Author Topic: Why can't trads get along?  (Read 41775 times)

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 998
  • Thanked: 157 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #105 on: August 16, 2014, 09:13:24 PM »
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.

Respectfully, that is your argument, not mine.  I specifically argue that he is not the lawfully elected successor of Peter due to the fact that it is impossible for a public, manifest heretic to be a Catholic, much less the pope.  I agree that unanimous acceptance by the bishops would establish the dogmatic fact in any other case-- but not in this one.  Further, I quoted Cum ex Apostolatus for the specific purpose of giving you an authority for why I said unanimous acceptance does not matter in that case, so I don't think it's legitimate for you to ignore it or put off addressing it as if it were beside the main point.  You will note the operative words "obedience accorded to such by all" in Pope Paul IV's point ii.

Also, there are a number of theologians who argue that even if a pope were legitimately elected, and established as such by dogmatic fact, he could then fall from the papacy by his own personal heresy, if such heresy were publically manifested.  Bellarmine and de Sales both make this argument, I believe, and so do many others.

I happily grant you that I have no authority to bind anyone's conscience to this, but I still believe and will argue for the truth of it.  And because I believe it, it binds my own conscience.  And believe me, that belief has a cost.

Quote
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 Bergoglio (although perhaps you would deny even that title).

Here, too, I believe you've slightly misread my argument.  As voxx pointed out, no one is necessarily saying he didn't save his soul, but that by setting Wojtyla up for imitation, the Church would be leading souls into error, and on a question of the first commandment.  Now, since this is a universal disciplinary law that clearly and naturally tends to such a bad result (especially in a time like ours, when Catholics are almost universally ignorant of the problems with Assisi in particular and ecumenism in general), it should be impossible for the Church, the spotless Bride of Christ and our Holy Mother, to approve such a horribly destructive law.

(And yes, Bergoglio was pretty clearly a heretic at least as early as when he had hands laid on him by a Protestant minister at a public ecumenical gathering, and as such I would deny that he has any rightful authority in Holy Church.)

Quote
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.

Respectfully, precedence in time is irrelevant to the argument.  The question is which is better founded, premise 1, or premise 3?  I remind you that premise 1 is your own argument, not mine-- though I freely admit that I believed it to be true prior to April 27.  However, premise 3 appears to me to be very strongly established, so much so that I don't know if it's possible for me to believe that Wojtyla was validly canonized and still believe that the claims of Holy Church are true.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that's impossible for me.  You may be right, and that may be my human weakness, but you will have to convince me of that.  Theoretically, it should be possible.  I converted to the Catholic Church, and I became a sedevacantist, so I clearly have a very open mind.  But how can the Church set someone up as a model who has publically set an example of scandal against the FIRST COMMANDMENT?  If he had asked pardon of it, I would have no problem, though I might still have complaints.  But no, he set it up as the very "incarnation" of Vatican II, and thus of Church teaching.  That is what I can by no means reconcile with Pius XI's Mortalium animos, as well as 1900 years of Catholic doctrine and praxis.  I invite you to help me if you can, but I really think your facts just aren't there, or are incorrect.

Quote
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?

Respectfully, indefectibility is precisely my problem.  I cannot see how the Church has not defected if she has genuinely made Wojtyla a saint, thus setting him and his public scandals against the First Commandment up as examples for poor sinners.

As to visibility, the Church has become more or less like the catacombs, or the time of the Arian crisis, with a few differences.  I certainly see that as a smaller and more easily reconcilable problem than the Church officially setting up public scandal against the First Commandment as an example to be followed.

Quote
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.

See above.  I believe you have constructed a false dichotomy.  Moreover, you reject the theological consensus that a pope who is a public and manifest heretic would either not be validly elected or would thereby immediately fall from office-- so as far as I can tell we're in the same boat on that point.  Or do you at least admit the possibility?

Quote
Respectfully, that is your argument, not mine.  I specifically argue that he is not the lawfully elected successor of Peter due to the fact that it is impossible for a public, manifest heretic to be a Catholic, much less the pope.  I agree that unanimous acceptance by the bishops would establish the dogmatic fact in any other case-- but not in this one.  Further, I quoted Cum ex Apostolatus for the specific purpose of giving you an authority for why I said unanimous acceptance does not matter in that case, so I don't think it's legitimate for you to ignore it or put off addressing it as if it were beside the main point.  You will note the operative words "obedience accorded to such by all" in Pope Paul IV's point ii.

Ok - first of all you are doing the protestant think by saying you accept the doctrine of the dogmatic fact and then state 'but'.

Either you do or you don't.

Infallible means they cannot be wrong - period end stop.

The point is that if the person elected Pope was suspected of heresy before hand, then it was WRONG and the man elected and accepted as Pope IS Pope. 

End of Story.

Second thing: As a sedevacantist you have to demonstrate explicit declared heresy pre or post election.  Pre election is ruled out by the dogmatic fact so ... you are stuck with proving it post election - for every single post-conciliar Pope - including Francis (who by the way I want to get to Heaven as well - the sooner the better!)

Hey for the fun of it, please find something (anything) the is explicitly against a de fide teaching of the Church.

oh and please don't pull out Fr. Cekada's 'frankenchurch' theor

As far as this:

Quote
Also, there are a number of theologians who argue that even if a pope were legitimately elected, and established as such by dogmatic fact, he could then fall from the papacy by his own personal heresy, if such heresy were publically manifested.  Bellarmine and de Sales both make this argument, I believe, and so do many others.

There are two problems with your interpretation:
1. Bellarmine and de Sales (and others) are in agreement that until the Pope is declared to have lost the papacy by a council of the cardinals (his advisors) - no one can say that he has lost the Papacy.
2. Heresy in the first degree is what separates from the Church - you need (drastically) to provide an explicit denial of a de fide teaching of the Church. Look 'em up on my blog.

P^3


Quote
Additional Information on Dogmatic Facts from Hunter:

Dogmatic Facts.—But besides these speculative truths, there are certain matters of fact concerning which the Church can judge with infallible certainty. These are called by many writers dogmatic facts, although others use this expression only of one class among them, which was much discussed in the course of the controversy with the Jansenists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These heretics were anxious to keep the name of Catholic, and finding their doctrine on grace condemned by the Church, endeavoured to escape from the condemnation by showing that the Church had misunderstood their writings, to which it was replied that the infallibility of the Church extended to the determination of the true sense conveyed by a form of words ; and the phrase  dogmatic fact " was little heard of except in regard to such determinations.

We will proceed to mention some dogmatic facts, in the wider sense, adding the reason why we hold that they come within the infallible authority of the Church. But it must be remembered that if the Church speak on any of these matters, it does not follow that she has exercised her infallibility; she may have intended to exert a merely disciplinary authority alone (n. 203), regulating the  outward conduct only, but not touching men's inward belief. The doubt that may sometimes arise in particular cases must be solved by considering the terms and circumstances of the utterance. In this part of the subject we are not writing controversially, at least as regards those who do not acknowledge the authority of the Holy See; we are merely stating the Catholic doctrine.

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope ; for 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.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. {Tradical: I find this position very similar to the sedevacantist position}

A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but 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.

In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical; that certain systems of education are, or are not, injurious to faith and morals; that the principles of certain societies are immoral; and that certain ways of life, especially in Religious  orders, are not merely free from moral evil, but are laudable. Unless the Church could judge upon these matters, she could not exercise her office of guiding and instructing her members.
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 

Offline JuniorCouncilor

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • Religion: Catholic as can be
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #106 on: August 16, 2014, 09:51:04 PM »
Ok - first of all you are doing the protestant think by saying you accept the doctrine of the dogmatic fact and then state 'but'.

Respectfully, that's not a Protestant thing, that's a "careful thinker" thing.  The dogmatic fact simply does not apply if the man was a manifest public heretic prior to his election.  At least, that's what Pope Paul IV says.  Can you prove him wrong?

Moreover, I am a former Protestant.  You will have to forgive me and try to help me out if I fall back into Protestant thought patterns.  However, I don't think that's the case here.  If anything, I suspect I'm thinking too "Catholically", if such a thing is possible.

Quote
Either you do or you don't.

Infallible means they cannot be wrong - period end stop.

Agreed.  It absolutely does-- but that's if and only if we are in fact dealing with a dogmatic fact.  I still contend, and I think with good backing, that your point 1 is not truly a dogmatic fact.  I have provided you one direct source for that (Paul IV), and multiple indirect sources that you have not challenged.  I'm not sure I could hunt them all down, but I absolutely guarantee that there are people here who can.

Quote
The point is that if the person elected Pope was suspected of heresy before hand, then it was WRONG and the man elected and accepted as Pope IS Pope. 

End of Story.

No, that's the opposite of what Cum ex Apostolatus said.  Moreover, theologians have said the opposite since the time of the first Vatican Council-- very likely even enough of them to be considered morally unanimous.  I'm afraid your simple assertion that it IS a dogmatic fact and therefore that any suspicion of heresy absolutely WAS wrong is just that-- a simple assertion, an ipse dixit.  You keep citing Hunter, but Hunter does not deal with the case of a "pope"-elect who is a heretic.  You assume that there is therefore nothing to be dealt with-- but as the works of other theologians and the bull of Paul IV show, that is simply not the case.

Quote
Second thing: As a sedevacantist you have to demonstrate explicit declared heresy pre or post election.  Pre election is ruled out by the dogmatic fact so ... you are stuck with proving it post election - for every single post-conciliar Pope - including Francis (who by the way I want to get to Heaven as well - the sooner the better!)

Hey for the fun of it, please find something (anything) the is explicitly against a de fide teaching of the Church.

oh and please don't pull out Fr. Cekada's 'frankenchurch' theory

First of all, there doesn't have to be any one absolute smoking gun, and it definitely doesn't have to be expressed in words-- it can also be expressed in actions, as Aquinas himself says with respect to people praying at the tomb of Muhammad.  Secondly, as explained above, I'm actually not at all stuck with post-election, as explained, to the best of my ability, above.  Thirdly, I don't absolutely HAVE to convince anyone but myself-- and I am more easily convinced by an accumulation of consistent facts than by any one "smoking gun" that might be misinterpreted, taken out of context, etc.  I further think that is the normal way, and the charitable way, for people to think.

That said, it's actually easier to show that the post-V2 popes were heretics after their elections than before, since their actions as popes are better documented and better known.  In fact, Bergoglio and possibly Ratzinger are the only ones I would immediately venture to show were heretics prior to their putative elections as Supreme Pontiff.

For the moment, I'll just stick with Bergoglio:  proselytism is solemn nonsense, I'm not interested in converting Evangelicals, (to an Evangelical) preach the pure word of Jesus Christ to your people, (to an atheist) just following your conscience is enough to make the world a better place, (to Evangelicals) we will never agree on doctrine, so let's just love Jesus Christ and one another.  Lastly, and here I can't approximate the quote, but it's in his Evangelii gaudium:  the Jewish covenant is still valid-- and as such Jews have no need to convert.  That last part may not be explicit, but it's definitely clear enough from the ensemble of all his words and actions.

All of these are more or less heavily tinged with the rankest indifferentism.  I didn't choose either of those two words lightly.

His 'flexibility' on the question of the indissolubility of marriage is also becoming harder and harder to ignore, or even deny.

Let me ask you a counter-question.  Do you think heresy is common among our bishops today?  Do you think, for example, that Cardinal Martini was a heretic, and that Cardinal Kasper is?  I find either one impossible to deny.

The first is a role model to Bergoglio, the second his favorite theologian.  By their friends you will know them...

Quote
There are two problems with your interpretation:
1. Bellarmine and de Sales (and others) are in agreement that until the Pope is declared to have lost the papacy by a council of the cardinals (his advisors) - no one can say that he has lost the Papacy.

If you can cite either or both of them, or any other approved theologian, to prove that statement, I would be most interested.

Quote
2. Heresy in the first degree is what separates from the Church - you need (drastically) to provide an explicit denial of a de fide teaching of the Church. Look 'em up on my blog.

I don't believe "heresy in the first degree" is a proper theological term.  If it is, then I admit that I don't know just what it means-- I would assume "formal heresy"?

But again, no, it doesn't require a single explicit denial of a de fide teaching if his words and actions as a whole clearly conduce to exactly that.  That would be the same thing as saying that a dogma of the faith cannot be restated in other terms, and that one can't deny it piecemeal-- part on one day, part on another; part here, part there.

God bless.
 

Offline voxxpopulisuxx

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Thanked: 74 times
  • If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
  • Religion: duhhhhh
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #107 on: August 16, 2014, 10:48:37 PM »
So it seems the reason we cant get along is *Pope Francis.
Probably what the evil one was thinking...devide the Trads by simulating a canonization of a non trad.
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 Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12507
  • Thanked: 4312 times
  • Comic Sans Frontičres
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #108 on: August 17, 2014, 07:54:47 AM »
Tradical and JuniorCouncilor, your debate has moved away from the subject of this thread, but does illustrate some relevant points.

Some of the issues that trads disagree over among ourselves are too important to smooth over with "Let's just agree to disagree."  We are sometimes going to be in the situation of considering ourselves obliged to try to convince others to change their minds.

I do not think that this situation means that it is impossible for trads to get along.  Getting along does not mean that everyone has to agree all the time or avoid controversial topics.  It does, however, require self-control. Disagreements should not make us go ballistic. If posters use emotionally-loaded language, call each other names, or make personal attacks, productive communication breaks down. 

JuniorCouncilor is noteworthy as a poster who is especially good at presenting his views in a respectful and courteous way.  We have quite a few posters on SD who do this well.  I think that they can serve as models for others, so that all of us can learn this skill.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5389
  • Thanked: 2537 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #109 on: August 17, 2014, 11:01:59 AM »
Hello Tradical,
 its always good to see you participate in a discussion, as you bring a lot of good arguments to the table; here is what you stated in your response to me:
Quote
Hi Michael,

I'm exaggerating the point - however if we are traditional Catholics then we need to at a minimum follow the doctrine up to where all hell broke loose in the Church. Including what I noted concerning dogmatic facts (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html).

We have two elements:

1. The Church Teaching (Bishops) cannot err when they unanimously agree on who is Pope.
2. The Pope cannot err when declaring someone is enjoying the beatific vision (is a Saint).

Following the reasoning that I've seen here, some believe that it is impossible that JP2 is in Heaven, and since we have dogmatic fact #2, the logical conclusion is that Pope Francis isn't Pope.

What they ignore is the consequence that it is necessary to deny at the same time dogmatic fact #1 or at least produce a viable proof that Pope Francis has denied a de fide teaching of the Church post election.

This cascades through the entire sedevacantist theorem who in general believe that there hasn't been a Vicar of Christ since the death of Pius XII.  Even that selection is arbitrary and I know some Sede's who have found Pius XII wanting and started to look further back for a lawful Pontiff.

So either the Sedevacantists (no offense Michael) acknowledge that they do not accept the doctrine of dogmatic facts or they cease to accept one and refuse the other.

P^3

PS. By the way - Hi!

Also, I won't be participating for long, things are starting to pile up again so I'll be going on 'posting vacation' again in a few weeks.

Cheers!

The "peaceful acceptance" or the post Conciliar Popes is the whole lynchpin to your argument, so I have here the response of Mr. John Daily, posted on Bellarmine Forums:http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37
Quote
Hello and welcome Matt! You have asked several interesting questions and I should like to tackle just one of them, when you say “Cardinal Billot and other theologians speak about the fact that universal adherence to a certain man as pope results in an infallible fact that the the man is indeed, pope. Firstly, does such a teaching contradict Cum ex Apostolatus or are we dealing with apples and oranges? Secondly and more importantly, how can one deny that the world has acknowledged the papacy in Benedict XVI and his four predecessors?”

It happens that I had a correspondence a short time ago with an enquirer on the same topic and I am pasting in below the exchange to speak for itself. I am “JD” and my enquirer is “MM”.

JD Yes, if the universal Church with moral unanimity peacefully accept a man as legitimate pope, he must indeed be a legitimate pope. The reason for this is that the pope is the proximate rule of faith. The faithful accept the pope's doctrinal teaching and if the whole Church accepted a false rule of faith, Christ would be exposing His Church to error, which cannot happen.

Thus far I think we are agreed. But notice that, so far are we from peaceful unanimity that in fact practically no-one accepted/accepts Paul VI, John-Paul II or Benedict XVI as his rule of faith! Millions of "fans" went to JP2 rallies where they shrieked ecstatically at his utterances, but as for actually accepting that contraception is necessarily a deadly sin, for instance, hardly anyone did! If JP2 was your rule of faith you had to be against contraception, for religious liberty, against women priests (as theologically impossible) but for the doctrine that Christ is irrevocably united with all men. How many people considered him as pope in that sense? Not the Modernists - they thought him conservative. Not the traditionalists. Anyone?

On the other hand the whole principle on which Billot, St Alphonsus and John of St Thomas base this doctrine is in flat contradiction with the SSPX position. The theologians say that the unanimous recognition of a man as pope proves that he is pope because otherwise the Church would have accepted a false living rule of faith and would be led into error against faith and morals, which is impossible. But the SSPX position actually denies the premise! They cheerfully hold that the pope is not necessarily the proximate rule of faith and that the Church can be and has been led into error by the Vicars of Christ. They are very badly placed to invoke this doctrine against sedevacantists!

[To this I received the following reply with my answers interspersed]

MM In your e-mail you mentioned that JP2's followers who "accepted" him as pope rejected the notion that contraception is a deadly sin. But if that's the case, wouldn't those "Catholics" be outside the Church, therefore making their acceptance of him or not a moot point?

JD Denial of the Church's teaching condemning contraception is not usually considered enough to exclude one from membership of the Church. But supposing it were, you are effectively excluding over 90% of those who constitute the quasi-unanimous consensus recognising the V2 popes. Add those who deny other doctrines - Hell, impossibility of women priests, etc and you reach 95%. Where has your consensus gone? And what kind of a Church is it 95% of whose apparently recognised followers are not even members of her? Certainly not one whose remaining <5% can constitute the peaceful unanimous consensus referred to by John of St Thomas, Billot, St Alphonsus etc. It must after all be extremely uncomfortable giving the "sign of peace" to non-Catholics and elbowing them at the communion-rail (I mean in the cookie-queue) while knowing that they are recognised as Catholics by the Vicar of Christ. Hesitant recognition of a man as a valid though disastrous leader, not to be trusted, during a very grave and manifest crisis of which he is denying the existence...that is not what the theologians mean by peaceful and unanimous recognition.

MMCould it not be said then that those "neo-Catholics" who accept the entire moral teaching of the Church and accept V2 in good faith be the ones who matter as far as universally recognizing a man as pope?

JD To my mind that involves so much adjustment of the Billot doctrine that the result is no more than a private opinion. The neo-Church recognises all the neo-Catholics as her members irrespective of their adhesion to Catholic doctrine. If the consensus is composed by the tiny percentage for whom the teaching of the Catholic Church is the rule of faith and the V2 popes are their proximate rule of faith, it has become invisible and unverifiable.

MM However, does it even matter if in actuality they accept JP2's teachings as long as they recognize in him the papacy (this is only as far as Billot's position is concerned; I'm under the impression that he teaches that what's important is that the man is recognized as pope by Church Universal, and that whether or not they assent to his teachings is irrelevant to this one very particular issue)?

JD No. This is wrong. I tried to make this point clear last time but I probably didn't do a very good job of expressing it. May I ask you to read very attentively the following rather complicated sentence: the reason and the proof of the theologians' teaching that peaceful and unanimous recognition of a man as pope demonstrates him to be truly pope is that the pope is 1. the living rule of faith of the Church's members and 2. infallible, and if the Church adhered unanimously to a non-pope, i.e. a non-infallible rule of faith, she would be liable to be led into error in faith which is impossible. Got that?
Right. Well as you can see, calling a man pope while not recognising him as one's rule of faith simply doesn't have this effect. The teaching of cardinal Billot, John of St Thomas and others on this subject is not a direct teaching of the Church. It is a theological inference made for excellent reasons by theologians and which it would be foolish and rash to disagree with. But this reasoning is based entirely on the fact that Catholics necessarily adhere to the doctrinal teaching of the man they consider to be pope. If the Catholic faith did not in fact require this adherence, the argument would not work and the theologians would never have made the deduction that unanimous recognition is proof of papal legitimacy. It would be a non sequitur.

It would also be a non sequitur if it were possible for the whole Church to err in the faith as a consequence of adhering to the teaching of a true pope. Unanimous adherence to a fallible usurper would not, in that case, be incompatible in itself or in any of its consequences with Catholic doctrine. Claro?
And it would also be a non sequitur for a third reason if the adherence Catholics owe and give to papal teaching were something rare and limited to extraordinary acts like the proclamation of a dogma such as the Assumption. For in that case most popes would not in fact lead the Church to believe anything and if they taught grave and habitual error by their ordinary Magisterium this would not necessarily mean that the Church would follow them.
If you have understood the foregoing you will see that the adherence to the V2 popes of men who did not acknowledge in them their proximate rule of faith has no relevance at all to the principle of recognising papal legitimacy by unanimous peaceful adherence. You will also observe that Billot and the other theologians who use this argument would simply not recognise as the Catholic Church an institution whose members did not have this habitual disposition to recognise papal teaching as their rule of belief.
You will also see that it is the position of non-sedevacantist traditionalists that conflicts with the Billot doctrine, for they consider it possible and even necessary in our days to adhere to a man as pope while not adhering to his doctrinal teaching as their proximate rule of faith - the very point of dogmatic certainty which Billot and the others take as the logical point of departure of their reasoning. For the SSPX to use the Billot argument would involve self-contradiction. They deny the premise (which belongs directly to Catholic doctrine) and cannot therefore reproach sedevacantists with not accepting the conclusion (which doesn't belong directly to Catholic doctrine but which we do accept anyhow).

Ave Maria!

John DALY
I had this very discussion with you on Iginis Ardens in 2011; Here is another link to Bellarmine forum (since I.A. is closed), where this whole issue was covered: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1505&hilit=Nishant
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP
 

Offline JuniorCouncilor

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • Religion: Catholic as can be
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #110 on: August 18, 2014, 12:11:39 AM »
Tradical and JuniorCouncilor, your debate has moved away from the subject of this thread, but does illustrate some relevant points.

If it bothers you, I will be happy to take the discussion elsewhere or just back off of it.

Quote
JuniorCouncilor is noteworthy as a poster who is especially good at presenting his views in a respectful and courteous way. 

Thank you kindly, ma'am.  I aim to please.   :)
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12507
  • Thanked: 4312 times
  • Comic Sans Frontičres
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #111 on: August 18, 2014, 07:11:56 AM »
Tradical and JuniorCouncilor, your debate has moved away from the subject of this thread, but does illustrate some relevant points.

If it bothers you, I will be happy to take the discussion elsewhere or just back off of it.

The original topic seems to have run its course, so derailing it now does not bother me.  On the other hand, it's an interesting discussion and more people might see it if it is properly labeled and in the right place.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 998
  • Thanked: 157 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #112 on: August 18, 2014, 02:17:10 PM »
Hello Tradical,
 its always good to see you participate in a discussion, as you bring a lot of good arguments to the table; here is what you stated in your response to me:
Quote
Hi Michael,

I'm exaggerating the point - however if we are traditional Catholics then we need to at a minimum follow the doctrine up to where all hell broke loose in the Church. Including what I noted concerning dogmatic facts (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html).

We have two elements:

1. The Church Teaching (Bishops) cannot err when they unanimously agree on who is Pope.
2. The Pope cannot err when declaring someone is enjoying the beatific vision (is a Saint).

Following the reasoning that I've seen here, some believe that it is impossible that JP2 is in Heaven, and since we have dogmatic fact #2, the logical conclusion is that Pope Francis isn't Pope.

What they ignore is the consequence that it is necessary to deny at the same time dogmatic fact #1 or at least produce a viable proof that Pope Francis has denied a de fide teaching of the Church post election.

This cascades through the entire sedevacantist theorem who in general believe that there hasn't been a Vicar of Christ since the death of Pius XII.  Even that selection is arbitrary and I know some Sede's who have found Pius XII wanting and started to look further back for a lawful Pontiff.

So either the Sedevacantists (no offense Michael) acknowledge that they do not accept the doctrine of dogmatic facts or they cease to accept one and refuse the other.

P^3

PS. By the way - Hi!

Also, I won't be participating for long, things are starting to pile up again so I'll be going on 'posting vacation' again in a few weeks.

Cheers!

The "peaceful acceptance" or the post Conciliar Popes is the whole lynchpin to your argument, so I have here the response of Mr. John Daily, posted on Bellarmine Forums:http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37
Quote
Hello and welcome Matt! You have asked several interesting questions and I should like to tackle just one of them, when you say “Cardinal Billot and other theologians speak about the fact that universal adherence to a certain man as pope results in an infallible fact that the the man is indeed, pope. Firstly, does such a teaching contradict Cum ex Apostolatus or are we dealing with apples and oranges? Secondly and more importantly, how can one deny that the world has acknowledged the papacy in Benedict XVI and his four predecessors?”

It happens that I had a correspondence a short time ago with an enquirer on the same topic and I am pasting in below the exchange to speak for itself. I am “JD” and my enquirer is “MM”.

JD Yes, if the universal Church with moral unanimity peacefully accept a man as legitimate pope, he must indeed be a legitimate pope. The reason for this is that the pope is the proximate rule of faith. The faithful accept the pope's doctrinal teaching and if the whole Church accepted a false rule of faith, Christ would be exposing His Church to error, which cannot happen.

Thus far I think we are agreed. But notice that, so far are we from peaceful unanimity that in fact practically no-one accepted/accepts Paul VI, John-Paul II or Benedict XVI as his rule of faith! Millions of "fans" went to JP2 rallies where they shrieked ecstatically at his utterances, but as for actually accepting that contraception is necessarily a deadly sin, for instance, hardly anyone did! If JP2 was your rule of faith you had to be against contraception, for religious liberty, against women priests (as theologically impossible) but for the doctrine that Christ is irrevocably united with all men. How many people considered him as pope in that sense? Not the Modernists - they thought him conservative. Not the traditionalists. Anyone?

On the other hand the whole principle on which Billot, St Alphonsus and John of St Thomas base this doctrine is in flat contradiction with the SSPX position. The theologians say that the unanimous recognition of a man as pope proves that he is pope because otherwise the Church would have accepted a false living rule of faith and would be led into error against faith and morals, which is impossible. But the SSPX position actually denies the premise! They cheerfully hold that the pope is not necessarily the proximate rule of faith and that the Church can be and has been led into error by the Vicars of Christ. They are very badly placed to invoke this doctrine against sedevacantists!

[To this I received the following reply with my answers interspersed]

MM In your e-mail you mentioned that JP2's followers who "accepted" him as pope rejected the notion that contraception is a deadly sin. But if that's the case, wouldn't those "Catholics" be outside the Church, therefore making their acceptance of him or not a moot point?

JD Denial of the Church's teaching condemning contraception is not usually considered enough to exclude one from membership of the Church. But supposing it were, you are effectively excluding over 90% of those who constitute the quasi-unanimous consensus recognising the V2 popes. Add those who deny other doctrines - Hell, impossibility of women priests, etc and you reach 95%. Where has your consensus gone? And what kind of a Church is it 95% of whose apparently recognised followers are not even members of her? Certainly not one whose remaining <5% can constitute the peaceful unanimous consensus referred to by John of St Thomas, Billot, St Alphonsus etc. It must after all be extremely uncomfortable giving the "sign of peace" to non-Catholics and elbowing them at the communion-rail (I mean in the cookie-queue) while knowing that they are recognised as Catholics by the Vicar of Christ. Hesitant recognition of a man as a valid though disastrous leader, not to be trusted, during a very grave and manifest crisis of which he is denying the existence...that is not what the theologians mean by peaceful and unanimous recognition.

MMCould it not be said then that those "neo-Catholics" who accept the entire moral teaching of the Church and accept V2 in good faith be the ones who matter as far as universally recognizing a man as pope?

JD To my mind that involves so much adjustment of the Billot doctrine that the result is no more than a private opinion. The neo-Church recognises all the neo-Catholics as her members irrespective of their adhesion to Catholic doctrine. If the consensus is composed by the tiny percentage for whom the teaching of the Catholic Church is the rule of faith and the V2 popes are their proximate rule of faith, it has become invisible and unverifiable.

MM However, does it even matter if in actuality they accept JP2's teachings as long as they recognize in him the papacy (this is only as far as Billot's position is concerned; I'm under the impression that he teaches that what's important is that the man is recognized as pope by Church Universal, and that whether or not they assent to his teachings is irrelevant to this one very particular issue)?

JD No. This is wrong. I tried to make this point clear last time but I probably didn't do a very good job of expressing it. May I ask you to read very attentively the following rather complicated sentence: the reason and the proof of the theologians' teaching that peaceful and unanimous recognition of a man as pope demonstrates him to be truly pope is that the pope is 1. the living rule of faith of the Church's members and 2. infallible, and if the Church adhered unanimously to a non-pope, i.e. a non-infallible rule of faith, she would be liable to be led into error in faith which is impossible. Got that?
Right. Well as you can see, calling a man pope while not recognising him as one's rule of faith simply doesn't have this effect. The teaching of cardinal Billot, John of St Thomas and others on this subject is not a direct teaching of the Church. It is a theological inference made for excellent reasons by theologians and which it would be foolish and rash to disagree with. But this reasoning is based entirely on the fact that Catholics necessarily adhere to the doctrinal teaching of the man they consider to be pope. If the Catholic faith did not in fact require this adherence, the argument would not work and the theologians would never have made the deduction that unanimous recognition is proof of papal legitimacy. It would be a non sequitur.

It would also be a non sequitur if it were possible for the whole Church to err in the faith as a consequence of adhering to the teaching of a true pope. Unanimous adherence to a fallible usurper would not, in that case, be incompatible in itself or in any of its consequences with Catholic doctrine. Claro?
And it would also be a non sequitur for a third reason if the adherence Catholics owe and give to papal teaching were something rare and limited to extraordinary acts like the proclamation of a dogma such as the Assumption. For in that case most popes would not in fact lead the Church to believe anything and if they taught grave and habitual error by their ordinary Magisterium this would not necessarily mean that the Church would follow them.
If you have understood the foregoing you will see that the adherence to the V2 popes of men who did not acknowledge in them their proximate rule of faith has no relevance at all to the principle of recognising papal legitimacy by unanimous peaceful adherence. You will also observe that Billot and the other theologians who use this argument would simply not recognise as the Catholic Church an institution whose members did not have this habitual disposition to recognise papal teaching as their rule of belief.
You will also see that it is the position of non-sedevacantist traditionalists that conflicts with the Billot doctrine, for they consider it possible and even necessary in our days to adhere to a man as pope while not adhering to his doctrinal teaching as their proximate rule of faith - the very point of dogmatic certainty which Billot and the others take as the logical point of departure of their reasoning. For the SSPX to use the Billot argument would involve self-contradiction. They deny the premise (which belongs directly to Catholic doctrine) and cannot therefore reproach sedevacantists with not accepting the conclusion (which doesn't belong directly to Catholic doctrine but which we do accept anyhow).

Ave Maria!

John DALY
I had this very discussion with you on Iginis Ardens in 2011; Here is another link to Bellarmine forum (since I.A. is closed), where this whole issue was covered: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1505&hilit=Nishant

Hi Michael,

John missed the point in the very first paragraph. 

The reference that I cited does not refer to the acceptance of the Universal Church of the elected Pope as the 'rule of Faith'.  It is based upon the acceptance of the elected Pontiff by the Bishops of the Church and derived from the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church.

Since John appears to be citing Cardinal Billot in his defense, I'd appreciate it if he provided a reference and a link.

P^3
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 998
  • Thanked: 157 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #113 on: August 18, 2014, 03:36:24 PM »
Ok - first of all you are doing the protestant think by saying you accept the doctrine of the dogmatic fact and then state 'but'.

Respectfully, that's not a Protestant thing, that's a "careful thinker" thing.  The dogmatic fact simply does not apply if the man was a manifest public heretic prior to his election.  At least, that's what Pope Paul IV says.  Can you prove him wrong?

Moreover, I am a former Protestant.  You will have to forgive me and try to help me out if I fall back into Protestant thought patterns.  However, I don't think that's the case here.  If anything, I suspect I'm thinking too "Catholically", if such a thing is possible.

Quote
Either you do or you don't.

Infallible means they cannot be wrong - period end stop.

Agreed.  It absolutely does-- but that's if and only if we are in fact dealing with a dogmatic fact.  I still contend, and I think with good backing, that your point 1 is not truly a dogmatic fact.  I have provided you one direct source for that (Paul IV), and multiple indirect sources that you have not challenged.  I'm not sure I could hunt them all down, but I absolutely guarantee that there are people here who can.

Quote
The point is that if the person elected Pope was suspected of heresy before hand, then it was WRONG and the man elected and accepted as Pope IS Pope. 

End of Story.

No, that's the opposite of what Cum ex Apostolatus said.  Moreover, theologians have said the opposite since the time of the first Vatican Council-- very likely even enough of them to be considered morally unanimous.  I'm afraid your simple assertion that it IS a dogmatic fact and therefore that any suspicion of heresy absolutely WAS wrong is just that-- a simple assertion, an ipse dixit.  You keep citing Hunter, but Hunter does not deal with the case of a "pope"-elect who is a heretic.  You assume that there is therefore nothing to be dealt with-- but as the works of other theologians and the bull of Paul IV show, that is simply not the case.

Quote
Second thing: As a sedevacantist you have to demonstrate explicit declared heresy pre or post election.  Pre election is ruled out by the dogmatic fact so ... you are stuck with proving it post election - for every single post-conciliar Pope - including Francis (who by the way I want to get to Heaven as well - the sooner the better!)

Hey for the fun of it, please find something (anything) the is explicitly against a de fide teaching of the Church.

oh and please don't pull out Fr. Cekada's 'frankenchurch' theory

First of all, there doesn't have to be any one absolute smoking gun, and it definitely doesn't have to be expressed in words-- it can also be expressed in actions, as Aquinas himself says with respect to people praying at the tomb of Muhammad.  Secondly, as explained above, I'm actually not at all stuck with post-election, as explained, to the best of my ability, above.  Thirdly, I don't absolutely HAVE to convince anyone but myself-- and I am more easily convinced by an accumulation of consistent facts than by any one "smoking gun" that might be misinterpreted, taken out of context, etc.  I further think that is the normal way, and the charitable way, for people to think.

That said, it's actually easier to show that the post-V2 popes were heretics after their elections than before, since their actions as popes are better documented and better known.  In fact, Bergoglio and possibly Ratzinger are the only ones I would immediately venture to show were heretics prior to their putative elections as Supreme Pontiff.

For the moment, I'll just stick with Bergoglio:  proselytism is solemn nonsense, I'm not interested in converting Evangelicals, (to an Evangelical) preach the pure word of Jesus Christ to your people, (to an atheist) just following your conscience is enough to make the world a better place, (to Evangelicals) we will never agree on doctrine, so let's just love Jesus Christ and one another.  Lastly, and here I can't approximate the quote, but it's in his Evangelii gaudium:  the Jewish covenant is still valid-- and as such Jews have no need to convert.  That last part may not be explicit, but it's definitely clear enough from the ensemble of all his words and actions.

All of these are more or less heavily tinged with the rankest indifferentism.  I didn't choose either of those two words lightly.

His 'flexibility' on the question of the indissolubility of marriage is also becoming harder and harder to ignore, or even deny.

Let me ask you a counter-question.  Do you think heresy is common among our bishops today?  Do you think, for example, that Cardinal Martini was a heretic, and that Cardinal Kasper is?  I find either one impossible to deny.

The first is a role model to Bergoglio, the second his favorite theologian.  By their friends you will know them...

Quote
There are two problems with your interpretation:
1. Bellarmine and de Sales (and others) are in agreement that until the Pope is declared to have lost the papacy by a council of the cardinals (his advisors) - no one can say that he has lost the Papacy.

If you can cite either or both of them, or any other approved theologian, to prove that statement, I would be most interested.

Quote
2. Heresy in the first degree is what separates from the Church - you need (drastically) to provide an explicit denial of a de fide teaching of the Church. Look 'em up on my blog.

I don't believe "heresy in the first degree" is a proper theological term.  If it is, then I admit that I don't know just what it means-- I would assume "formal heresy"?

But again, no, it doesn't require a single explicit denial of a de fide teaching if his words and actions as a whole clearly conduce to exactly that.  That would be the same thing as saying that a dogma of the faith cannot be restated in other terms, and that one can't deny it piecemeal-- part on one day, part on another; part here, part there.

God bless.

Hi JuniorC,

I'm running out of time.

Here's a reference that addresses part of your arguments:

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/94-contra-sedevacantism/293-cum-ex-apostolatus-and-loss-of-office.html

re bellarmine and de sales - I was wrong it was bellarmine and suarez.

Here's the article that contains the references:
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/03/sedevacantism-and-manifest-heretic.html

P^3
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5389
  • Thanked: 2537 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #114 on: August 18, 2014, 10:38:36 PM »
Tradical,
 here is the quote from Billot:
Quote
http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10102#p10102

Sed quidquid demum de possibilitate vel impossibilitate praetatae hypothesis adhuc sentias, id saltem veluti penitus inconcussum et extra omnem dubitationem positum firmiter tenendum est: adhaesionem universalis Ecclesiae fore semper ex se sola infallibile signum legitimitatis personae Pontificis, adeoque et exsistentiae omnium conditionum quae ad legitimitatem ipsam sunt requisitae. Neque huius rei a longe repetenda ratio. Immediate enim sumitur ex infallibili Christi promissione atque providentia : Portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam, et iterum: Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus. Idem namque foret. Ecclesiam adhaerere pontifici falso, ac si adhaereret falsae fidei regulae, cum Papa sit regula vivens quam Ecclesia in credendo sequi debet et semper de facto sequitur, uti ex dicendis in posterum luculentius adhuc apparebit. Equidem permittere potest Deus ut aliquando vacatio sedis diutius protrahatur. Permittere quoque potest ut de legitimitate unius vel alterius electi exoriatur dubium. Permittere autem non potest ut Ecclesia tota eum admittat pontificem qui verus et legitimus non sit. Ex quo igitur receptus est, et Ecclesiae coniunctus ut corpori caput, non est amplius movenda quaestio de possibili vitio electionis vel defectu cuiuscumque conditionis ad legitimitatem necessariae, quia praedicta Ecclesiae adhaesio omne vitium electionis radicitus sanat, et exsistentiam omnium requisitarum conditionum infallibiliter ostendit. (De Eccelsia Christi, third ed., 1909, vol. 1, pp. 620-621.)
And the translation provided by Da Siveria:
Quote

Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions. Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”

On this same “sanatio in radice” by virtue of the acceptance of the Pope by the whole Church, Saint Alphonse de Liguori writes, in less heated but perhaps even more incisive terms:

“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.
As the bolded part makes clear [I also bolded the pertinent Latin part, but my Latin is not good so I might have added or cut off some of the pertinent paragraph], the universal acceptance of a false Pope would mean that Catholics would adhere to a false rule of faith (because the teachings of the Popes are the proximate rule of faith); therefore it would be impossible.

"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 998
  • Thanked: 157 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #115 on: August 19, 2014, 08:50:47 AM »
Tradical,
 here is the quote from Billot:
Quote
http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10102#p10102

Sed quidquid demum de possibilitate vel impossibilitate praetatae hypothesis adhuc sentias, id saltem veluti penitus inconcussum et extra omnem dubitationem positum firmiter tenendum est: adhaesionem universalis Ecclesiae fore semper ex se sola infallibile signum legitimitatis personae Pontificis, adeoque et exsistentiae omnium conditionum quae ad legitimitatem ipsam sunt requisitae. Neque huius rei a longe repetenda ratio. Immediate enim sumitur ex infallibili Christi promissione atque providentia : Portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam, et iterum: Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus. Idem namque foret. Ecclesiam adhaerere pontifici falso, ac si adhaereret falsae fidei regulae, cum Papa sit regula vivens quam Ecclesia in credendo sequi debet et semper de facto sequitur, uti ex dicendis in posterum luculentius adhuc apparebit. Equidem permittere potest Deus ut aliquando vacatio sedis diutius protrahatur. Permittere quoque potest ut de legitimitate unius vel alterius electi exoriatur dubium. Permittere autem non potest ut Ecclesia tota eum admittat pontificem qui verus et legitimus non sit. Ex quo igitur receptus est, et Ecclesiae coniunctus ut corpori caput, non est amplius movenda quaestio de possibili vitio electionis vel defectu cuiuscumque conditionis ad legitimitatem necessariae, quia praedicta Ecclesiae adhaesio omne vitium electionis radicitus sanat, et exsistentiam omnium requisitarum conditionum infallibiliter ostendit. (De Eccelsia Christi, third ed., 1909, vol. 1, pp. 620-621.)
And the translation provided by Da Siveria:
Quote

Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions. Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”

On this same “sanatio in radice” by virtue of the acceptance of the Pope by the whole Church, Saint Alphonse de Liguori writes, in less heated but perhaps even more incisive terms:

“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.
As the bolded part makes clear [I also bolded the pertinent Latin part, but my Latin is not good so I might have added or cut off some of the pertinent paragraph], the universal acceptance of a false Pope would mean that Catholics would adhere to a false rule of faith (because the teachings of the Popes are the proximate rule of faith); therefore it would be impossible.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for this.

This raises the question of what does he mean by 'whole Church'?  Is he discussing the Church Teaching, Church Learning or the combination of the two?  That is left unanswered in this quotation. However, if combined with Hunter et al, we find that it is the Church Teaching that is indicated as it is required for the indefectibility of the Church for the Church Teaching (the Bishops) to be united to the Vicar of Christ in order to preserve the constitution of the Church. 

As noted earlier, the Church Teaching has unanimously accepted each of the last six pontiffs, establishing the Dogmatic Fact.

The next point is that there appears to be a conflation of ideas in John's earlier citation.  The principle being put forward is that general adhesion/recognition by the Church (what ever combination he is using) to the elected pontiff creates the dogmatic fact. Trying to deny the establishment of the fact by saying that no one takes the Pope for a rule of faith (which when you consider that no de fide teachings have been declared since the Assumption) is a degree removed from what they have said. 

The root is this:

Quote
He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. ...  Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.

As noted earlier, this is consistent with Hunter et al.

John is trying to work around the dogmatic fact by saying that no one is taking the Pope as a rule of faith and therefore he isn't Pope. This is taking a subordinate principle and using it to alter the superior principle.  This is not legitimate in a logical sense and confirms my opinion (after reviewing some of his other writings) that he is operating under a very strong confirmation bias.

To sum up, John has inverted the principles and said: No one is taking the Pope as a rule of faith, ergo he can't be Pope.  That is not what Bellarmine said.

Bellarmine, Hunter et al assert that the acceptance of the Pope by the Church (Hunter et al are more specific about what they mean by Church) cannot be wrong. The reason why this must be so is the 'rule of faith', which hearkens back to indefectibility. This is the correct hierarchy of the principles as denoted by Bellarmine et al.

P^3

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 

Offline LouisIX

  • Oberstleutnant
  • Hauptmann
  • *****
  • Posts: 8971
  • Thanked: 1274 times
  • "Libtard"-in-Residence
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #116 on: August 19, 2014, 02:30:01 PM »
Seeing quotes from Billot here makes me happy.  Good on you, lads!
IF I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
 

Offline JuniorCouncilor

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • Religion: Catholic as can be
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #117 on: August 19, 2014, 03:02:59 PM »
Hi JuniorC,

I'm running out of time.

Here's a reference that addresses part of your arguments:

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/94-contra-sedevacantism/293-cum-ex-apostolatus-and-loss-of-office.html

re bellarmine and de sales - I was wrong it was bellarmine and suarez.

Here's the article that contains the references:
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/03/sedevacantism-and-manifest-heretic.html

P^3

I'll read the entire articles later-- they look very interesting, and potentially enlightening.

If you run out of time, you run out of time.  Don't worry about it.  I'm a firm believer in real life, and its priority over internet existence.  Perhaps my actions aren't always entirely consistent with my beliefs, but there you have it...
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5389
  • Thanked: 2537 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #118 on: August 20, 2014, 06:11:34 PM »
Tradical,
 I submitted your reply to John Lane at Bellarmine forums,
 and here is his reponse:
Quote
I agree that this is what Hunter seems to say (and he isn't the only one), but the problem is to identify what the cause of this opinion is, in Hunter. That is, is Hunter telling us that this is part of the revealed Deposit, or a conclusion he has reached from some revealed truth? We cannot tell, for he is, being a manualist, too brief.

Now, we know from other sources that this imagined revealed truth simply wasn't revealed. It isn't a part of the body of revealed truths witnessed to by the theologians. But something else is there, another truth, the truth that Billot expresses, which is that the Church must and always does regard the pope as its proximate rule of faith.

Now, it is a fact, a plain and uncontroversial fact, that nobody treats Bergoglio as his rule of faith. Traditionalists don't learn from him any more than the children of Modernism do. We ignore his doctrinal instructions, or openly protest against them, and the children of Modernism praise him when he agrees with them and stand ready to condemn him the moment he doesn't. He is not anybody's principle, he is merely a prominent commentator. So he isn't anybody's pope, actually.

This being true, the conclusion that would follow, as Billot explains, doesn't follow in this case.

Tradical labours under another error, one which might be harder to root out because so common these days, which is that he imagines that the pope only constitutes the proximate rule of faith when he defines. This is a total novelty.

If we consider the problem from another perspective, the unity of the Church in charity, rather than her unity in faith as we have been, we are confronted by the same problem. Say that all truly accepted Paul VI as pope in say, 1966 (i.e. from his election until then). On that hypothesis we will need to explain the catastrophic collapse in faith that had occurred under his tutelage. But more, we will then need to explain the manifest fact of the gigantic schism which appeared within a couple of years, with the imposition of the New Mass and its rejection by those with the soundest faith. These included bishops. The unity of worship was thereby sundered, along with the unity of charity. Suddenly those who maintained the true faith and worship of the Catholic Church were physically and morally separated from the body of all other Christians. In order to avoid this problem one would have to argue that the division was incidental, accidental, not essential; in a word, that nothing truly fundamental was at issue. But that's not our view, and more importantly, it wasn't the view of the traditional Catholics or of Paul VI and co. All agreed, by their actions, that what was at stake was the very heart of religion. Well, "the pope" was on the other side of this schism, and he caused it. How was he the pope of the Catholic Church, of traditional Catholics? He wasn't.

The whole problem is today presented in three theses: 1. Modernists who regard the pope as teacher in an entirely new light and for them, the pope is the president of the Church and Bergoglio and predecessors are just fine in that role. 2. Sedeplenists who hold that while we have had a true pope the whole time, we have not had any pope acting as pope in that time. That is, none of them taught infallibly, for example, or used their full authority to impose their evil reforms, so that they have been mere figureheads. For some reason these people regard it as very, very, important that these men whose acts have all been utterly irrelevant - except for their evil acts - be regarded as Vicars of Christ. Nobody ever can say why this is. 3. Our thesis, which takes them at face value and agrees that none of them has been what the pope essentially is, the principle of unity of the Church in faith and charity, but quite the contrary - they have dissolved the Church.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 998
  • Thanked: 157 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #119 on: August 21, 2014, 10:14:02 AM »
Tradical,
 I submitted your reply to John Lane at Bellarmine forums,
 and here is his reponse:
Quote
I agree that this is what Hunter seems to say (and he isn't the only one), but the problem is to identify what the cause of this opinion is, in Hunter. That is, is Hunter telling us that this is part of the revealed Deposit, or a conclusion he has reached from some revealed truth? We cannot tell, for he is, being a manualist, too brief.

Now, we know from other sources that this imagined revealed truth simply wasn't revealed. It isn't a part of the body of revealed truths witnessed to by the theologians. But something else is there, another truth, the truth that Billot expresses, which is that the Church must and always does regard the pope as its proximate rule of faith.

Now, it is a fact, a plain and uncontroversial fact, that nobody treats Bergoglio as his rule of faith. Traditionalists don't learn from him any more than the children of Modernism do. We ignore his doctrinal instructions, or openly protest against them, and the children of Modernism praise him when he agrees with them and stand ready to condemn him the moment he doesn't. He is not anybody's principle, he is merely a prominent commentator. So he isn't anybody's pope, actually.

This being true, the conclusion that would follow, as Billot explains, doesn't follow in this case.

Tradical labours under another error, one which might be harder to root out because so common these days, which is that he imagines that the pope only constitutes the proximate rule of faith when he defines. This is a total novelty.

If we consider the problem from another perspective, the unity of the Church in charity, rather than her unity in faith as we have been, we are confronted by the same problem. Say that all truly accepted Paul VI as pope in say, 1966 (i.e. from his election until then). On that hypothesis we will need to explain the catastrophic collapse in faith that had occurred under his tutelage. But more, we will then need to explain the manifest fact of the gigantic schism which appeared within a couple of years, with the imposition of the New Mass and its rejection by those with the soundest faith. These included bishops. The unity of worship was thereby sundered, along with the unity of charity. Suddenly those who maintained the true faith and worship of the Catholic Church were physically and morally separated from the body of all other Christians. In order to avoid this problem one would have to argue that the division was incidental, accidental, not essential; in a word, that nothing truly fundamental was at issue. But that's not our view, and more importantly, it wasn't the view of the traditional Catholics or of Paul VI and co. All agreed, by their actions, that what was at stake was the very heart of religion. Well, "the pope" was on the other side of this schism, and he caused it. How was he the pope of the Catholic Church, of traditional Catholics? He wasn't.

The whole problem is today presented in three theses: 1. Modernists who regard the pope as teacher in an entirely new light and for them, the pope is the president of the Church and Bergoglio and predecessors are just fine in that role. 2. Sedeplenists who hold that while we have had a true pope the whole time, we have not had any pope acting as pope in that time. That is, none of them taught infallibly, for example, or used their full authority to impose their evil reforms, so that they have been mere figureheads. For some reason these people regard it as very, very, important that these men whose acts have all been utterly irrelevant - except for their evil acts - be regarded as Vicars of Christ. Nobody ever can say why this is. 3. Our thesis, which takes them at face value and agrees that none of them has been what the pope essentially is, the principle of unity of the Church in faith and charity, but quite the contrary - they have dissolved the Church.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.

Hi Michael,

I find it interesting the John Lane and not John Daly replied.

In any case there are a number of false starts in the reasoning.

1. In their explanations of the dogmatic fact established upon the acceptance of a newly elected Pope, Billot, Hunter, Ott et al are clear that the acceptance results in the establishment of the dogmatic fact.  The reasons provided for this are more diverse (rule of faith, constitution/indefectibility of the Church etc). 

As I noted earlier in placing the 'why it is so' ahead of the 'what is so' they have inverted the principle.  While Billot cites 'rule of faith' - which requires Billot's definition to reach a complete understanding of the thesis - Ott and Hunter cite the constitution of the Church.

It is said clearly that they 'Church' cannot be wrong when it say who is the Pope.  Whether or not they 'listen' to the Pope is a subordinate element.

2. As far as my 'labouring under another error':  First he is still operating on the inversion of Billot's explanation of the dogmatic fact.  That is plain and simple.  Even a cursory glance at this article on 'rule of faith' is sufficient to undermine JohnL's thesis: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm

I would like to know if anyone has ever plumbed the depth of what Cardinal Billot and theologian's of his era regarded as a 'rule of faith'? 

3. Concerning the 'if we consider ...' aside from the errors concerning what constitutes unity of worship etc, the thesis presented is inconsistent with the indefectibility and what constitutes the extents of the infallibility of the Church in her discipline.

4. With regards to the three theses (which are inaccurate but I don't have the time to go into it):

The third is heretical as it denies the indefectibility of the Church.
The second is a distortion of the Church teaching on the matter concerning the infallibility. 
The first is an oversimplification combined with a generalization.



I affirm that:

a. Billot, Hunter, Ott, et al state categorically that the acceptance of the newly elected Pope by the Bishops results in the establishment of an infallible dogmatic fact that the man elected IS the Pope.
b. The rationale for why this dogmatic fact is established is reference to the Pope as a 'rule of faith' (Billot) (see Cath. Enc article) and the indefectibility of the Church (Hunter, Ott et al)

I contest that:
a. Subordinate rationale can be placed over the superior principle.
b. Claiming that Billot overrides Hunter,Ott et al is logically valid.

I think the question that Sedevacantists need to answer is: What would they have to change/do if their theory is wrong.  That would be helpful in assessing the reason for their refusal to accept the establishment of the dogmatic fact that the last six Popes were all lawfully and validly elected Vicars of Christ (albeit bad in many senses).

P^3



 

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience