Author Topic: Why can't trads get along?  (Read 56387 times)

Offline Older Salt

  • Ora Pro Nobis Sancta dei Genitrix.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2863
  • Thanked: 235 times
  • Pray for the Dead.
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #75 on: August 14, 2014, 06:05:09 PM »
My wife and I get along with all the Trads we know and meet [over 100 and growing] except the several sedevacantists we have met, who, to put it mildly, seem very anti-social.

Probably seemed anti-social because they sized you up.
No,
They were not anti-social to me but extremely disruptive during Mass.

Several people OR several separate instances (how many?) ?

In what way were they disruptive, and if different instances, explain.
pm sent to you.
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.
 

Offline Roland Deschain2

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • I am a prideful, arrogant and profane sinner.
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #76 on: August 14, 2014, 09:01:36 PM »


I, for one, am skeptical. I'll go to Mass at the diocese, the sedevacantists, the sedeplenists, and the independents. I'll even go to the SSPX and suffer through a 45 minute sermon if it means sacraments. The point to be made is this: Let the priests squabble over sheep. We're all in the desert and need water.

Sums it up for me as well.
"To our personal enemies, according to Christ's commandment, we must forgive everything; but with the enemies of God we cannot have peace!"- Archbishop Averky

"Life is a play in which for a short time one man represents a judge, another a general, and so on; after the play no further account is made of the dignity which each one had."- St John Chrysostom
 

Offline Francisco Suárez

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 407
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • Religion: Roman Christian
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #77 on: August 14, 2014, 11:58:15 PM »
Quote
This is typically done by dragging a said issue into the religious field and then "refuting" it there, based on one's own interpretation of religious teaching.

E.g. "refuting" heliocentrism with Bible passages and incorrect judgements by inquisitors, when the question is not a religious but an empirical and theoretical one. Other examples abound.

Arguments necessarily ensure when "evidence" is treated as subjective, uninformed opinion

No I think we dont get along with folks who have an agenda or something on their chest and then derail a thread so they can bring up something from another thread were they got trounced...but I could be wrong. ::)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not poted anything in other threads about heliocentrism. I merely used it as an example for the point I was making.
 

Offline charlesh

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 126
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #78 on: August 15, 2014, 03:36:01 AM »
I'll even go to the SSPX and suffer through a 45 minute sermon if it means sacraments.

For the record, 45 min is an exaggeration.

(Usually.  I do know of one possible exception.)

Really?? That's actually a relief. I must be really unlucky. I've been to many SSPX masses and the sermons were almost always marathons. The worst was a stammering priest (God bless him!) who gave a 10 minute sermon in 40 minutes about freemasonic conspiracies.

Carry on...
 

Offline RobertJS

  • It prays to poofread!
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1432
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #79 on: August 15, 2014, 03:19:07 PM »


I, for one, am skeptical. I'll go to Mass at the diocese, the sedevacantists, the sedeplenists, and the independents. I'll even go to the SSPX and suffer through a 45 minute sermon if it means sacraments. The point to be made is this: Let the priests squabble over sheep. We're all in the desert and need water.

Sums it up for me as well.

It makes it sound like it's just the Mass that matters. But that's not what matters most. St. Athanasius and is relatively small following completely separated from the Arian clergy running the established diocesan churches, even though they all had valid Sacraments. This was before the Church condemned them as heretics. The Arians had one subtle, philosophical error against the Trinity, and it was enough to separate from the danger to the Faith.....not even trying to seek out priests who didn't preach on it at the time of the Mass.

The big question is - Why was there such a danger going to the Mass of an Arian if that particular priest didn't preach the error?  Many today are reluctant to think about this, but it is a moral lesson deserving of a discussion thread all its own. It reveals what length we must go to keep our Faith incorrupt.

ideo mittit illis Deus operationem erroris ut credant mendacio
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1022
  • Thanked: 189 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #80 on: August 15, 2014, 04:11:17 PM »


I, for one, am skeptical. I'll go to Mass at the diocese, the sedevacantists, the sedeplenists, and the independents. I'll even go to the SSPX and suffer through a 45 minute sermon if it means sacraments. The point to be made is this: Let the priests squabble over sheep. We're all in the desert and need water.

Sums it up for me as well.

It makes it sound like it's just the Mass that matters. But that's not what matters most. St. Athanasius and is relatively small following completely separated from the Arian clergy running the established diocesan churches, even though they all had valid Sacraments. This was before the Church condemned them as heretics. The Arians had one subtle, philosophical error against the Trinity, and it was enough to separate from the danger to the Faith.....not even trying to seek out priests who didn't preach on it at the time of the Mass.

The big question is - Why was there such a danger going to the Mass of an Arian if that particular priest didn't preach the error?  Many today are reluctant to think about this, but it is a moral lesson deserving of a discussion thread all its own. It reveals what length we must go to keep our Faith incorrupt.

That's not quite accurate.

St. Athanasius was exiled from his See.  He didn't voluntarily separate himself from the other Catholics.

In short, because he wouldn't go along for the ride, they tried to throw him under the bus.

Every time he was given the opportunity to return - he did.

I believe he returned to his See 4 times.

P^3
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 

Offline RobertJS

  • It prays to poofread!
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1432
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #81 on: August 15, 2014, 05:51:15 PM »


I, for one, am skeptical. I'll go to Mass at the diocese, the sedevacantists, the sedeplenists, and the independents. I'll even go to the SSPX and suffer through a 45 minute sermon if it means sacraments. The point to be made is this: Let the priests squabble over sheep. We're all in the desert and need water.

Sums it up for me as well.

It makes it sound like it's just the Mass that matters. But that's not what matters most. St. Athanasius and is relatively small following completely separated from the Arian clergy running the established diocesan churches, even though they all had valid Sacraments. This was before the Church condemned them as heretics. The Arians had one subtle, philosophical error against the Trinity, and it was enough to separate from the danger to the Faith.....not even trying to seek out priests who didn't preach on it at the time of the Mass.

The big question is - Why was there such a danger going to the Mass of an Arian if that particular priest didn't preach the error?  Many today are reluctant to think about this, but it is a moral lesson deserving of a discussion thread all its own. It reveals what length we must go to keep our Faith incorrupt.

That's not quite accurate.

St. Athanasius was exiled from his See.  He didn't voluntarily separate himself from the other Catholics.

In short, because he wouldn't go along for the ride, they tried to throw him under the bus.

Every time he was given the opportunity to return - he did.

I believe he returned to his See 4 times.

P^3

No, St. Athanasius and followers separated before he was exiled.  Yes, he did voluntarily separate from the Arian dioceses ever before Rome condemned the Arians. This is a huge lesson traditionalists are avoiding, and I having repeatedly mentioned here on this forum, with no substantial response.

ideo mittit illis Deus operationem erroris ut credant mendacio
 

Offline JuniorCouncilor

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Religion: Catholic as can be
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #82 on: August 15, 2014, 07:23:22 PM »
Let's take apart the first point.  If prior to the election a person was suspected of heresy etc, is elected Pope, and the Bishops of the Church with moral unanimously acknowledge him as Pope, then the 'suspicion of heresy' etc was false.  That really is how simple it is ... whether the Pope falls into formal heresy afterwards is another issue.  If I remember correctly Hunter has some good references on this exact topic.

Pope Paul IV disagrees with you.  Quoted from Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (http://www.fisheaters.com/cumexapostolatusofficio.html):

Quote
6. In addition, by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define: that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

Quote
Quote
... if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. (Hunter, 1894) http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html
 

This seems pretty clear to me.

Too clear, in fact.  The argument above would seem to state that the bishops' power of teaching could not be exercised during the Great Western Schism, since the bishops did not agree in recognizing a certain man as pope.

Quote
Following through, accepting that the canonization by the reigning pontiff (Pope Francis) establishes a dogmatic fact.  What is protected by the infallibility?  That the person canonized by the Pope is in fact enjoying the beatific vision.  That's it in a nutshell. What they do with it afterwards is not covered. 

This is an assertion that I hear repeatedly, but nowhere have I seen it proven.  In any case, how can it not be seen as approval of the Assisi prayer meetings?  I have already seen it cited as "infallible proof that trads are wrong" (I paraphrase, but the sense is exactly correct).

Quote
Now the canonization and 'universal disciplinary law' are two different areas - mixing them is non sequitor. Disciplinary laws are legislated, not imagined, so these are two different elements.  If you were to demonstrate that this canonization resulted in the promulgation of a universal disciplinary law that was not just ambiguous (like the NOM) but explicitly went against the faith - then you'll run into the indefectibilty of the Church.

Um, respectfully, I think you need to examine this one more carefully.  A canonization is, very precisely, a universal disciplinary law, stating that X is to be regarded, and venerated, everywhere within the Catholic Church as a saint.  That's a law, it's legislation, it imposes an obligation.  By this law, I cannot say that Wojtyla was not a holy man.  Further, it's universal.  It applies to the entire Catholic Church.  That makes it universal.  But to me, it implies a huge problem, because the Church would be encouraging us to have Assisi prayer meetings-- while Pope Pius XI called much less than that, in his Mortalium animos, a road to apostasy.

Thus, it looks a lot more like a dogmatic fact to me precisely that Bergoglio cannot be pope.

Quote
If the Pope says: I deny the Dogma of the Assumption.

That's pretty clear ... no need to wait as the denial of one de fide teaching is all that is required. 

In principle, sure.  In practice, you would never do it that way.  You would carefully verify.  And it would be extremely unwise not to.

Likewise, in this time, it is extremely unwise to ignore the fact that Bergoglio is constantly overpassing the bounds of Catholic doctrine in his words and actions.

Quote
However, even in that case, until the Church makes the final declaration, he is still to be regarded as Pope.

See Cum ex Apostolatus above, and quite a few theologians' works, including Ss. Bellarmine and de Sales.  What you say may be true, but it is not at all clear that it is true.  You cannot prove it simply by stating it.

God bless.
 

Offline voxxpopulisuxx

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
  • Religion: duhhhhh
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #83 on: August 15, 2014, 09:51:08 PM »
If JP2 is a Saint then why is this?

only Country s in the world without conflict on their soil in Dark green
Lord Jesus Christ Most High Son of God have Mercy On Me a Sinner (Jesus Prayer)

“You can never cross the ocean until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.” – Christopher Columbus
911!
"Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won. "— Louisa May Alcott

“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.”St. Arnold (580-640)

Geocentrism holds no possible atheistic downside.
 

Offline Chestertonian

  • The Stephen Hawking of SD
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12638
  • Thanked: 5556 times
  • Eternal Gadfly
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #84 on: August 15, 2014, 09:53:22 PM »
If JP2 is a Saint then why is this?

only Country s in the world without conflict on their soil in Dark green
what does this have to do with jpii
"I am not much of a Crusader, that is for sure, but at least I am not a Mohamedist!"
 

Offline voxxpopulisuxx

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
  • Religion: duhhhhh
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #85 on: August 15, 2014, 10:00:30 PM »
Assisi....prayers for world peace...no?
Lord Jesus Christ Most High Son of God have Mercy On Me a Sinner (Jesus Prayer)

“You can never cross the ocean until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.” – Christopher Columbus
911!
"Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won. "— Louisa May Alcott

“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.”St. Arnold (580-640)

Geocentrism holds no possible atheistic downside.
 

Offline Roland Deschain2

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • I am a prideful, arrogant and profane sinner.
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #86 on: August 16, 2014, 08:47:06 AM »
Assisi....prayers for world peace...no?

"For an abundance of the fruits of the earth, and for PEACEFUL TIMES.....let us pray to the LORD."

Just playing devil's advocate here but I'm sure you don't consider this prayer that you pray every Sunday to be non-efficacious for the same reason?
"To our personal enemies, according to Christ's commandment, we must forgive everything; but with the enemies of God we cannot have peace!"- Archbishop Averky

"Life is a play in which for a short time one man represents a judge, another a general, and so on; after the play no further account is made of the dignity which each one had."- St John Chrysostom
 

Offline Roland Deschain2

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • I am a prideful, arrogant and profane sinner.
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #87 on: August 16, 2014, 08:49:37 AM »


I, for one, am skeptical. I'll go to Mass at the diocese, the sedevacantists, the sedeplenists, and the independents. I'll even go to the SSPX and suffer through a 45 minute sermon if it means sacraments. The point to be made is this: Let the priests squabble over sheep. We're all in the desert and need water.

Sums it up for me as well.

It makes it sound like it's just the Mass that matters. But that's not what matters most. St. Athanasius and is relatively small following completely separated from the Arian clergy running the established diocesan churches, even though they all had valid Sacraments. This was before the Church condemned them as heretics. The Arians had one subtle, philosophical error against the Trinity, and it was enough to separate from the danger to the Faith.....not even trying to seek out priests who didn't preach on it at the time of the Mass.

The big question is - Why was there such a danger going to the Mass of an Arian if that particular priest didn't preach the error?  Many today are reluctant to think about this, but it is a moral lesson deserving of a discussion thread all its own. It reveals what length we must go to keep our Faith incorrupt.

Arianism was about as subtle as a nuclear bomb going off in the Church. They stated quite clearly that Our LORD was NOT God.

This isn't the first time you have compared the SSPX to Arians.....and I find your comparison rather lacking.
"To our personal enemies, according to Christ's commandment, we must forgive everything; but with the enemies of God we cannot have peace!"- Archbishop Averky

"Life is a play in which for a short time one man represents a judge, another a general, and so on; after the play no further account is made of the dignity which each one had."- St John Chrysostom
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1022
  • Thanked: 189 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #88 on: August 16, 2014, 09:27:23 AM »


I, for one, am skeptical. I'll go to Mass at the diocese, the sedevacantists, the sedeplenists, and the independents. I'll even go to the SSPX and suffer through a 45 minute sermon if it means sacraments. The point to be made is this: Let the priests squabble over sheep. We're all in the desert and need water.

Sums it up for me as well.

It makes it sound like it's just the Mass that matters. But that's not what matters most. St. Athanasius and is relatively small following completely separated from the Arian clergy running the established diocesan churches, even though they all had valid Sacraments. This was before the Church condemned them as heretics. The Arians had one subtle, philosophical error against the Trinity, and it was enough to separate from the danger to the Faith.....not even trying to seek out priests who didn't preach on it at the time of the Mass.

The big question is - Why was there such a danger going to the Mass of an Arian if that particular priest didn't preach the error?  Many today are reluctant to think about this, but it is a moral lesson deserving of a discussion thread all its own. It reveals what length we must go to keep our Faith incorrupt.

That's not quite accurate.

St. Athanasius was exiled from his See.  He didn't voluntarily separate himself from the other Catholics.

In short, because he wouldn't go along for the ride, they tried to throw him under the bus.

Every time he was given the opportunity to return - he did.

I believe he returned to his See 4 times.

P^3

No, St. Athanasius and followers separated before he was exiled.  Yes, he did voluntarily separate from the Arian dioceses ever before Rome condemned the Arians. This is a huge lesson traditionalists are avoiding, and I having repeatedly mentioned here on this forum, with no substantial response.

There is no point of arguing about facts. Please provide an objective (non-sede) reference for this.

P^3
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1022
  • Thanked: 189 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #89 on: August 16, 2014, 10:33:34 AM »
Let's take apart the first point.  If prior to the election a person was suspected of heresy etc, is elected Pope, and the Bishops of the Church with moral unanimously acknowledge him as Pope, then the 'suspicion of heresy' etc was false.  That really is how simple it is ... whether the Pope falls into formal heresy afterwards is another issue.  If I remember correctly Hunter has some good references on this exact topic.

Pope Paul IV disagrees with you.  Quoted from Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (http://www.fisheaters.com/cumexapostolatusofficio.html):

Quote
6. In addition, by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define: that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

Quote
Quote
... if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. (Hunter, 1894) http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html
 

This seems pretty clear to me.

Too clear, in fact.  The argument above would seem to state that the bishops' power of teaching could not be exercised during the Great Western Schism, since the bishops did not agree in recognizing a certain man as pope.

Quote
Following through, accepting that the canonization by the reigning pontiff (Pope Francis) establishes a dogmatic fact.  What is protected by the infallibility?  That the person canonized by the Pope is in fact enjoying the beatific vision.  That's it in a nutshell. What they do with it afterwards is not covered. 

This is an assertion that I hear repeatedly, but nowhere have I seen it proven.  In any case, how can it not be seen as approval of the Assisi prayer meetings?  I have already seen it cited as "infallible proof that trads are wrong" (I paraphrase, but the sense is exactly correct).

Quote
Now the canonization and 'universal disciplinary law' are two different areas - mixing them is non sequitor. Disciplinary laws are legislated, not imagined, so these are two different elements.  If you were to demonstrate that this canonization resulted in the promulgation of a universal disciplinary law that was not just ambiguous (like the NOM) but explicitly went against the faith - then you'll run into the indefectibilty of the Church.

Um, respectfully, I think you need to examine this one more carefully.  A canonization is, very precisely, a universal disciplinary law, stating that X is to be regarded, and venerated, everywhere within the Catholic Church as a saint.  That's a law, it's legislation, it imposes an obligation.  By this law, I cannot say that Wojtyla was not a holy man.  Further, it's universal.  It applies to the entire Catholic Church.  That makes it universal.  But to me, it implies a huge problem, because the Church would be encouraging us to have Assisi prayer meetings-- while Pope Pius XI called much less than that, in his Mortalium animos, a road to apostasy.

Thus, it looks a lot more like a dogmatic fact to me precisely that Bergoglio cannot be pope.

Quote
If the Pope says: I deny the Dogma of the Assumption.

That's pretty clear ... no need to wait as the denial of one de fide teaching is all that is required. 

In principle, sure.  In practice, you would never do it that way.  You would carefully verify.  And it would be extremely unwise not to.

Likewise, in this time, it is extremely unwise to ignore the fact that Bergoglio is constantly overpassing the bounds of Catholic doctrine in his words and actions.

Quote
However, even in that case, until the Church makes the final declaration, he is still to be regarded as Pope.

See Cum ex Apostolatus above, and quite a few theologians' works, including Ss. Bellarmine and de Sales.  What you say may be true, but it is not at all clear that it is true.  You cannot prove it simply by stating it.

God bless.

I had a longer post - but here is the essential points:

In the final analysis, your arguments come down to the following principles:

1. An infallible dogmatic fact has been established that Pope Francis is the lawfully elected successor of Peter due to the unanimous acceptance by the bishops in union with the Catholic Church.
2. Declarations of Canonizations are infallible because

Quote
which the Pontiff defines that the person is a " Saint," and is to be honoured as such in the whole Church with public worship. No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church, for were it mistaken, the whole Church would be led into offering superstitious worship http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/search/label/Series%20-%20Infallibility

Item 1 establishes a positive fact - Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ

Item 2 established a positive fact - that John Paul II is in Heaven, allowing for his public veneration

Item 3 because of JP2's scandalous mistakes (read assisi etc) you believe that he did not save his soul, therefore Pope Francis can't be Pope, but simply is Cardinal Bergolio (although perhaps you would deny even that title).

Note well that item 1 precedes item 2 in time and Item 3 is an inference that you have made based on your understanding (which is incorrect) as to the obligations of universal laws.  Universal laws are explicit and regulate the life of the Church.  No where is it a law that we have to hold 'Assisi' like meetings.

So Item 3 is unfounded.

If Item 3 was true, then you have two problems: First problem #1 is contradicted.  More importantly is that the Church's visibility and indefectibility are linked to the Pope who is the foundation of both unity of faith and government (search on my blog - I don't have time to look for the reference right now).  So if the Popes since Pius XII weren't / aren't Pope - then where is the Church of Christ?

P^3

PS. I am not ignoring your reference to Paul IV etc, I am just unwilling to move off of the key points before they are resolved.

In final analysis, either you accept the two dogmatic facts or you do not. They are based on the same authority / theological consensus - to reject one is to reject the other.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2014, 12:15:08 PM by tradical »
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience