. Augustine (de corrept. et Grat. chap. viii.); Theophylact and others. This is possible but not certain, for F. Lucas and others think that Peter then lost both his faith and his love, from excessive perturbation and fear; but only for a short time, and so that his faith afterwards sprang up anew, and was restored with fresh vitality. Hence it is thought not to have wholly failed, or to have been torn up by the roots, but rather to have been shaken and dead for a time.
Another and a certain privilege was common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith. So S. Leo (serm. xxii.), on Natalis of SS. Peter and Paul; S. Cyprian (Lib. i. Ephesians 3), to Cornelius; Lucius I., Felix I., Agatho, Nicolas I., Leo IX., Innocent III., Bernard and others, whom Bellarmine cites and follows (Lib. i. de Pontif. Roman).
For it was necessary that Christ, by His most wise providence, should provide for His Church, which is ever being sifted and tempted by the devil, and that not only in the time of Peter, but at all times henceforth, even to the end of the world, an oracle of the true faith which she might consult in every doubt and by which she might be taught and confirmed in the faith, otherwise the Church might err in faith, quod absit! For she is as S. Paul said to Timothy, "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tim. iii15).
Rev. Cornelius a Lapide, Commentary on Luke 22:32
Too bad for you that Vatican I teaches the exact opposite. But, hey, that may have been in a fallible section of the decree.
Pastor Aeternus:
Drew, you directly reject the teaching of Vatican I. Now the comparison with Old Catholicism becomes more and more striking with each heretical post of yours.
We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of our: let him be anathema.
Vatican I, Dogma
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
Vatican I, Dogma
I had read the entire citation before; but it is only the second part of it, and not the first one, what is actually relevant to this discussion because you claim that a legitimate Pope (Paul VI) can teach error to the faithful in nothing less than an Ecunemical Council. Your position therefore, is refuted by Lapide himself, which clearly teaches that the Pope cannot teach error to the Church, even less through the decrees of a General Council. And this has nothing to with the "personal" Faith of Peter, which is a separate issue.
By the way, Lapide does not "make it clear" that a personal never failing Faith is exclusively given to the person of St. Peter. He is just speaking about both privileges, the first touching St. Peter himself; the second one, the office. That is not necessarily a negation of the first privilege for the rest of the legitimate successors of St. Peter.
So, then, Drew, what happens to the Church when a Pope dies and before another is elected? At one point there was a span of three years. This dogma does not mean that there has to be a Pope at every moment of history since the founding of the Church. And neither Cantarella nor I are straight sedevacantists, so our position absolutely maintains the "material or instrumental means" to get a true Pope elected. So you keep putting up bogus strawmen, as is typical of people who are not intellectually honest.
I reiterate, Drew, you are a heretic, not unlike a Protestant and an Old Catholic, who does not believe in the indefectibility of the Magisterium. To you a mere material continuity suffices for indefectibility.
You claim we have no Magisterium. In your heretical view of things, we're better off WITHOUT a Magisterium, since YOUR MAGISTERIUM leads souls to hell.
You are at once a heretic and a blasphemer against Holy Mother Church.
So Drew claims that Vatican I teaching regarding never-failing faith applies only to when the Pope is infallibly defining dogma. Drew, using his own rule of faith, his own private judgment, explains away anything he doesn't like.
Unfortunately for him, this sentence precedes the one cited earlier. Pastor Aeternus:
Explain how, after your interpretation of what happened with Vatican II, you do not deny this teaching that "this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by ANY ERROR." Vatican II is the mother of all blemishes on the Holy See ... from your heretical viewpoint.
Ladislaus,
You are talking about the historical precedent of "a span of three years" between popes during which time the willful intent, the moral imperative, and the material and instrumental means to make a pope was always present.
This cannot be equated with a span of more than fifty years, give or take a few depending on whose version of S&S your dealing with, during which there exists no willful intent, no moral imperative, and no material and instrumental means to correct the defect. The defect is even worse with Sedeprivationists who have destroyed the papal office by fracturing its form and matter. It is a dogma (for whatever that is worth to you), a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that there will be "perpetual successors" in the papal office. What do you think the word "perpetual" means? Its primary meaning in English, and the Latin from which it is derived, is "permanent." The only thing "permanent" about the S&Sers is the defect.
Your church has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith, no moral compass and no way out.
I doubt not that in "your church" I am a "heretic" and "blasphemer" but I am not a member of "your church." The Jews and Mohammedans would agree with you. I am a member of the Catholic Church which can be recognized even in this age of apostasy by unmistakable Attributes. "Your church," as you said is "better off WITHOUT a Magisterium," therefore it is, without a possibility of doubt, not the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
Drew
So Drew claims that Vatican I teaching regarding never-failing faith applies only to when the Pope is infallibly defining dogma. Drew, using his own rule of faith, his own private judgment, explains away anything he doesn't like.
Unfortunately for him, this sentence precedes the one cited earlier. Pastor Aeternus:
Explain how, after your interpretation of what happened with Vatican II, you do not deny this teaching that "this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by ANY ERROR." Vatican II is the mother of all blemishes on the Holy See ... from your heretical viewpoint.
So, then, tell us, Drew, how long is too long? 3 years, 5 years, 7.5 years, 10 years 3 months and 15 days, 15 years 6 months and give days? Do tell us what the cutoff is.
So, let's say the Church is restored and the undisputably-legitimate Pius XIII reigns on the See of Peter. Pius XIII issues an Encyclical. Immediately Drew sits back in his arm chair and begins his analysis of whether or not there might be any errors in it. What kind of bizarro-world vision of the Church you have.
That has to be the dumbest nonsense you've posted yet. Just because none of the popes has, according to you, engaged infallibility, "there has been no error".
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
St. Robert Bellarmine differentiated between the two. And some untrained simpleton like yourself calling a theologian in the class of +Guerard des Lauriers an idiot who doesn't know philosophy 101, well, that's just preposterous and incredibly arrogant. You have no credibility whatsoever.
On our side you have a lengthy vacancy of the Holy See.
On your side you have a completely undependable Magisterium that can go 99.5% corrupt at any given time. You create a heretical and blasphemous concept of the Catholic Church where any idiot like you can on a whim second-guess the Magisterium.
You keep parroting back the stupidity that we have no Magisterium. I'll take no Magisterium over corrupt heretical Magisterium that endangers our faith if we submit to it.
You act as if we're talking about a problematic sentence in a narrative portion of the Council Docuмents. No, what we have in Vatican II is a completely new ecclesiology and modernist theological system. We have an epic failure on a grand scale, and not just a bad proposition here or there.
You blabber on about a 50+ year vacancy, but blow off the fact that, according to you, the Magisterium has been totally corrupt for over 50 years.
Ladislaus,
The appeal to authority is the weakest of all arguments. In fact, it's not an argument at all but often an excuse for not thinking. This has been your one and only babble from the beginning of this thread regarding the fundamental error on which sedeprivationism is grounded.
Now in "your church" you can do whatever you want. You can believe whatever you want to believe. But in the Catholic Church hylomorphism is Dogma in that this philosophical principle has been used in the dogmatic canons on the sacraments. It is a fundamental truth that the severing of the form and matter of any material being causes a substantial change in that being. The being is dissolved. Your theory has destroyed the papal office. But for faithful Catholics, who keep dogma as their rule of faith, we know by divine and Catholic faith that the papacy with perpetual successors will last until the "consummation of the world" and therefore, your theory is bunk.
Drew
Sorry Drew, but I don’t think you understand properly the SP distinction material-formal as applied to the pope. The papacy it’s not a subtantial form, but accidental form, which can be lost without destroying the being.
Also, the SP affirms the continuity of the papacy until the end of the world, because it’s essential to the church, and for this reason these material popes can become formal popes at any time, if they remove the obstacle to receive authority from Christ.
What is impossible though, is that a true pope will impose a new religion, promoting false doctrine and evil disciple to the whole church. That goes against infallibility & indefectibility. That’s heresy.
If you accept Francis as a true pope, divinely assisted by God to teach, govern & sanctify his church, then you have to accept his new religion. But then you will have a bigger problem...
Pope Pius XII must be an idolater then, since he clearly teaches that Christ and the Pope (His Vicar) constitute one Only Head. (This is not only when the Pontiff speaks ex-cathedra, which has only happened 5 - 6 times in the entire history of the Church; but also in his regular teaching).
If the legitimate successor of St. Peter is NOT the Vicar of Christ, this is, his true representative on earth, then Roman Catholicism does not make any sense.
A heretic cannot represent Christ.
From Mystici Corporis:
I've already explained this a few times ... except that I used the term absolute and relative. One can BE one thing in act and another in potency. I AM a Catholic man. I am in potency to be a priest. Because I am not a priest, this does not mean I do not exist and do not have act. But Drew doesn't care.
Ladislaus said:
"Drew, you want to know why I have such animosity towards you? It's quite simple. With every post you are calling my mother a whore. It's no different than if you and I were attending the same chapel and you started to tell everyone (falsely) that my wife is a whore. It's the same thing as if you were saying such things about Our Lady. You are saying that the Immaculate Bride of Christ is a whore that's committing adultery and is 99.5% corrupt and polluted. If you were saying such things about my wife, it would take every ounce of restraint that I could muster not to beat you to within an inch of your life or knock your head clean off your shoulders. With every post, you are essentially asserting that the Bride of Christ is a whore. You need to think about what you're doing. So on this forum, you're going to get the virtual equivalent of a beatdown every time you post such blasphemous calumny. I will defend the honor of Holy Mother Church. You're very lucky that I'm not the Pope, because I would excommunicate you so fast that your head would spin, and I would make you wear a hair shirt outside your church every Sunday for about ten years wearing a sign that you are guilty of blaspheming the Church. You prefer to defend Bergoglio at the cost of Our Mother Church's reputation."
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg607702/#msg607702)
« Reply #1757 on: Today at 07:17:23 AM »
You have this completely backwards, and this only proves our point. Someone can not believe a particular dogma and still be a Catholic ... e.g. though ignorance. But if someone pertinaciously rejects one dogma, he rejects them all. Why? Because he rejects the AUTHORITY behind all dogmas. It's because the person no longer has the formal motive of faith in accepting these dogmas on the authority of the Church who has defined them. So it's in rejecting the RULE behind the dogma that one becomes a heretic rather than in materially believing or not believing any particular dogma.
"Limiting ourselves to the objective aspect, (the subjective aspect belongs to moral theology), we define heresy as: 'A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church.'"
Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Parente, Pillanti and Garofalo
Respected theologian Scheeben answers this question explicitly:
Besides, that proposition has already been condemned as heretical in the errors of Jan Hus, back in 1415:
Condemned:
Notice that the "membership" in the Church is what is the key here.
On October 17, 1528, the imperial troops abandoned a city in ruins. A Spanish eyewitness gives us a terrifying picture of the City a month after the Sack: “In Rome, the capital of Christendom, not one bell is ringing, the churches are not open, Mass is not being said and there are no Sundays nor feast days. The rich merchant shops are used as horse stables, the most splendid palaces are devastated, many houses burnt, in others the doors and windows broken up and taken away, the streets transformed into dung-heaps. The stench of cadavers is horrible: men and beasts have the same burials; in churches I saw bodies gnawed at by dogs. I don’t know how else to compare this, other than to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now I recognize the justice of God, who doesn’t forget even if He arrives late. In Rome all sins were committed quite openly: sodomy, simony, idolatry, hypocrisy and deceit; thus we cannot believe that this all happened by chance; but for Divine justice”. (L. von Pastor, History of Popes, cit. p. 278).
Pope Clement VII commissioned Michelangelo to paint the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel, conceivably to immortalize the dramas the Church had undergone during those years. Everyone understood that it was a chastisement from Heaven. There were no lack of premonitory warnings: lightening striking the Vatican and the appearance of a hermit, Brandano da Petroio, venerated by the crowds as “Christ’s Madman”, who, on Holy Thursday 1527, while Clement VII was blessing the crowds in St. Peter’s shouted: “sodomite bastard, for your sins Rome will be destroyed. Confess and convert, for in 14 days the wrath of God will fall upon you and the City.”
Roberto de Mattei, The Sack of Rome
The office of the papacy exists in act. In is not in potency to anything ...Enter the hidden premise of Aristotelian crypto-nominalism to turn that in a false dichotomy between the Papacy only existing in acts of the Pope or otherwise only in potency!
Cantarella,Nonsense. Again note the bait-and switch:
Heresy in and of itself does not separate anyone from the Church any more than any mortal sin does. S&Sers admit that if the pope were a occult heretic he would not lose his office. This is true and necessarily so or the faithful would never know if the pope was really the pope. What separates a heretic from the Church is manifest heresy that is harmful to others. This is treated as a canonical crime and prosecuted as such. Ipso facto penalties still require a canonical determination of guilt. The problem is that the pope is "judged by no one," canon law is the human law of the Church, the pope is above the legal penalty of the law although not above the moral penalty.
In the parable of the Cockle, every Church Father commenting on the passage taught that, among other things, the cockle primarily represents heretics. Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Harvest, commands that the cockle remain until the harvest for one reason, that removing it may do more harm to the wheat. However, when the Magisterium of the Church determines that the heretic is doing greater harm to the faithful by not being uprooted, she in her wisdom may remove the cockle before the harvest. That she has repeatedly done through history. But with each heresy, relatively few heretics are formally excommunicated.
Caiaphas, the high priest, sitting on the "chair of Moses," was a heretic, and not only was he recognized as such by Jesus Christ and later the Apostles, he was able to prophecy the truth in virtue of his office. What was established by God can only be overthrown by God and what happened to the Jєωιѕн high priest in 70 AD will, in an analogous manner, happen to our heretical popes in Rome just as it happened in 1527.
The mercenary armies of the Catholic emperor Charles V were Protestants. He marched on Rome in 1527 because of Rome entered into a political alliance with king of France. The sack of Rome was far exceeding in brutality and duration than even the sacks by the Vandals in 455 or the Visigoths in 410.
Roberto de Mattei wrote:
This cleansing of Rome by God was necessary for its purification leading to the Council of Trent. A cleansing of the same nature but of greater intensity is coming to Rome soon enough. You don't have to do anything but keep the faith, use dogma as your rule, pray and do penance. God will take care of the rest.
I do not understand your point of posting the condemned proposition of the heretic Hus so I will not comment.
Drew
Drew Vs. Pope Vigilius.
Not true. Manifest heresy severs a man from the Church materially. If not, then the ipso facto excommunication has no meaning.
A non-heretical mortal sinner has the means to be reconciled to God through confession but the heretic has lost membership and the means to be reconciled.
A Catholic does not need to wait around to be told by the Church that so and so was a heretic in order to break communion with said heretic. A Catholic also knows that a Pope cannot teach heresy and commit public apostasy. Therefore the only conclusion to come to is that these men are not Popes. They cannot be or Our Lord lied. Since there is no teaching or evidence that a Pope can actually become a heretic, and strong evidence that he cannot, we must conclude that these men were never elected; whether by prior manifest heresy/apostasy or invalid elections themselves.
You do not agree with Pope Vigilius. You are saying the individual needs to be condemned first, the anathema must come prior to the exit, thereby denying that he has cut himself off.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif) Bergogio is Drew's moral compass. Vatican II is Drew's Council. Montini, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio exercise Drew's Magisterium.
I dare you to come over here and say that to my face.
:facepalm:
You need to stop immediately. It is not the OFFICE that is in potency, but the office-holder. Bergoglio, for instance, has been designated to be the office-holder, while God imposes the form of the papacy on him. This is taught clearly by Bellarmine. Sedeprivationism simply states that this designated man has an impediment to receiving the form from God, despite being put into potency to receive it by the Church's designation. You have no clue what we're talking about and yet you pontificate about it being heresy and claim that +Guerard was a moron when it comes to philosophy and theology, where he couldn't get the basics right.
He could easily interrupt the insane thread and put it out of its misery.Why do you care so much?
:laugh1: Bergogio is Drew's moral compass. Vatican II is Drew's Council. Montini, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio exercise Drew's Magisterium.
:laugh1: you embarrass yourself with every post, Drew. It is you who have no clue about what supernatural faith is because you don't acknowledge the existence of its formal motive.
No, I despise you precisely for the reasons I stated ... you blaspheme and deride Holy Mother Church at every turn, and this seems to be your calling and your vocation in life.
The temerarious comparison between Caiaphas, the high priest, and the Pope of Rome demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the Roman Catholic Faith, and if not done in ignorance, simply bad will.
Jesus Christ did not give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven to Caiaphas; but to Peter and his successors. These "keys" are not a little matter. From the scriptural annotations, they mean "the authority of Chair of doctrine, knowledge, judgement and discretion between true and false doctrine, the height of government, the power of making laws, of calling Councils, of the principal voice in them, of confirming them, of making Canons and wholesome degrees, of abrogating the contrary, of ordaining Bishops and Pastors or deposing and suspending them, finally the power to dispense the goods of the Church both spiritual and temporal which signification and preeminent power and authority by the words keys the Scripture expresseth in many places: namely speaking of Christ, I have the keys of death and Hell, that is, the rule.
...By which words we gather that Peter's authority is marvelous, to whom the keys, that is, the power to open and shut Heaven, is given".
This is the plenitude potentate bestowed only upon Peter (and his legitimate successors).
It does not make any sense that the very keys of Heaven are and remain so, in the hands of a heretic (and in a continuous succession!). The keys of Heaven fell into an enemy of Christ?.
Faith cannot contradict reason.
You are so diabolically perverted that you claim that people who believe in the indefectibility and overall reliability of the Magisterium and the Church's Universal Discipline "practice another religion". Indeed, you are correct. We practice Catholicism, and the simple fact that you characterize basic Catholicism as "another religion" proves without a shadow of a doubt that you are heretics who are outside the Church. You are not recognizable as Catholics. You're anathema and have in fact been anathematized by various Church decrees over the centuries.Poor lad, you are the one who went and got yourself formally educated into error, not I. You're the one who must strive to unlearn the errors you have been brainwashed into accepting as truths, not I. We keep trying to help you but you've been indoctrinated into error but good. You give new, NO meanings to the Church's indefectibity, infallibity, Magisterium, discipline and more.
Yes, years of reading the Church Fathers and pre-Vatican II theologians will do that to someone. These must have just warped my sensus fidei.Not sure what warped it, but your posts indicate a definite case of a most pernicious heresy. Where do you suppose you got it from if not from your years of NO and sede theological studies?
:facepalm:See what I mean? Your above reply is a case in point - you give new meanings to the most basic of Catholic truths as explained by the saint and echoed by popes - just so you can try to weasel into sedeism.
Yeah, because the See has been vacant "through all the generations of the Church". I guess that St. Robert Bellarmine was a heretic for speculating about this kind of scenario.
This ^^^ is disingenuous, man.And condemns his training for what it was - poor lad clings to his errors like the he was clinging to the side of a capsized rowboat in the middle of the ocean.
You've posted about your esteem for "Father" Hesse and his conclusions about the current situation. But "Father" Hesse was trained and formed exclusively in the NO (false church). Not only that, but he was "ordained" in the invalid new rite of ordination...
Yet he has absolutely "no problem" with it, because he is "more Catholic" than the Pope.Good heavens Cantarella, try to think why he would say such a thing as "Those that keep Dogma as the rule of faith have no problem with a heretical pope." No, it is not because he is more Catholic than the pope - although today, that is a bad analogy to use because it is actually true lol.
:laugh1:No, we don't call St. Robert a heretic - you're simply side tracking the topic again. Same o same o.
Drew and Stubborn call St. Robert Bellarmine a heretic.
:laugh1:
Drew and Stubborn call St. Robert Bellarmine a heretic.
Then again, please don't. I can't keep reading that tortured pseudo-logic without it hurting my brain ... almost physically.That's what I mean - can you imagine how torturous the truth would be to me if I had gotten indoctrinated with the same sede and NO logic as you guys?
*whispering* he can't, that's why I said that. AND he knows that he can't.Actually, if it weren't so tragic, it'd be quite comical how you guys preach the Church teaches that the popes cannot preach error, yet that is exactly what they have done for over 50 years. Instead of realizing there is something drastically wrong with your faith and your thinking process, you stick with that false idea implanted in your brains, and take it upon yourselves to claim popes are not popes, as if that is something you can actually even know lol.
Actually, if it weren't so tragic, it'd be quite comical how you guys preach the Church teaches that the popes cannot preach error, yet that is exactly what they have done for over 50 years. Instead of realizing there is something drastically wrong with your faith and your thinking process, you stick with that false idea implanted in your brains, and take it upon yourselves to claim popes are not popes, as if that is something you can actually even know lol.I rest my case.
If you actually believe it is a teaching of the Church that popes, and bishops united with the pope cannot teach errors, then you sin by not "submitting" to the pope and bishops, because the teaching of the Church is that you must submit to the pope because he can never teach error, that he will have an unfailing faith and forever be infallibly safe, lest he lead the whoooole Church into error. But that idea is not to your liking, so you find it much more to your liking to blow off that whole idea of submitting by claiming to know popes are not popes.
The truth is, preferring instead to decide the pope is not the pope in your effort to relieve you of your imaginary obligation to submit, you have zero faith in your own idea of what you say the Church teaches. Isn't that the truth?
If you have any faith whatsoever in your idea of the Church's teaching, then those teachings that you say you deem to be heresy and error coming from the pope and bishops, are actually authentic, true Catholic teachings - according to what you say the Church teaches regarding the pope and bishops. Isn't that the truth?
Hence, you are guilty of grave disobedience to the popes and hierarchy and sin by claiming them to be illegitimate and also rejecting as heresy, authentic Catholic truths which have become the magisterium since they were taught by the popes and bishops, but at least you have settled the pope problem that never existed while condemning all who try to help you see how wrong you are. Bravo idiots!
I rest my case.As well you should when that's all you've got.
There's remote potency and proximate potency. I myself have the potency to be Pope, but that's a remote potency. When the Church designates a candidate to be Pope, that's proximate potency, and in fact has a degree of act in it. He's the Pope-elect in act. That is obviously different than my remote potency to the office.
Basically, your statement reduces to fact that you claim that I and Jorge Bergoglio are the same when it comes to our potency to the papacy. You don't understand that there can be degrees of potency.
You don't understand the terms involved, so you need to stop falsely condemning that which you've made clear you do not understand. Moments ago you spoke of the office being in potency ... demonstrating that you have absolutely no clue about what is even being discussed.
Nonsene. Designation by the Church disposes the matter to receive the form and puts it in proximate potency to receive the form. Otherwise, any layman walking around is the same as the pope-elect.:facepalm:
OK, once again, the substance of the papacy is not the matter. Individual designated by the Church is the matter. Office / power of the papacy is the form. Please read St. Robert Bellarmine before posting again.
OK, once again, the substance of the papacy is not the matter. Individual designated by the Church is the matter. Office / power of the papacy is the form. Please read St. Robert Bellarmine before posting again.
:facepalm:
In no way is the office itself destroyed simply because it does not become actualized in a particular individual. Just as the office separates from the individual when he dies, since the matter is no longer capable of sustaining the form, so too the form cannot join to the matter when the matter is not properly disposed to receive it (i.e. is not a member of the Church).
Ladislaus,When you have time. Please listen. Not necessarily watch.
If the pope were the prime matter of the papacy, then the substance of the papacy itself would be destroyed at the death of the pope just as occurs when a living being dies and the soul and body are separated. That does not happen. The pope himself can only be secondary matter in which accidents may subsist. The office of the papacy has its own prime mater and substantial form independent of the person of the pope who possess the office accidentally. Sedeprivationism postulates the dissolution of the form and matter of the office itself that can be possessed materially but not formally. This we know by divine and Catholic faith is impossible. It is a Dogma that the papacy will continue with perpetual successors until the "consummation of the world" regardless if Ladislaus believes it or not.
You have made yourself the Lord of Harvest. You have determined that the "matter (the pope) is not properly disposed to receive" the form. So since you claim the authority to dissolve the papacy how do you plan to put it together again? Make yourself the pope? Since you are your own rule of faith, you can just make it up as you go along.
Drew
Drew, you are just babbling like a complete idiot.
I said this.Below are snips of their teachings, I have no doubt that you'll come up with at least one reason why they do not mean what they say and that they do not apply. It would not even be all too surprising for you to foolishly claim they actually support sedeism.
You said this.
I just can't seem to find the quotes from St. Vincent and Pope Pius IX in your post that prove R&R correct. You said you would stick with them, so they must have taught your belief system.
And you called us Idiots.
Of course not, because sedevacantism is not a doctrine which is "taught"; but simply a plausible explanation of the crisis.Reference the Principle of the Vincentian Canon; The Church has always and everywhere taught that all who denounce the pope as pope *for any reason*, commit an act of schism. This is what all of the people have always believed because it is has always been a teaching of the Church.
If your problem with it, is merely the "novelty" factor, then please realize that first, this is an unprecedent crisis, and second, the same can also be said of R&R...
Actually no, I take that back, R&R is not new: resisting the Pope of Rome and the Ecunemical Councils of the Church as R&R does is actually a very old practice always associated with the heretics, which I hope you would agree that is even worst than merely being a "novel" reaction.
YOU denounce the "pope as pope" every single day. We denounce Bergoglio as non-pope. You have everything so backwards that it's diabolical.It's is really, really quite amazing how the mind of dogmatic doubter works. Absolutely incredible.
You have completely lost your Catholic bearings. YOU denounce the Pope every single day. We say that he's not the Pope. And it has precious little to do with feeling superior ... it's about the indefectibility and incorruptibility of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline, something which you do not believe. Your concept of the Church lines up with that of Luther and the other Prot heretics.They must have really put you through the ringer at your NO and sede theology courses.
Still waiting for Mr. Drew to answer how is it that manifest heresy does not destroy the Papal Office.
The belief that a Pope cannot be a heretic is rooted in the dogma that manifest heretics are outside the Church. They are not members.
Still waiting for Mr. Drew to answer how is it that manifest heresy does not destroy the Papal Office.
This is quite a childish tactic and extremely deceptive. First, you definitely posted those quotes knowing full well that they do not apply. Second, you add a prediction that I will say they don't apply, because they don't, so that you can look like you are right and super intelligent. It's hilarious. I don't, however, think they support the position that the Papacy can remain vacant for an undetermined amount of time. So you were wrong on that one.No, it is no tactic at all, and there is no deception involved because those Catholic quotes are the simple truths to live and die by, have always been the simple truth and will forever remain simple, Catholic truths to live by.
In the meantime you will continue to be the good and faithful subject of an open and manifest apostate? That is what it boils down to. The Sedes are not trying to take over the role of the ecclesiastical authority of the Church. There are just some things the faithful must recognize and there are Dogmas which prevent us from considering these men Catholic, let alone our hierarchy.
True.
It is a dogma that manifest heretics are outside the Church and this is not a novelty.
Anyone has a doubt on that?
True.
It is a dogma that manifest heretics are outside the Church and this is not a novelty.
If you want to argue that Bergoglio is NOT a manifest heretic, that is one thing. But you cannot say that a manifest heretic who is not a member of the Church can be Pope and head of the Church.
Anyone has a doubt on that?
What make you think that you have the authority to reject an Ecunemical Council and a Liturgical Rite approved by a legitimate Pope?
R&R argument of authority is laughable.
What I am guessing is that you simply do not have the right answer.
A "Pope" who is not a member of the Church cannot be his head. If you want to argue that an ecclesiastical declaration is necessary, then fine, but you cannot deny the underlying principle where the conclusion is derived from.
The fact that this is not a novelty is proved by the fact that Bellarmine already wrote about in the XVI century and furthermore, he says that the Church Fathers teach it in unison.
No one is forcing you. If you feel coerced over my views, then that is your problem; and not mine.
This is an anonymous online forum and I am allowed to participate, unless Mathew says otherwise.
1) It is deceptive because you know that those quotes do not prove R&R. You know it because I asked you to explain how they prove it and you didn't.1) Those quotes wholly condemn sedeism and at the same time prove "R&R" to be the only correct response. R&R is correct because R&R actually applies the inherent-to-the-Catholic-faith-principle, that: "No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin." - Fr. Wathen, The Great Sacrilege
2) Sedevacantism takes the Dogma that Manifest heretics are not Catholic and draws conclusions from that. Show how that is a new idea. R&R may claim to be Catholic but no one in the history of the Church ever claimed one may have selective obedience, under any circuмstance, towards the Pope.
3) If there was a Pope right now, I wouldn't decide his status. I also would not take it upon myself to decide when I needed to obey and submit to him like you do. In fact, you're projecting your own false beliefs on us again. You are the one who decides upon the status of everything your "pope" says.
4) Here's a challenge for you; show where I argued against your quotes. Your quotes have nothing at all to do with what we're arguing. There is no truth in you.
I don't think I've ever seen Meg write anything but emotional rants. They never have any pertinence. She usually only expresses, with different wording, her distaste for Sedes and their position.
Just an observation Meg. Maybe add something else, like a Church Teaching to back up your position perhaps. Just a helpful hint.
Stubborn,No, I don't doubt it at all. They are not members, neither are infidels, apostates or schismatics. But we have no authority, responsibility, duty or right to decide the status of the pope no matter what heretical crimes he has perpetrated or will perpetrate, because we have no reason to. God claims that responsibility as His own, personal responsibility.
We spent a long time defending the EESN dogma in the past.
Do you doubt that manifest heretics are outside the Church?
According to Wathenism, non-members can still continue to hold office/jurisidiction in the Church by virtue of their baptismal character alone.I don't have to apply anything to this, certainly avoid at all costs adding another divisive variety of sedewhateverism into the mess. What I have to do, and all that really matters, is that I have to save my own soul, that's what I have to do. Unlike the sedes, I am 100% perfectly content to leave the judgement AND the sentencing up to Our Lord, which is exactly how He wants it.
If you want to properly apply this, however, you would be led once again to sedeprivationism.
1) Just saying that they condemn "sedeism" does not make it so. You still haven't explained how those quotes condemn sedevacantism.Unlike sedes, I am unafraid to answer questions, but if you cannot understand the answers already given, to the point where you ask the same thing in different ways over and over, there is not much I can do about that.
Instead you post a comment by Wathen. In this quote, Wathen is seen failing to make a distinction between sins which do and sins that don't separate one from the Church. I am not going to opine as to whether he did this intentionally or not. I will say that if he did this through ignorance, I don't' think anyone could take anything he said seriously. It's such a basic principle. Heretics and Apostates are not Catholic.
Contrary to what you believe, the quote is not a Catholic Principle and could be understood as directly opposed to the St. Robert quote I posted on the other thread. It is definitely opposed to the Dogma that one may withhold any obedience whatsoever to a Roman Pontiff. It's opposed to the Dogma of the Authority given them by Christ to feed and rule the Sheep.
2) If this is what you believe, then answer these. Are heretics outside the Church? Can we withhold obedience to the Pope as long as he isn't teaching infallibly?
I will be waiting for an answer to the questions in number 2. As well for you to explain how your quotes prove R&R, which you have ignored for 4 or 5 posts now.
It's quite hypocritical of you to call me out for not applying the "Fr." for a Priest who held heretical views yet you call the man that you consider pope, a heretic and never obey him.Just remember he was one of the faithful priests who busied himself taking care of his sheep and preserving the faith while you were out NOing it up.
Rejecting heresies might be a good start to that end.I try. At least I reject all of your heresies.
Stubborn,Again, I am absolutely content to let Our Lord take care of the pope in His own time as He sees fit. A heretic in the Chair does not effect my salvation any more than a saintly pope in the Chair would effect my salvation. I have no need or reason to join the divisiveness of sedeism.
Bellarmine is referring here to an hypothetical morally evil Pope giving morally evil commands to the faithful. This is a completely different case from a Pope teaching doctrinal error, evidently failing to the infallibility promised to his Papal Office.
Also, Bellarmine is debating here the errors of Gallicanism and Conciliarism, not the case of a heretical Pope. Specifically this quote is taken from Bellarmine’s reply to the following argument:
The resistance he is referring to is that of kings and Councils, not individual Catholics, and this in opposition to the errors of the Gallicans, who considered the authority of a king or a General Council superior to that of the Roman Pontiff.
No, I do not believe so.
This is a very good quote to reflect on. Hopefully, all of us can reach this level of perfection:
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/32077322_10155634073133691_3422951246850424832_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=006b3a06b772fbc94af14131384d70fa&oe=5B528F16)
Yes it would mean that were it true. This is the infamous Fr. Wathen "dogma"; "Once a Catholic, Always a Catholic".You have a sede understanding of dogma, which is to say you don't have a clue what you're even talking about.
This is directly contrary to the Dogma that heretics are not in the Church.
You truly are nowhere near the Catholic Church. Your brainwashing has made you incoherent.Yes, pretty much everything Catholic is incoherent to the sede mind because pretty much everything Catholic is antagonistic to the sede errors - by design.
I guess that's what I would think too, if I grew up in an anti-sede cult that called itself Catholic like you did. I hope you wake up.The only thing that can be said about that one is: :facepalm:
Still waiting for Mr. Drew to answer how is it that manifest heresy does not destroy the Papal Office.
The belief that a Pope cannot be a heretic is rooted in the dogma that manifest heretics are outside the Church. They are not members.
:facepalm:
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis --
Vatican II and the New Mass. Not possible if the Pope who promulgated them was legitimate and acted freely in promulgating them.
Manifest heretics are by definition outside the Church and therefore incapable of holding the papal office. At least some R&R argue that the heresy is not truly "manifest" until it's judged so by the Church. While I disagree with that position, at least it's defensible ... unlike this statement of yours above (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine).
Ladislaus,
I am familiar with the encyclical but there are certain facts that cannot be ignored. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and the Holy Ghost is the soul of the Church. A person in mortal sin no longer has the Holy Ghost dwelling in his soul by grace. He is therefore cut off from the "soul of the Church." If he dies in that state he is lost for forever. He is still a material member of the Church but he has no life of sanctifying grace. That is the hard fact of the matter and cannot be personally identified with the Mystical Body of Christ in any other sense than a dead material member.
Drew
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88 )
Your Charity, being anxious to learn our opinion, has been at the pains of writing to us to ask what we think of the book against the presbyter Athanasius which was sent to us. Having thoroughly perused some parts of it, we find that he has fallen into the dogma of Manichæus. But he who has noted some places as heretical by a mark set against them slips also himself into Pelagian heresy; for he has marked certain places as heretical which are Catholicly expressed and entirely orthodox. For when this is written; that when Adam sinned his soul died, the writer shows afterwards how it is said to have died, namely that it lost the blessedness of its condition. Whosoever denies this is not a Catholic.
:facepalm:
Where does one even begin with this? So this substantial form of the papacy exists on its own somehow like a Platonic idea?
Under discussion is not mortal sin considered generally, but specific sins: schism, heresy, apostasy
Satis Cognitum, On the Unity of the Church, Pope Leo XIII - 1896
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13satis.htm
Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, Book VI, Letter 14
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360206014.htm
All I am saying is that heretics, like all guilty of mortal sin, are formally not members of the Church in that they are cut off from the life of grace.
The question of being materially removed from the Church is not done by the sin of heresy per se as it is acknowledged by all that an occult heretic would still be a material member of the Church holding any office validly. The heretic is removed materially from the Church not because of his heresy, but because he is harmful for the faithful. This material removal of the heretic does not necessarily happen. When the heretic is materially removed it is a question of law and not doctrine.
Even the laws that remove a heretic ipso facto, if the heretic denies guilt, still require a canonical determination of guilt.
All I am saying is that heretics, like all guilty of mortal sin, are formally not members of the Church in that they are cut off from the life of grace.
I've tried to limit the amount of time I waste responding to the complete incoherence of Stubborn's thinking. There's no way to engage in a rational discussion with him.Unless you gain at least an elementary understanding of the most basic, most fundamental of Catholic truths and make them your own foundation, it is apparent that engaging with me is going to remain completely incoherent for you.
Can someone provide definitions, please, preferably with a link to sources.Fr. Hesse starts on Material / Formal at about 7:23: (https://youtu.be/lfJZv44xFHQ?t=439)
Formal.
Material.
If this secret pagan publicly professes the Catholic faith I don't see why he wouldn't be a member of the Church. If he was baptized as an adult, but internally rejected this act, even at the very moment of it's carrying out, he would be a member, a dead member.I just clicked on this thread out of curiosity, and here is my first impression:
Is that what the rest of this thread is like?
I'm surprised you wrote that post in this thread and not one of the flat earth discussionsOh it applies to many other posts, I'm sure. I'm not excluding Flat Earth from the criticism.
Where is the source of his error?
Here is Bellarmine explicitly excluding pagans from membership in the Church:
St. Robert was perfectly in line with a then existent theological tradition in holding that a man could he a true member of the Catholic Church when he possessed the outward bond of unity with the Church, apart altogether from the inward bond. He believed that a man was a real member of the Church when he had this outward bond of union, even though he had no true and inward Christian faith whatsoever.
He differed, however, from other ecclesiologists of his time in his concept of the outward bond itself. He held literally and consistently that these factors which were capable of making a man a member of the true Church and sufficient to constitute him such were the profession of the Christian faith and the communion or reception of the sacraments, under the direction of legitimate ecclesiastical pastors and ultimately, under the leadership of the Roman Pontiff. He definitely did not teach that the baptismal character was necessary for real membership in the Church.
He definitely taught that those who have not given their names to Christ through baptism, but who follow other religions, "are not members of the Church." He also denied that catechumens, those who were preparing for the reception of baptism, and thus for entrance into the true Church of Christ, were members of the kingdom of God on earth. But, in the light of what he has set down towards the end of the tenth chapter in his De ecclesia militante, it is obvious that he considered an unbaptized man a true member of the Church when that man lived in society as a Catholic and was accepted as such, either by reason of a mistake about his status, or because the man cold—bloodedly falsified his position, claiming to have been baptized when he knew well that he had never received the sacrament.
It is manifest that this particular aspect of St. Robert’s teaching is unacceptable in the light of Mystici corporis. It must he remembered, however, that St. Robert’s faulty description of the Church’s outward bond of unity in no way militates against his teaching about the possibility that occult heretics can be members of the true Church, and in no way invalidates the arguments he employed in favor of that contention.
Msgr. Joseph Fenton, AER, The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine's Teaching About the Membership of Occult Heretics in the Catholic Church; page 221
You have this completely backwards, and the definition of heresy actually proves that the Church/Magisterium are the rule of faith. This has been amply demonstrated.
So, for instance, one could deny a dogma BEFORE its definition by the Church and he would not be a heretic. If dogma were the rule, one would be a heretic even before its definition by the Church.
One could deny a dogma out of ignorance, but so long as there's no implicit rejection of the formal RULE of faith, the authority of the Church, the heresy is material only (and some theologians deny the term heresy to so-called "material" heresy).
That's why it is rightly said that if one denies a single dogma he denies all the dogmas. Why? Because in rejecting the one you are rejecting the authority behind them all, so that you do not actually believe ANY of them, not with the requisite formal motive of faith.
You are just so completely befuddled and dazed and confused due to having to defend your R&R at all costs.
I'M PUBLISHING HERE A POST NOVUSORDOWATCH REFUSED TO PUBLISH TO THE 'POSTSCRIPT ON FR RINGROSE':What do you mean "Novus Ordo Watch refused to publish"? Did you post this as a comment using DISQUS and Novus Ordo Watch deleted your post?
This is utter garbage and filled with lies and distortions ... which have been corrected. But you are of bad will and therefore refuse to accept correction.
Let's start with the easiest one. With sedeprivationism (which is most akin to what Cantarella and I believe), there's every "instrumental means" to correct the problem.
We have a Magisterium that is not exercised at the moment, just as you would have after the death of one pope and before the election of another. You, on the other hand, have a thoroughly corrupt and polluted Magisterium that you are required to reject in order to save your soul.
You have perverted the term "rule of faith" in order to suit your agenda, so that doesn't apply at all.
You continue to lie even after you are corrected.
What do you mean "Novus Ordo Watch refused to publish"? Did you post this as a comment using DISQUS and Novus Ordo Watch deleted your post?I noticed that a couple of posts were deleted on a different thread about Francis' latest heresy. Perhaps these were the same posts. If so, then this poster posted his post in the WRONG thread rather than on the Fr Ringrose thread. I suspect that THIS was the only reason why it was deleted.
There are critical posts on many Novus Ordo Watch posts so I would be surprised that this would have been deleted. In general, Novus Ordo Watch only deletes comments when they stray from the topic. These comments seem to be on subject.
This would make sense. I've just not seen Novus Ordo Watch delete topic appropriate criticisms--no matter how inane they are.What do you mean "Novus Ordo Watch refused to publish"? Did you post this as a comment using DISQUS and Novus Ordo Watch deleted your post?
There are critical posts on many Novus Ordo Watch posts so I would be surprised that this would have been deleted. In general, Novus Ordo Watch only deletes comments when they stray from the topic. These comments seem to be on subject.
I noticed that a couple of posts were deleted on a different thread about Francis' latest heresy. Perhaps these were the same posts. If so, then this poster posted his post in the WRONG thread rather than on the Fr Ringrose thread. I suspect that THIS was the only reason why it was deleted.
I noticed that a couple of posts were deleted on a different thread about Francis' latest heresy. Perhaps these were the same posts. If so, then this poster posted his post in the WRONG thread rather than on the Fr Ringrose thread. I suspect that THIS was the only reason why it was deleted.Actually I just went back int here and it is there. This poster is probably new there and it had not been approved yet. In fact NOW actually responds to it.
This would make sense. I've just not seen Novus Ordo Watch delete topic appropriate criticisms--no matter how inane they are.
So you continue with this calumny despite the fact that it's been explained to you at least a dozen times that this accusation was rooted in your inability to comprehend the English language and my use of the term revelation. You disputed that revelation (in English) could have the meaning with which I was using it, and I cited dictionary.com which listed my use of the term first and yours second.
You really are a bad-willed degenerate. You've got nothing else to rebut my arguments, so you keep dusting off this false accusation in desperation.
You bumbling idiot, the second proposition is Catholic doctrine ... as taught even by Vatican I. The first is the distorted heretical meaning which you tried to tar me with due to your inability to understand English.
So, according to you, when the Magisterium defines a doctrine, the Magisterium is revealing the doctrine.
It is not easy to keep track of yo'ur posts Ladislaus because you are an expert on everything and cannot keep your mouth shut. You have, on this thread alone, posted more than 450 times. You make up nearly 25% of all posts on this one thread. You have more posts on this thread alone than I have in all my posts on CathInfo going back four years.So maybe Lad is a "bad willed degenerate," and a "bumbling idiot" too. I mean, there's got to be some kind of degeneracy and idiocy at play here. Otherwise, a totally outrageous and embarrassing thread like this would not be approaching 40,000 views. But as long as Matthew allows this ridiculous food fight to continue, we can only expect more of it, I suspect.
The English translation of the end of the tenth Chapter of Bellarmine's De Ecclesia Militante is as follows:
He is responding to this argument:
His response is:
I do not think that the hypothetical pagan here pretending to be Catholic is necessarily unbaptized. If he is pretending and professing the Faith externally, he must have been sacramentally baptized, most likely. If he is receiving the Sacraments and externally "professing" the Faith, then he must have already been baptized. I think this is more a case of a pagan who is baptized as an adult and seems to be a Catholic only externally and publicly, but internally he rejects the Faith. He is a false convert. An occult heretic or secret infidel, who is still considered a member of the Church.
You're the one who need to shut up ... and stop promoting heresy.
It means what it says. It is when the heresy becomes manifest, public, when the heretic loses Authority and Jurisdiction in the Church. An ecclesiastical declaration would be necessary at this point just to make the fact known to the faithful. It is different if the heresy is occult or private. Bellarmine says private heretics, even if it is the Sovereign Pontiff himself, "do not lose Jurisdiction, nor dignity, nor the name of the head of the Church, until he either separates himself publicly form the Church or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will". But this is in the case of secret heretics, who continue to have Jurisdiction.
"For this reason a heretical Bishop to the extent that he began to preach heresy, could bind and loose no one, although without a doubt if he had already conceived the error, were it before he began to preach publicly, he could still bind and loose".
Bellarmine is not the only one who teaches this. Secret heretics can still have Authority in the Church. Public heretics cannot because they are not inside the Church.
The proposition of "Francis is a manifest heretic but he still retains Authority or Jurisdiction in the Church" is therefore, indefensible.
THE publication of this collection of S. Alphonsus de Liguori's various treatises on the Pope and on General Councils is most opportune. While all eyes are turned towards Rome, it is well that the clergy and educated laity should thus be enabled to learn, what one so high in esteem for sanctity and learning as S. Alphonsus thought on these subjects. It is a happy coincidence, too, that this volume should have appeared in the same language and at the same time as the Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of Orleans.
That letter came from one so greatly admired for his eloquence and zeal that it made much more impression on men's minds than its contents alone could account for ; especially among the laity, who have never given a special study to the questions of which it treats. Among some few an impression actually exists, that the illustrious French Bishop has defended the cause of moderation and of the ancient traditions of the Church against, as it is maintained, the extreme theories of a few theologians and the hasty speculations of some intemperate laymen.
We recommend those who have received this impression to purchase and read attentively the volume before us.
In the excellent Introduction which has been prefixed to his translation by P. Jacques, they will find in what esteem S. Alphonsus and his writings are held by the Church. To quote but one passage from the bull of his canonization, having reference to the very treatises which compose this volume, Gregory XVI. has said : " (The Saint) wrote many books for the maintenance of the rights of this Apostolic See ; in them we admire an extraordinary vigour of argument, a vast and varied learning, singular proofs of his solicitude for the Church, and a rare zeal for religion." Passing to the writings of the Saint thus solemnly praised, the reader will find that S. Alphonsus maintains, with all the erudition of a doctor and the earnestness of a saint, propositions exactly contrary to those of the Bishop of Orleans. The latter, although he professes not to discuss in any way the infallibility of the Pope but only the opportuneness of its definition, yet continually assumes that hitherto it is not held generally in the Church. He speaks as if the definition would introduce a new rule of faith, S. Alphonsus, on the contrary, maintains with Suavez and Bellarmin that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope is proxima fidei closely allied to what is of faith ; that it is the ancient and almost universally received rule of faith, based on Scripture and tradition ; and though not yet expressly defined as of faith, that it is expressly taught by Sovereign Pontiffs and by General Councils.
Alexander VIII. had condemned the following proposition: " The assertion of the authority of the Roman Pontiff above a General Council, and of his infallibility in defining questions of faith, is vain, and has been often refuted." S. Alphonsus concludes the dissertation which he has written against this proposition, by saying that the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility is the belief and practical rule of the whole Church : totius Ecclesiae sententiam, regulam et sensum.
The Bishop of Orleans says, that since all Catholics are agreed that the Church is infallible, and this belief has been sufficient for eighteen centuries, it is inopportune and productive of great evils to raise the question as to the exact seat of infallibility ; that " at the very statement of the problem, the devil is on the alert, the faithful are troubled, the East is arrested in its approach, Protestants are driven back, governments become uneasy, the saddest pages of history are again brought to view, bishops are grieved, the peace of souls is compromised, and the road of salvation made more difficult" (§xvi.).
S. Alphonsus thought very differently. "Febronius," he writes, " pretends that the supreme authority which we ascribe to the Pope keeps heretics from joining the Church. He is mistaken. It is not the doctrine regarding the Pope, but hatred of restraint, sensual delights, the love of riches, and pride, which keep them separated from the Church. They make no more account of the authority of Councils, in which Febronius places the supreme power, than they do of that of the Popes."
So far was the Saint from thinking it inopportune to raise the question of the exact seat of infallibility, that he has written no less than three treatises to prove the infallibility of the Pope and his superiority to General Councils, and has been praised for doing so by the Holy See. He goes out of the way to treat of these questions even in his moral theology. The ecclesiastical censor at Naples thought it inopportune to publish such matters : but the Saint answered : " You may change, if you like, certain reflections .... but if it is a question regarding the supreme authority of the Pope, then no. I am ready to give my life in its defence. Take away this supreme power, and I do not fear to say that the authority of the Church is annihilated."
The Bishop of Orleans at great length endeavours to show the almost inextricable difficulties which will arise, both as regards the past and the future, if the rule of faith is placed in the infallibility of the Pope. S. Alphonsus, on the other hand, sees no issue out of the historical difficulties of the past, and no practical rule for the future, for those who reject this infallibility. He does not see how any Council can be certainly known to have been ecuмenical, or to have fulfilled the conditions which even Galileans require in order that the definitions of an Ecuмenical Council may be infallible, except from the infallible judgment and approbation of the Pope ; so that, to use his own words, "even the adversaries of the Pope's infallibility cannot find complete assurance in matters of faith without coming in a last analysis, by one road or another, to acknowledge in the Pope a supreme and infallible authority" ("Du Pape," &c., p. 71).
Again, the Bishop of Orleans says that if the infallibility of the Pope is admitted, the faithful will never be able to understand that the bishops are in any true sense judges of the faith; but "the fact is," answers S. Alphonsus, " that the supreme power, which before the Council resided entirely and exclusively in the Pope, in the Council extends also to the bishops, and is shared by them ; so that they can say in all truth in the definitions pronounced unanimously by the Pope and Council, Visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis " {ib, p. 75).
Neither does it follow, as the Bishop of Orleans insists, that General Councils will be esteemed useless if the infallibility of the Pope is admitted. As this is the most speccious part of his lordship's letter, it may be well to set down the objection as he stated it, and the answer supplied by S. Alphonsus.
" Councils," says Mgr. Dupanleup, " have, up to the present time, been one of the great forms of the Church's life, one of its most powerful means of action. They began in the very origin of the Church in Apostolic times ; they have been known to every century of Christianity except the last two."
Then, after stating his desire and hope that they may in future become periodical, he continues : —
"But, if the Council should define the infallibility of the Pope, might not the faithful think and say : — 'What use in future will there be in Ecuмenical Councils? Since the Pope alone, apart from the bishops, can decide infallibly on questions of faith, why call together the bishops? Why undergo the delays, the researches, the discussions of Councils ?'
"Thus, then, it is wished that the Council shall make a decree which in future would either put an end to Councils, or at least diminish their number and importance ! It is wished that the bishops should decree, so to say, their own abdication " (§ xii).
First, then, S. Alphonsus also reviews past ages, and concludes that Councils neither were nor could be the regular means of defining controversies : —
"If God had not appointed," he says, " that the definitions of the Popes should be infallible, but had willed that questions of faith should be decided in General Councils, he would not have made sufficient provision for the good of the Church ; for, considering the numerous difficulties which stand in the way of convoking general Councils, the Church would have been deprived, during the greater number of centuries, of an infallible judge, capable of applying a prompt remedy to the schisms and heresies which may ever be arising.
"As a matter of fact, the constant practice of the Church proves that heresies have been condemned by the Sovereign Pontiffs alone ; and when the definition of the Pope has been pronounced, Councils have only been assembled when it could be done conveniently, and when it was considered useful to convoke them in order to extinguish more completely the fire of some heresy that was spreading " (p. 106).
As to the objection, that the infallibility of the Pope makes Councils useless, S. Alphonsus says : —
"No ; though the Pope is infallible, yet Councils are not useless. On the contrary, they are useful in many respects.
1st. In order that the people may receive more readily the decrees which have been unanimously drawn up.
2ndly. That the Bishops may have a more perfect knowledge of the doctrines discussed, and of the reasons on which the decrees are based, and that thus they may be better able to instruct the faithful with regard to them.
3rdly. They are useful to close the mouths of those who resist the definitions of the Pope.
4thly. They are useful for the better examination of certain points not yet defined nor sufficiently discussed. Though it must be well understood that to have authority the definitions of Councils must be confirmed by the Pope, seeing that they derive all their force
from this confirmation" (p. 168).
With regard to this latter point the Saint adds, in another place :—
" Sometimes the Sovereign Pontiffs convoke Councils in order that they may be more enlightened by the Holy Ghost by means of the discussions carried on in the Council on some doubt in matter of faith ; for, as Cardinal du Perron says, the infallibility of the Pope does not consist in his always receiving at once from the Holy Ghost the necessary light to decide questions of faith, but in his deciding without error in matters in which he feels himself to be sufficiently enlightened by God, while he sends other questions, on which he does not feel himself sufficiently enlightened, to be decided by the Council, in order that afterwards he may pronounce his own judgment " (p. 346).
These passages will, we think, show the importance as well as the opportuneness of the republication. It is only necessary to add that the translation seems both accurately and elegantly made, that it is enriched with judicious and learned notes, and that the original Latin of three out of the five treatises which compose the volume, is given in an Appendix.
“At the minimum one should firmly hold as absolutely unshakable and beyond all doubt the opinion that the adherence of the universal Church is always for her the one infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and hence the existence of all the conditions required for this legitimacy. And one does not have to search far and wide to find reasons for this. It derives directly from the infallible promise and providence of Christ: The Gates of hell shall not prevail against her, and again, I shall be with you till the end of days. In point of fact, it would be one and the same thing for the Church to adhere to a false pope as it would be for her to follow a false rule of faith, because the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church is obliged to follow in believing, and certainly this is always the case, as will appear most clearly from what we say below. God can certainly permit that on occasion the vacancy of the Holy See should persist for a long time. He can also permit that a doubt could arise about the legitimacy of a given person who was elected. But He cannot allow that the entire Church would accept as a true Pontiff one who is not truly and legitimately such.” (“De Ecclesia Christi,”Rome, 5th edition, p. 635).
And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecuмenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.
This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every side as an impregnable wall your God-sprung empire, which throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace.
For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren." Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.
The word rule (Latin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09019a.htm) regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm), and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) is Divine and infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm), the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm); and since faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) is supernatural (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm) assent to Divine truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm), I, ii), the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible) and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm); since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)". Unless, then, the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible) and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living.Correct me if I'm wrong but Drew is denying that there is a proximate rule of faith which is animate/living. Essentially, that would make his own private judgement (himself) the animate/living proximate rule of faith. This is indeed what the Protestants have done. I'm sure Drew would deny that he has done this but unless he identifies what is the animate/living proximate rule of faith we have to assume that he has assumed that role for himself. The dogmas of the Church are the proximate but inanimate rules of faith (according to the above definition). Drew agrees with this. Good for him. I take it he also agrees that the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself is the ultimate or remote rule of faith. But denying (in practice) that the hierarchy of the Church is the animate/living proximate rule of faith is essentially to separate oneself from the Church. It's not clear that Drew has actually done that. I take it he attends a Catholic Mass somewhere and obeys the priest. If so, then he isn't separated from the Church, he just has a really terrible way of explaining what the rule of faith is. I recommend that we stick to approved sources and I don't see anything wrong with the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on this topic. I only quoted the first paragraph. There is additional information included in the link above.
Hard to believe that this thread is now over 2000 posts. Is that a record?
The rule of faith debate seems endless. I don't recall anyone calling into question the Catholic Encyclopedia definition. Rule of Faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm)
It seems simple enough:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Drew is denying that there is a proximate rule of faith which is animate/living. Essentially, that would make his own private judgement (himself) the animate/living proximate rule of faith. This is indeed what the Protestants have done. I'm sure Drew would deny that he has done this but unless he identifies what is the animate/living proximate rule of faith we have to assume that he has assumed that role for himself. The dogmas of the Church are the proximate but inanimate rules of faith (according to the above definition). Drew agrees with this. Good for him. I take it he also agrees that the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself is the ultimate or remote rule of faith. But denying (in practice) that the hierarchy of the Church is the animate/living proximate rule of faith is essentially to separate oneself from the Church. It's not clear that Drew has actually done that. I take it he attends a Catholic Mass somewhere and obeys the priest. If so, then he isn't separated from the Church, he just has a really terrible way of explaining what the rule of faith is. I recommend that we stick to approved sources and I don't see anything wrong with the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on this topic. I only quoted the first paragraph. There is additional information included in the link above.
So is Drew claiming that he himself defines "Rule of Faith" to be synonymous with dogma? I ask because I distinctly remember Drew saying that "dogma is the rule of faith". Which, if rule of faith and dogma are synonyms, is completely meaningless. It would be like saying dogma is dogma or the rule of faith is the rule of faith. It is nonsense. I'm not saying there isn't a sense in which dogma could be synonymous with the rule of faith but in the context of this discussion it is not. If you want to have a civil discussion concerning a topic the first order of business is coming to some agreement on the definition of the terms of the argument/discussion. I would argue that the CE article on the Rule of Faith is a good starting point. I believe is is the working definition which most of the other participants in this discussion were referring to. And if you are going to gainsay the CE article, I would like to know your qualifications for doing so. I'm certainly not going to give more credibility to a part-time amateur theologian than I would give to a pre-Vatican II full-time theologian with a doctorate in sacred theology. e.g. Hugh Pope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Pope)
Wrong:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599170/#msg599170
Right. That post confirms my assertion that Drew denies that there is an animate/living proximate rule of faith. He admits that the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself is the remote rule of faith. He admits that dogma is the proximate rule of faith. But he does not make any distinction between the inanimate proximate rule of faith and the animate proximate rule of faith. In effect, he makes himself the animate proximate rule of faith.
And here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599371/#msg599371
On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope : when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a general council
Published 1809
https://archive.org/details/OnTheApostolicalAndInfallible (https://archive.org/details/OnTheApostolicalAndInfallible)
Before answering the accusation (that Popes Liberius and Honorius were heretics and formally taught heresy), we must once more remind our opponents that, in order to overturn our thesis (of papal infallibility), they must prove not merely that Liberius or Honorius has spoken or written what is contrary to faith, or denied it, but that he did so as Pope, teaching in matters of faith or morals, and thereby binding the Universal Church. If they cannot prove this, they prove nothing, for the fallibility would then be only personal and private, and would no more affect the infallibility of the Pope as Universal teacher, than the denial of Peter in the Court of the High Priest injured his infallibility as Prince of the Apostles. They must, then, first produce good, historical evidence of the fact; secondly, they must prove that it was a definition or teaching contrary to truth in matters of faith; and, thirdly, that the Pope intended, by his teaching, to bind the Universal Church to believe it.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope, when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a General Council
Sedevacantism Reconsidered:
A Public Heretic Cannot Retain The Papacy
Saint Frances de Sales, Doctor (1567-1622): “Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church.” (The Catholic Controversy)
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12963354_1747251052160021_8053769530672360395_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=09dabb3c4a15526233fb20f42f218fce&oe=5B83ABFC)
The Catholic Encyclopedia under the entry of "heresy" teaches the same, 1910:
It is an absurdity to think that a non-member of the Church, such a manifest heretic, can still be the head thereof.
Cantarella,Drew, we knew Jorge Bergoglio was a heretic even before he started dressing in a pope costume. Likewise, the other Conciliar "popes" were all known to be liberals and/or Freemasons before they were elected.
How do you know that the conciliar popes are heretics? When you answer this question bear in mind the following taken from your previous posts:
1. The magisterium is your rule of faith.
2. Dogma is not your rule of faith so you cannot appeal to any dogma without being guilty of “private interpretation” and becoming a “Protestant.”
3. No pope can be a heretic because they have a “never-failing” personal faith.
4. No pope can error in his fallible teaching because he is gifted with a negative infallibility by his personal indefectibility.
5. All general councils are infallible in everything they do.
So how do you know Pope Francis is a heretic?
Drew
I think you misunderstand. My "S&S" is not really based on any personal heresy, either material or formal, or occult or public, of the "pope"; but in a Magisterial contradiction occuring in the setting of an "Ecunemical" Council, which is the indication of an impostor usurping the Seat of Peter, because we know that a legitimate successor of St. Peter cannot teach doctrinal error to the faithful. They were never popes to begin with. The events emanating from the Council confirm this usurpation.
The reason I post the Church teaching on a "heretical Pope" is to demonstrate the logical conclusion one can draw from your illogical position. That the Pope can be a manifest heretic and still retain office, even though he is not a member of the Church.
What do we say of a body whose head falls off?
Do you really have any doubt that Vatican II Council (if ratified by a legitimate Pope) belongs to the "ordinary and universal Magisterium" of the Church, at the very least?
Cantarella,Just out of curiosity, have you ever noticed that what was taught during and since Vatican 2 is not the same thing that was taught before Vatican 2?
So you determined that Vatican II taught error and therefore the pope cannot be the pope. But since the "magisterium is the rule of faith," how did you determine that the magisterium is teaching error? What possible criteria are you using to judge that the magisterium is teaching error and therefore cannot be the magisterium?
On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope : when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a general council
Published 1809
https://archive.org/details/OnTheApostolicalAndInfallible
“Testimony of all the general councils of the East and West, declaring the judgment of the Chair of St. Peter at Rome, to be the infallible Rule of Faith.”That is, the “judgment” is the Rule of Faith. What do we call the judgment? Dogma!
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
Agatho likewise asserted his Apostolical authority in his letter to the Emperor, whom he reminds that the Church of Rome has never strayed from the path of truth into the by-ways of error, and that her decisions have always been received as a rule of faith, not merely by individuals, but also by the Councils. “Haec Apostolica ecclesia nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est.” This is the rule of true faith. “Haec est verae fidei regula.” Alluding to the words, “Confirm thy brethren,” the Pontiff remarks that the successors of St. Peter have always strengthened the Church in the truth. Hence he infers that “all bishops, priests and laics, who wish to please the God of truth, must study to conform to the Apostolical rule of the primitive faith, founded on the rock Peter, and preserved by him from error.”“Her decisions have been received as a rule of faith.” We call these “decisions” Dogma.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
The consent, as we have shown, is not and cannot be sufficiently clear and definitive to be a rule of faith. The Pope’s definitions, on the other hand, are in precise and positive terms and immediate answers, word for word, to the questions proposed.We call these “clear and definitive... definitions" Dogma.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
A Judge has a rule before him, the law of the country, and he must strive to decide according to its dictates. For the Bishops, that rule is the teaching of the Church grounded on the authority of the Holy Scripture and tradition. By their “definiens subscripsi” the Bishops declare, that the definition of the Council to which they subscribe, in their conviction, is in accordance with the faith based upon the Holy Scripture and tradition. When it is confirmed by the Papal approbation, the Divine Law is more clearly expressed by the definition, and the Bishops, acting as Judges, declare it to be their faith also, and by their subscription, announce its accordance with the normal rule of faith. We would recall in this connection what we before mentioned concerning the subscription of the Bishops to the acts of the Eight General Council : “I, N. N., Bishop of N., have subscribed the profession of faith made by me in the person of his Holiness, Pope Adrian, Supreme Pontiff.”The bishops “subscribe to the definition” as their “normal rule of faith.” We calls these “definitions” Dogma.
By such a declaration, they affirm with St. Jerome, that they believe with the faith of the Head of the Church; that his faith is their faith; that that is an article of faith which he, as the Head of the Church, pronounces to be such, and their “definiens subscripsi” is to show that they were aware of what they did, and intended it, and it was to be the evidence that such faith was the faith of the whole Church.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
Moreover, Bossuet is well aware that by the formula of Adrian II, which he holds himself bound to defend, whosoever subscribes it is obliged to obey the decisions of the Pope actually occupying the Apostolic See, as “a rule of faith;” neither could he be ignorant that the Fathers of the ecuмenical Councils recognized in every individual Pope, the rock upon which the Church is built, the divinely commissioned teacher of the faith, the Vicar of Christ in whom Peter always lives.We call these “decisions of the Pope” Dogma.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
It is only under the same supposition that we can account for the action of Adrian II toward the Eight General Council, in the time of Photius, in sending them a letter for their subscription, which contained the following declarations: “First of all, true salvation is found in keeping the right rule of faith, which is to submit to the decisions of the Apostolic See, according to the promises of Christ to Peter, ‘Thou art a rock,’” etc. That this is true is proved by the fact that the Apostolic See has always preserved the Catholic religion immaculate, and professed its holy doctrine. “Quia in Sede Apostolica immaculate est eemper Catholica servata religio et sancta celebrate doctrina.”The “decisions of the Apostolic See” that we “submit to” as the “right rule of faith” are called Dogmas.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
How, otherwise, could Agatho, in the face of the Council, assert that the Roman See has never deviated from the path of truth? “Haec Apostolica Ecclesia nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est.” How, otherwise , could he insert, in his instructions to his Legates, that, after the decision contained in his dogmatical letter to the Council, the Fathers could not discuss the dogma, but must simply subscribe it as a rule of faith? “Non tamquam de incertis contendere, sed ut certa et immutabilia compendiosa definition proferre.” We have seen with what joy the Fathers obeyed his decree. ……. Yet neither he nor the Fathers of the Council had one word to say of his case, nor objected to the “rule of faith” as proposed by Adrian, but subscribed in the memorable way that history has made known to us.Needs no further comment. They must “subscribe to it (the Dogma) as a rule of faith.”
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
Just out of curiosity, have you ever noticed that what was taught during and since Vatican 2 is not the same thing that was taught before Vatican 2?
For the 94th time now, a true formal heretic is someone who pertinaciously rejects the RULE OF FAITH.
If I think (mistakenly) that the Church has taught PROPOSITION X, I am a formal heretic if I reject X ... even if the rejection of X is not materially heretical (since the Church never actually taught it). That's like being guilty of mortal sin for stealing if I take $1,000 that I THINK belongs to someone else ... even if it turns out that it was mine. Materially not a theft, but formally a theft.
If I think (mistakenly) that the Church has NOT taught PROPOSITION Y, I am not a formal heretic for rejecting PROPOSITION Y.
What's key is whether I am implicitly rejecting the very RULE OF FAITH behind all the dogmas.
But this does not register to your brain.
Drew,
What is your criteria for determining what teachings are DOGMA what what teachings are Satanic Verses?
Papal judgements and decisions do not necessarily pertain to dogmas. They can also be of a disciplinary and temporary nature, and / or not appertaining to Faith or morals.
A dogma is simply a revealed truth solemnly defined by the Church as such. Revealed truths do not become dogmas until the Magisterium proposes them in that way. A dogma implies a twofold relation: Divine Revelation + authority teaching of the Church.
How, otherwise, could Agatho, in the face of the Council, assert that the Roman See has never deviated from the path of truth? “Haec Apostolica Ecclesia nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est.” How, otherwise , could he insert, in his instructions to his Legates, that, after the decision contained in his dogmatical letter to the Council, the Fathers could not discuss the dogma, but must simply subscribe it as a rule of faith? “Non tamquam de incertis contendere, sed ut certa et immutabilia compendiosa definition proferre.” We have seen with what joy the Fathers obeyed his decree. ……. Yet neither he nor the Fathers of the Council had one word to say of his case, nor objected to the “rule of faith” as proposed by Adrian, but subscribed in the memorable way that history has made known to us.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolic Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and on His Relation to a General Council
When I say that Ecunemical Councils approved by the legitimate successor of St. Peter are infallible, I am not saying that they are necessarily dogmatic; or irreversible. (They can deal with pastoral, disciplinary, and temporary affairs as well). Infallible does not necessarily mean "dogmatic". It only means "incapable of making mistakes or being wrong".I lost track of how many times you contradicted yourself above. One of the most illogical posts I’ve ever read. Your understanding of the words “infallible”, “doctrine”, and “irreversible” is astoundingly wrong.
Ecunemical Councils ratified by a Pope are infallible, and they are binding to all Christians. That means they are applicable to Catholics of all rites, they do not erragainst the Faith and they cannot contradict the Faith even when they deal with disciplinary matters which potentially could be reversible in time. Ecunemical Councils represent the Universal Church which has the assistance of the Holy Ghost.
English is not my first language;You should learn English before you try to teach theology.
Every Catholic theologian knows that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith. Drew just refuses to back down because he has his ego invested in it.I've noticed a lot of amateury theologians have a desire to coin new terms and theories in order to attempt to explain the Crisis since the standard terms and theories the Catholic Church has used for centuries simply doesn't satisfy their personal desire for absolute clarity. So, in order to make things clear in their own minds, they muddy the very doctrines they are trying to understand.
If you want to argue about the limits of infallibility, go ahead, but you need to drop this Protestant-heretical stupidity of making dogma the proximate rule of faith.
When I say that Ecunemical Councils approved by the legitimate successor of St. Peter are infallible, I am not saying that they are necessarily dogmatic; or irreversible.Absolutely nonsensical statement. Absolutely wrong. Absolutely BAD THEOLOGY. Infallibility applies to faith/morals. It ONLY applies to faith/morals. The fruit of infallibility is dogma, so ALL infallible statements ARE NECESSARILY dogmatic. Since they are dogmatic, and since infallibility CANNOT EVER ERR, in any way, infallible statements ARE IRREVERSIBLE.
Ecunemical Councils ratified by a Pope are infallible, and they are binding to all Christians. That means they are applicable to Catholics of all rites, they do not err against the Faith and they cannot contradict the Faith even when they deal with disciplinary matters which potentially could be reversible in time. Ecunemical Councils represent the Universal Church which has the assistance of the Holy Ghost.Another mix of illogical statements. So you say an infallible statement is binding on Christians, they do not err and cannot contradict the Faith, but they can be reversible in time? ?? ?? So what was infallible in the 1500s could be reversed in our day? So your're saying truth can change. ?? ??
English is not my first language; but you already know that.
According to the CE article (Rule of Faith) dogma is the proximate rule of faith, specifically the inanimate proximate rule of faith. The Magisterium is the animate proximate rule of faith. The two go together and are inseparable. That the Magisterium holds to dogma is taken for granted. Which is an indication that a manifest heretic being a member of the hierarchy would be an absurdity. The big question is how do we identify the hierarchy. We are responsible for that.This is correct. The two go together and are inseparable, but to say, "That the Magisterium holds to dogma is taken for granted" - is not true. That would only be true if the Magisterium was the pope, hierarchy or anything other than teachings.
Councils pronouncements can deal with either dogmatic matters (which are unchangeable and true for all times) and / or disciplinary matters (which can be renewed or updated because they are temporary).Yes, agree.
They cannot err either in dogma or discipline because they have the living assistance of the Holy Ghost until the end of time.No!
Yes, agree.Can you think of any instance prior to V2 where the Magisterium led the Church into error (even in some doctrine which was non-infallible)?
No!
The promise of infallibility does not extend to disciplinary/governmental aspects of the Church, only matters of Faith/Morals, as CLEARLY outlined in V1. Only when the pope fulfills the 4 conditions of V1, (one of which is that IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH AND MORALS, and the other is that the pope INTENDS TO TEACH CLEARLY ON SUCH A MATTER) is something infallible.
Matters of discipline are not infallible and never have been, or else infallibility would be meaningless, since disciplinary matters can be updated/changed. Infallibility only deals with TEACHINGS of the Faith/dogma. Discipline deals with govt rules, church law, and certain aspects of the liturgy. Discipline is decided by the church hierarchy and can err, magnificently and unfortunately, as history has shown.
Well, if you say so. I was waiting for your opinion on it before pronouncing it good and Catholic.I emphasized what was correct in his post so as to demonstrate what was his obviously wrong understanding of what the Magisterium is. If the two (dogma and magisterium) go together and are inseparable, which is correct, then saying that only assumes that the Magisterium holds to dogma is to be taken for granted, is one heck of a confused thing for anyone to say - and they would never say such a confused thing if they had the correct understanding of the Magisterium.
These universal disciplines are infallible but reformable.Something infallible cannot be reformable. That’s impossible.
Infallibility has to do with faith/morals. It does not have to do with discipline. If you disagree, give me an example.
46. On this subject We judge it Our duty to rectify an attitude with which you are doubtless familiar, Venerable Brethren. We refer to the error and fallacious reasoning of those who have claimed that the sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise. Hence the epigram, “Lex orandi, lex credendi” — the law for prayer is the law for faith.
47. But this is not what the Church teaches and enjoins. The worship she offers to God, all good and great, is a continuous profession of Catholic faith and a continuous exercise of hope and charity, as Augustine puts it tersely. “God is to be worshipped,” he says, “by faith, hope and charity.”[44] In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly, not only by the celebration of the mysteries, and by offering the holy sacrifice and administering the sacraments, but also by saying or singing the credo or Symbol of the faith — it is indeed the sign and badge, as it were, of the Christian — along with other texts, and likewise by the reading of holy scripture, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church.
Can you think of any instance prior to V2 where the Magisterium led the Church into error (even in some doctrine which was non-infallible)?
Upon confirmation by the Pope, a General Council's decrees are binding on all Catholics.So what? Doesn't mean they are infallible.
It is true that discipline is man-made and can be changed. However, and this is very important, the Authority to enact discipline is not man-made, but given by God.Irrelevant.
Pope Gregory XVI, Quo graviora of 1833:Irrelevant.
Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII, 1947Irrelevant.
Now we're talking. Where has the Church given us evil, even in non-infallible circuмstances? There is no precedent.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif) Pax declares Papal Teaching that the Church cannot permit anything to the detriment of souls "Irrelevant". (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh2.gif)It's irrelevant to the question at hand.
So whenever someone resists or disobeys the Pope in matters of faith and discipline, they deny this Dogma.Agree. But V2 was not a formal discipline because 1) it's not binding under pain of sin, 2) not required for salvation.
You need to stop blowing smoke out of your posterior and learn the terms involved here before posting again.
orLike what?
there's an aspect of the condemnation of 1616 that you don't understand.
Can something be universal and still be temporary? I think so. Universal simply means "of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases". The element of permanency in time is not what makes something "universal", but the element of affecting everyone.
An Ecunemical Council is ecunemical because the Bishops from the whole world are convoked under the presidency of the Pope, and the decrees of which, having received Papal confirmation, bind all Christians of the whole world.
Again, read Scheeben's article on the CE.
Oh, so you found one instance from a non-irreformable decree of the Holy Office. People argue that heliocentrism vs. geocentrism has no bearing on the good of souls. So, then, how does this harm souls? In addition, while it may have been true that Heliocentrism would pose a danger and a scandal to souls in 1616, perhaps by 1835 it posed no such threat.
In any case, we're not talking here about a verdict here or there by the Holy Office, or some offhand comment in a Papal Allocution. What's protected by the Holy Spirit is the UNIVERSAL Magisterium, when the Pope teaches and addresses the entire Church or promulgates discipline to the entire Church.
There is no such thing as a non-infallible doctrine.
Church discipline is man-made, it has nothing to do with doctrine, hence it is never perfect and can change based on the time period or needs of the faithful. For example, the communion fast used to start at midnight the night before mass. Since mass times are not 'normal' due to the shortage of priests, the church changed the communion fast to 3 hrs then to 1, because She realized people could not fast all day if they were going to a noon mass or an evening one. Is that wrong or right? It's neither.
The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . . If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.
(Rev. Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1 [4th ed., Rome, 1908], p. 258;
The other day I looked at the most recent 5 pages of that thread and it seemed to be a poster named "poche" talking to himself. I figured it was similar to a "graceseeker " thread and moved on.Poche is a very frequent poster to the forum, but he seldom contributes anything.
Do you think that two of the Council’s constitutions are expressly described as "dogmatic" just because they "felt" like adding a meaningless title? ( See Lumen Gentium, and Dei Verbum)Ha ha. So when V2 taught A and non-A at the same time, which is doctrine and which isn't?
If a "pastoral" Council teaches on Faith and Morals then it is teaching doctrinally. I do not think you even know what "Faith and Morals" mean. If you have read the docuмents then explain how is it that you think they are not appertaining to "Faith and Morals".
My post was in answer to 'Now we're talking. Where has the Church given us evil, even in non-infallible circuмstances? There is no precedent.'
The 1616 decree was an irreversible decree. A 'non-irreformable' decree is reformable. How in God's name can formal heresy become reformable?
'People argue'... I thought we were talking about the Church here, not 'people's opinions... 'that heliocentrism vs. geocentrism has no bearing on the good of souls.' It harms souls in that the Church decreed the Bible, the word of God, said the sun moves, and to deny what God has revealed is what the danger was/is. Moreover, For hundreds of years the Fathers had fought the Pythagorean heresies attached to the heliocentric heresy. These heresies entered the Church once again when that infamous U-turn by popes occurred. Once indulged, Modernism followed as a direct result of the heliocentric heresy. The first evolutionary theory was the Nebular theory, how a heliocentric solar system evolved WITHOUT GOD. There followed Darwin Evolution, when MILLIONS OF SOULS ceased to believe in God. With the backing of both CHURCH and STATE, heliocentrism eliminated God from His creation for most. Why even trad Catholics today believe in theistic evolution, no different to atheistic evolution in that both reject direct creation by God.
There is another way in which the HvG hasd a bearing on souls. Once conceded to biblical and physical heliocentrism, you cannot have one without the other, the Church allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to decide what was or is a teaching of the Church. In 1820, the Holy Office admitted the 1616 decree was papal, was infallible, and remained a heresy. Here the Holy Ghost put His foot down making sure that the universal magisterium of Pope Paul V was protected. But the heliocentrists found a way around this so as to have their infallible decree defining heliocentrism as formal heresy AND AN ORTHODOX HELIOCENTRISM FROM 1835 ONWARDS.
It surprises me not one bit now when I find post after post, quoting pope after pope, saint after saint, theologian after theologian, contradicting one another on so many things to do with Catholicism. One pope says this cannot be alterted, Vatican I said no pope can alter what a previous pope said, yet popes since 1835 have been doing this, especially since Vatican II, and then posters quote where someone said it can in this case or that case be alterted, giving another reason for it.
There has been so many contradictions in Church history since 1835 that a Catholic today would find it hard to know exactly how the Church works any more. When no answer can be found we get the likes of the post I got above 'or there's an aspect of the condemnation of 1616 that you don't understand.' Well tell us then, I thought we were supposed to know how out faith works?
Its a while now since I bothered to listen to ten theologians differ on any aspect of the Catholic faith. I read Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger deny Original Sin was as a result of Adam and Eve in his Big Bang heliocentric book In the Beginning, that it is a 'collective sin' and the next pope Francis saying he would baptise a Martian if he arrived on Earth, as though a Martian needed baptism. That is what Catholicism has become since that harmless heliocentrism was brought into the womb of the Church, as Church with a MILLION OPINIONS. Just look at this thread.
They say geocentrism has no bearing on the individual soul. Well it has on mine, for I have come to really appreciate the FIRST DOGMA OF THE CHURCH found in OTT's history of Catholic dogmas, namely GOD CAN BE KNOWN FROM THE THINGS THAT HE MADE. It was that heliocentrism brought into the Church from 1835 that led to the elimination of this dogma. I now find God in every beautiful thing in nature and the universe. Every cloud or star reminds me of His creation, every flower reminds me of His infinite beauty. And then I read for the last 200 years Toms, Dicks and Harrys tellingus geocentrism is not true or has no spiritual value.
Thank God, I know my faith, what I must believe in, what I must do if I am to have any chance of heaven.
(https://staticv3.972mag.com/wp-content/uploads//2013/07/181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpg)
Cassini,
Enjoyed your post and your point it well taken. Those that keep Dogma in its proper order of reference will have the last and only laugh.
I hope you have not pushed some S&Sers to think we have had no pope since 1835.
Drew
When you introduce a time element, what you're essentially saying is that the Church can defect at any given time.No, that is your NO thinking, but that is not what he is saying.
Drew, nominalist "universals" have absolutely no relation whatsoever to Universal in the Church ... other than a similar etymology.
When you introduce a time element, what you're essentially saying is that the Church can defect at any given time.
Foundational to this question concerning God’s love for us is another. Does this love of God for man entail that He endowed man with the ability and faculties to know Him and to come to Him? Did God create us in such a way as to make knowledge of Him something that is fully natural to the human mind and heart? If not, then it would seem that man has some justification for not knowing and loving God, and that any judgment of God upon us for not knowing and worshipping Him in spirit and truth would be the act of a capricious and unjust tyrant. Implicitly responding to this question, St. Paul writes:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.” (Rom 1:18-20).
St. Thomas writes, “all knowers know God implicitly in all they know.” (De Veritate, Q. 22, a.2). Thomas rightly teaches, of course, that all of our knowledge, barring a direct infusion from God, comes through the senses. We come into this world with no innate ideas or knowledge, and this includes no knowledge of God. The “natural” knowledge of God of which Thomas speaks is therefore acquired through the encounter of man’s mind with the world, and through sense experience. It is, in other words, natural, but not innate.
But there is a very important truth involved here which I think is often missed. The human mind, in order to posses such “natural knowledge” of God, must be in possession of an innate, intellectual light which is structured in such a manner as to know, in a finite and analogical manner, as God knows. St. Thomas writes:
“And thus we must needs say that the human soul knows all things in the eternal types, since by participation of these types we know all things. For the intellectual light itself which is in us, is nothing else than a participated likeness of the uncreated light, in which are contained the eternal types.” (I, 84, 5).
This created participation by the human intellect in the uncreated intellectual light of God operates in response to both areas of human knowledge – natural and supernatural. The passage from St. Thomas quoted immediately above speaks of this light as specifically related to our knowledge of created things. Simply put, God sees the substance known as man and man sees likewise; God sees a tree, man sees a tree. Man, in other words, does not just know the “units” of individual sense data, but his intellect is so constituted by God so as to immediately abstract to the knowledge of the substantial nature of things. Man naturally knows “universals,” which are the “eternal types” (the “kinds” of Genesis) of God’s creation. The very foundation of all intellectual sanity, therefore, is man’s knowledge of “abstractions” which the modern-day empiricist dismisses as mere human fabrications.
But what about God and the supernatural truths which constitute His very Being? Does the created structure of the intellectual light within us also possess a structure which “naturally” responds to supernatural truths? Did God so constitute a relationship between Himself and our own minds as to make it a fully natural thing for us to “hear” the voice of Revelation, even though the truths involved may be quite abstract and even appear to involve things that are contradictory to previous experience and thought?
A remarkable explanation of this relationship is available to us in the writings of Newman’s contemporary and alleged arch-rival, Cardinal Henry Edward Manning. His work, The Glories of the Sacred Heart, contains a chapter titled “Dogma the Source of Devotion.” After quoting Our Lord’s words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” Cardinal Manning offers the following analysis (selected quotes):
“He (Jesus) declared that all truth was contained in Himself; and when the Apostle said that he judged himself to ‘know nothing save Jesus Christ and Him crucified,” he meant the same thing, namely, that he who knows Jesus Christ aright knows the whole Revelation of God, the radiance which flows from the Person of Jesus Christ.”
“Now our Divine Lord, speaking to the woman of Samaria, said, ‘You adore that which you know not,’ because they were an idolatrous people, of mixed race…and they had a sort of fragmentary knowledge of the old revelation; but they did not rightly know the True God; and so much as they did know of the True God, they did not know truly. Therefore they could not worship Him ‘in spirit and in truth.’”
“From these words I draw one conclusion, namely, that knowledge is the first and vital condition of all true worship.”
“My purpose, then, will be to trace out the connection between what the world scornfully calls dogma and devotion, or the worship of God ‘in spirit and in truth.’”
“Now, first of all, let us see what is dogma….It means the precise enunciation of a divine truth, of a divine fact, or of a divine reality fully known, so far as it is the will of God to reveal it, adequately defined in words chosen and sanctioned by a divine authority.”
“Every divine truth or reality, so far as God has been pleased to reveal it to us, casts its perfect outline and image upon the human intelligence. His own mind, in which dwells all truth in all fullness and in all perfection, so far as He has revealed of His truth, is cast upon the surface of our mind, in the same way as the sun casts its own image upon the surface of the water, and the disc of the sun is perfectly reflected from its surface.”
Dogmas or doctrines, in other words, are not in any way to be regarded as weak and humanly fabricated “notions” (the word used by Cardinal Newman for such intellectual formulations), but rather as a powerful divine radiance cast upon our intellectual light, a radiance which finds a natural response in the soul of one who sincerely seeks the truth. This is why, in Cardinal Manning’s words:
“If when a divine truth is declared to us, our hearts do not turn to it, as the eye turns to the light; if there be not is us an instinctive yearning, which makes us promptly turn to the sound of the divine voice, the fault is in our hearts; for just in proportion as we know the truth we shall be drawn towards it.”
Finally, I cannot resist offering one more marvelous passage taken from Manning’s work, The Four Great
Evils of Our Day:
“God, who is the perfect and infinite intelligence – that is, the infinite and perfect reason – created man to His own likeness, and gave him a reasonable intelligence, like His own. As the face in the mirror answers to the face of the beholder, so the intelligence of man answers to the intelligence of God. It is His own likeness.”
Cardinal Manning’s words constitute a beautiful elaboration of Our Lord’s simple declaration, “Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice.” (John 18:37). It should be added that the Gospel of John is replete with teachings concerning the nature of Christ as the light of truth, and of man’s response, or lack of response to this light and truth: “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” I would highly recommend to all readers that they reread the entire Gospel of St. John with the specific intent of noting all of this imagery concerning the power of the light and truth of Christ which finds a fully natural response in the created intellectual light of man, and a corresponding rejection in those who have of their own free will obscured this light: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” And further:
“For everyone that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.” (John 3:20-21).
It is no wonder, therefore, that the Gospel of John is a premier object for deconstruction by Modernists. It firmly establishes Dogma and the Divine Deposit of Faith (the “radiance” emanating from Christ) as the absolute and vital foundation of our entire Faith, as being the light of truth which is the very life of the soul, and to which the human soul naturally responds. God’s love is thus fully justified. All the blame for man’s turning away from the light of God’s truth lies within the will of each individual man who does so. As Cardinal Manning said, “the fault is within our hearts.”
It must also be added that Christ’s words are for all men at all times. The light of Christ’s truth is not something that must wait upon the growth and maturation of man’s experience and intellectual and religious evolution. It is there to be received and assented to by any human heart, at any time and in any culture, which has not betrayed its own inherent, God-given light.
Dogmas, in other words, are not simply abstract formulations which comprise a “notional” faith. They are not merely confessions of Faith designed to bind us together in a unity of belief and worship. They are the very vitality of the entire spiritual life. St. Thomas saw fit to treat of the “Nature of Sacred Doctrine” in the very first Question of his Summa. There, he writes:
“On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. Xiv, 1), to this science [Sacred Doctrine] alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened.”
This begetting, nourishing, protecting, and strengthening of our faith is, of course, intimately incarnated into all our other faculties. Sensations, life experiences, and the imagining and memory faculties all play very important parts. But it is the intellectual light in man which is created with the structure – this structure involving abstraction at its most sublime level – to transform all these experiences into true knowledge of God and of His revealed truth. Here lies the real vitality of man, even of the most simple and unlearned of men, and here is where man “hears” the voice of God.
Such is true Catholic epistemology. To undermine it in any way is to enter upon a path of decay involving all things human.
I'm glad that you find corruption of the Church's Magisterium so amusing. And the devil is laughing right there with you, enjoying every heretical post.
Now Vatican II is not only not infallible, but it's not even Magisterium.V2 is not infallible. It’s also not part of the CONSTANT/UNIVERSAL magisterium (because its teachings are not consistent with Tradition, thus are not Universally held, by all, everywhere...meaning they are not Apostolic in origin).
You really need to go back and study the Penny Catechism before attempting theology and making a fool of yourself.
You and Stubborn and Pax simply make up definitions on the fly that suit your narrative but have no grasp of even the most basic theological concepts involved here.
V2 is not infallible. It’s also not part of the CONSTANT/UNIVERSAL magisterium (because its teachings are not consistent with Tradition, thus are not Universally held, by all, everywhere...meaning they are not Apostolic in origin).
At this point, V2 is part of the fallible/ordinary magisterium, unless and until they can show their teachings agree with Tradition (which they’ve yet to do).
Ladislaus, you REFUSE to distinguish between the fallible/ordinary magisterium and the Universal/Constant magisterium. You use the term ‘magisterium’ too generally. Can you explain why?
Decrees of the Holy Office are not irreformable or infallible. This has been demonstrated many times already.
Bravo, you found one decree of the Holy Office that was lifted. Any more?
Maybe it was the teaching of Pius IX that the Church is not capable of allowing discipline that is harmful to souls.
That an Ecuмenical Council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm) which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is endowed with infallible doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) authority.
So the above explains that if a teaching does not fulfill the 4 conditions laid out by Vatican I, then it's not infallible. It's that simple. V2 did not contain any ex Cathedra statements, therefore it's not infallible. Case closed.That is not to say that it does not contain error and heresy which has been diseminated throughout the whole Church to the harm of souls as well as promulgating disciplines which are harmful to Tradition and the Faith. Do you believe Vatican II to be a valid council of the Church?
If an Ecuмenical Council teaches against the FaithV2 did not teach with the same level of authority that ALL PREVIOUS councils did. You’re comparing apples-oranges.
And I am going to say again, that even when Ecuмenical Councils do not define infallible dogmas as an organ, they still CANNOT teach heresy to the Faithful or contradict the Faith in any of its decrees or constitutions, because they represent the UNIVERSAL Church and are binding therefore to all Christians.You are not the Church. You are not a Roman official. You are not authorized to say what V2 binds or doesn’t bind. Your contention that V2 is binding on the faithful is a misapplication of many “high level” principles with an erroneous conclusion that is directly at odds with EVERY MAJOR V2 explanation by Roman officials. Your view is not based on facts, but incorrect logic and emotion.
Let's read St. Robert Bellarmine on the subject:
‘Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the Earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the Earth but the Earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the centre and the Earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the Earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers
So, basically, what they were condemning is the assertion that Sacred Scripture was false implicit in Galileo's theories ... and the fact that his theories did not have any real proof. So, reading the above, there was clearly no absolute ruling regarding the truth or falsehood of heliocentrism, and what was being condemned was the implicit allegation that Sacred Scripture was wrong. And indeed the competence of the Magisterium has for its primary object matters of faith and morals, rather than natural science. So the primary object of this condemnation was a matter of faith and morals, that Sacred Scripture might be in error, rather than the teaching of any particular scientific matter.
You are not the Church. You are not a Roman official. You are not authorized to say what V2 binds or doesn’t bind. Your contention that V2 is binding on the faithful is a misapplication of many “high level” principles with an erroneous conclusion that is directly at odds with EVERY MAJOR V2 explanation by Roman officials. Your view is not based on facts, but incorrect logic and emotion.Of course, if you look at what the Conciliar Church says, what the Roman officials say, what laws and docuмents the Vatican has promulgated since Vatican 2, and the teaching of all the Conciliar bishops throughout the world, you will note that it is actually your view that is based solely on wishful thinking.
a) On the one hand, here are those who, on the pretext of greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically reject the teachings of the Council itself, its application and the resulting reforms, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and of the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, desired by Christ. The discredit on the authority of the Church is cast in the name of a Tradition, of which only respectfully and verbally attest; the faithful depart from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter as to their legitimate Bishops; today's authority is rejected, in the name of yesterday's. And the fact is all the more serious, since the opposition we are talking about is not only encouraged by some priests, but led by a Bishop, however always venerated by Us, Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre.
It is so painful to notice it: but how can we fail to see in such an attitude - whatever may be the intentions of these people - to put oneself outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore of the Church?
Since this is, unfortunately, the logical consequence, when it is claimed to be preferable to disobey under the pretext of keeping intact one's own faith, to work in its own way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time denying effective obedience. And it is said openly! It is denied to state that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that faith would also be in danger because of the Post-Council reforms and guidelines, which one has to disobey to preserve certain traditions. Which traditions? It is this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not the Ecuмenical Council, which determines which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, venerable Brothers, this attitude stands as a judge of that divine will, which has placed Peter and His legitimate successors as Head of the Church to confirm the brothers in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (Cf. 32, Io . 21, 15 ff.), Which established him as guarantor and custodian of the deposit of the Faith.
O'Regan had it basically right ... and you only made a fool of yourself in that exchange.
Paul VI
https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/docuмents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html
Using Google Translate
trad123,The Pope does have the authority to bind and loose new disciplines and rites, and Catholics cannot call anything the Church does in its masses as calls to impiety.
There were two serious problems with Archbishop Lefebvre that made the defense of the Catholic faith impossible and have contributed to the demise of the SSPX as a voice for Catholic tradition: One, he did not hold Dogma as the rule of faith, and Two, he regarded all immemorial ecclesiastical traditions as matters of mere discipline. Thus Paul VI could claim that he was opposing his version of discipline against the the new version which the Church is at liberty to bind and loose.
If the resistance is to have any success whatsoever, it has to recognize these errors and structure opposition on the immutable truths of Catholic Dogma. Truth is the only weapon the faithful possess against the abuse and perversion of authority.
Drew
At 10.00 this morning, in the Consistory Hall of the Vatican Apostolic Palace, during the celebration of Terce, the Holy Father Francis held an Ordinary Public Consistory for the Canonization of the Blesseds:
- Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini), Supreme Pontiff;
- Oscar Arnulfo Romero Galdámez, archbishop of San Salvador, martyr;
- Francesco Spinelli, diocesan priest, founder of the Institute of the Sisters Adorers of the Blessed Sacrament;
- Vincenzo Romano, diocesan priest;
- Maria Katharina Kasper, virgin, founder of the Institute of the Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ;
- Nazaria Ignacia of Saint Teresa of Jesus (née: Nazaria Ignacia March Mesa), virgin, founder of the Congregation of the Missionary Crusaders of the Church.
During the Consistory, the Pope decreed that the Blesseds be inscribed in the Book of Saints on Sunday 14 October 2018.
I've put (a version of) this matrix out there before. Formatting is difficult in a forum post, but I think you can get the picture.
Vatican II Catholic | Vatican II Not Catholic
Magisterium Must Be Accepted Conservative NO Sedevacantists
----------
Magisterium Need Not be Accepted Liberal NO R&R
What's wrong, nay, more than wrong, heretical, is your assertion that an Ecuмenical Council can do grave harm to the faith and that the Magisterium can become this corrupt. It's one thing to say that not everything is, strictly speaking, protected by infallibility, and quite another to say what you're saying.
Please explain how that is N.O. thinking.Poor lad's NO thinking:-------->"When you introduce a time element, what you're essentially saying is that the [Novus Ordo] Church can defect at any given time."
So you open every post by repeating this lie. This is getting really pathetic.
As I've explained probably twenty times by now.
That the Magisterium is part of Revelation in the sense that it's revealed, concedo.
That the Magisterium is part of Revelation in the sense that it is part of God's act of revealing, nego.
My denial of the second is based on the dogma, which you admitted, that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, and the persistent papal teaching (including Vatican I), that the role of the Magisterium is to safeguard and explain the Deposit of Revelation, and not to reveal new doctrine (cf. Vatican I).
Before addressing this, I need to understand your terms.
You distinguish between Magisterium (capital M) and magisterium (lowercase).
So an Encyclical like, say, Mortalium Animos, which Magisterium do you categorize it as and why?
This is yet another example of your general dishonesty.
So, here, you try to chartacterize this as something I made up, using the phrase "what you like to call". I did not come up with this notion. Msgr. Fenton explained this position and cited the theologians who also taught this ... as something that is intrinsically related to the indefectibility of the Magisterium.
And the thing that everyone should take away is that Liberal Novus Ordo Catholics and R&R have a great deal in common.
As for the last part, it's another lying straw-man distortion. Because the Magisterium is the rule of faith, this does not mean that it is "open to constant development". This is prevented by the Holy Spirit ... whom you malign with every post.
Then I guess you consider John of St. Thomas an idiot for saying precisely that the Pope is the rule of faith. In fact, every theologian, many of whom have been cited on this thread, who teaches that the Magisterium is the rule of faith, is just a blithering idiot ... according to the great and powerful Drew, The Decider and Judge of all that is Catholic vs. all that is not Catholic. Drew, Doctor of the Church, also denounces Bishop Guerard des Laurier as a moron who doesn't know Philosophy 101. Give us a beak. Your hubris knows no bounds. But that's only inevitable when one sets himself up as the ultimate rule of faith as you do.
:laugh1:
I guess that your proof must have escaped the notice of every Catholic theologian before you. No doubt you'd be declared a Doctor of the Church were it not for the fact that Luther came up with the idea before you did.
But Exsurge Domine by Pope Leo X, in which the R&R position is explicitly condemned, isn't?
The condemned errors of Martin Luther are not quite infallible for Mr. Drew; but this Letter of Pope Agatho is indeed.
Well...I guess then that your Church has manifestly defected in Her divine mission of preserving the Sacred worship of God, given the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass which the "Holy Father" himself has publicly said for decades, along with millions and millions of Catholics around the world.
But Exsurge Domine by Pope Leo X, in which the R&R position is explicitly condemned, isn't?
The condemned errors of Martin Luther are not quite infallible for Mr. Drew; but this Letter of Pope Agatho is indeed.
Lad,Falsely claiming that all theologians support his NO opinions is typically poor lad's main defense and first response, he does the same when he falsely claims that +ABL, Fr. Chazal, and whoever, all actually agree with is dogmatic doubtism. Your quotes proving the contrary do not matter to him, he simply says those quotes are all mindless babble. Same o same o.
"Every Catholic theologian?" Hardly. I have already produced quotes from several Catholic theologians that support dogma as the rule of faith. If you like, I will repost the links.
This is the end of the Letter. It confirms that the Pope of Rome is true successor of St. Peter and takes literally the place of Blessed Peter the Apostle Himself through living generations. As such, he will never lose the Roman Catholic Faith and become a heretic and a true enemy of the Church!.
Faith cannot contradict reason. If a true successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth appointed by God, can lose his Faith and lead the Universal Church into error, then Roman Catholicism is false.
Before answering the accusation (that Popes Liberius and Honorius were heretics and formally taught heresy), we must once more remind our opponents that, in order to overturn our thesis (of papal infallibility), they must prove not merely that Liberius or Honorius has spoken or written what is contrary to faith, or denied it, but that he did so as Pope, teaching in matters of faith or morals, and thereby binding the Universal Church. If they cannot prove this, they prove nothing, for the fallibility would then be only personal and private, and would no more affect the infallibility of the Pope as Universal teacher, than the denial of Peter in the Court of the High Priest injured his infallibility as Prince of the Apostles. They must, then, first produce good, historical evidence of the fact; secondly, they must prove that it was a definition or teaching contrary to truth in matters of faith; and, thirdly, that the Pope intended, by his teaching, to bind the Universal Church to believe it.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope, when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a General Council
Scandal is the movable stick or trigger in a trap, that is, any obstacle or snare designed to make another stumble or fall. Thus, Christ is figuratively said to be a rock of scandal, because the Jews who expected a political Messias were scandalized and stumbled at the suffering and crucified Christ, and consequently failed to obtain justification.
Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia