I saw this question in another thread and want to give it a thread of its own. It resonated with me because I have been thinking a lot lately about what I can do to be less argumentative.
I do think there is more to tensions among trads than some people being argumentative, though. That's just the piece I've been thinking on lately.
The question is "why can't trads get along online?" stupid.
I can't believe how................................................................
IDIOT!
:laugh:
Maybe it's because we are Trads that we fall into a few categories:
Some are just that passionate about the Faith and Our Lord. Traditionally speaking, a good bulk care enough to die for the Faith. Eh, what's a screaming match or two in the grand scheme of things?
Some are outcasts anyway, why not go whole hog, huh?
Some are a-holes, that just the way of things.
Some people mistype (maybe :shrug: )
Some people misunderstand
Some people are too sensitive
Some people come from different cultures than others and that's just how they roll
Any more?
eta I didn't see the original thread this was taken from, so...
Trads in general think for themselves, because they obviously don't "Go with the flow" and don't want to. So they probably by nature of being a trad are a bit on the independent minded side.
Trads online have never learned the lesson in my signature.
They either allow themselves to become the suckers or the self-righteous. Or both.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fduty_calls.png&hash=ce64d3d754661822a7caeb97817147819397e005)
I
Who wants to bet on how long this thread will go? My wager is 11 pages
I've quoted this old post of Bonaventure's before, but I really do think it sums up the answer to your question. As to why THIS happens in the first place, I've been wondering that a lot myself. I didn't see nearly as much of it even in the Novus Ordo, so why do trads who should "know better" constantly fall into this pattern?
Quote from: Bonaventure on December 31, 2012, 01:27:42 AMUnfortunately, too many Catholics try to attach their own baggage onto what being Catholic means. Political, social, and cultural norms are attached. For some, it's a Leave it to Beaver, 1950s life. For others, it's bunkering up with grain, gold, and silver. The examples go on and on. Through the internet, I've met some intelligent, faithful, and charitable Catholics from all over the world. At the same time, I've encountered real Jew haters, real women haters, real racists, absolutely obsessed conspiracy theorists, and so on. Anyone who disagrees is a liberal or "not a trad," and not one iota of these things have to deal with doctrine or spirituality.
Quote from: Recovering NOer on July 31, 2014, 11:13:32 AM
I've quoted this old post of Bonaventure's before, but I really do think it sums up the answer to your question. As to why THIS happens in the first place, I've been wondering that a lot myself. I didn't see nearly as much of it even in the Novus Ordo, so why do trads who should "know better" constantly fall into this pattern?
Quote from: Bonaventure on December 31, 2012, 01:27:42 AMUnfortunately, too many Catholics try to attach their own baggage onto what being Catholic means. Political, social, and cultural norms are attached. For some, it's a Leave it to Beaver, 1950s life. For others, it's bunkering up with grain, gold, and silver. The examples go on and on. Through the internet, I've met some intelligent, faithful, and charitable Catholics from all over the world. At the same time, I've encountered real Jew haters, real women haters, real racists, absolutely obsessed conspiracy theorists, and so on. Anyone who disagrees is a liberal or "not a trad," and not one iota of these things have to deal with doctrine or spirituality.
This makes a lot of sense. So unfortunate. :-\
Quote from: Recovering NOer on July 31, 2014, 11:13:32 AM
I've quoted this old post of Bonaventure's before, but I really do think it sums up the answer to your question. As to why THIS happens in the first place, I've been wondering that a lot myself. I didn't see nearly as much of it even in the Novus Ordo, so why do trads who should "know better" constantly fall into this pattern?
Quote from: Bonaventure on December 31, 2012, 01:27:42 AMUnfortunately, too many Catholics try to attach their own baggage onto what being Catholic means. Political, social, and cultural norms are attached. For some, it's a Leave it to Beaver, 1950s life. For others, it's bunkering up with grain, gold, and silver. The examples go on and on. Through the internet, I've met some intelligent, faithful, and charitable Catholics from all over the world. At the same time, I've encountered real Jew haters, real women haters, real racists, absolutely obsessed conspiracy theorists, and so on. Anyone who disagrees is a liberal or "not a trad," and not one iota of these things have to deal with doctrine or spirituality.
That is a nugget of gold from Bonaventure.
In regards to NO people, they have their own set of issues on the other side of the spectrum. The difference being that their baggage (birth control, broken families, excessive love for the world and it's pleasures etc.) is generally accepted by society while trad baggage is not.
Quote from: Jayne on July 31, 2014, 10:27:40 AM
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fduty_calls.png&hash=ce64d3d754661822a7caeb97817147819397e005)
I need more sleep than that.
Quote from: Non Nobis on July 31, 2014, 11:41:59 AM
Quote from: Jayne on July 31, 2014, 10:27:40 AM
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fduty_calls.png&hash=ce64d3d754661822a7caeb97817147819397e005)
I need more sleep than that.
Well now you know why I need my bedtime enforced by my husband. :)
Quote from: Jayne on July 31, 2014, 10:27:40 AM
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fduty_calls.png&hash=ce64d3d754661822a7caeb97817147819397e005)
That was me, last night, on an adoption group. Of course, truthfully, they're wrong about religion and their whole life philosophy and the concept of it being okay to go through life with no intention of self-improvement, spiritually-speaking and otherwise-- and I don't think some chick on Facebook is going to fix that. *facepalm*
I saw an interesting graph once, I think on Buzzfeed. It's meant to be funny. But, basically, it says there are two types of people you will fight with -- the ones you disagree with on just about everything, and the ones you agree with on everything but one tiny point. That last bit is why comic book fans will have long fights about who is the best super hero that they couldn't ever have with, say, me -- because I don't know or care enough about comic books to keep that fight fueled even if I tried (which I wouldn't, because I don't care).
Quote from: Jayne on July 31, 2014, 12:29:23 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis on July 31, 2014, 11:41:59 AM
Quote from: Jayne on July 31, 2014, 10:27:40 AM
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fduty_calls.png&hash=ce64d3d754661822a7caeb97817147819397e005)
I need more sleep than that.
Well now you know why I need my bedtime enforced by my husband. :)
Does he do storytime first? :)
Quote from: Recovering NOer on July 31, 2014, 11:13:32 AM
I've quoted this old post of Bonaventure's before, but I really do think it sums up the answer to your question. As to why THIS happens in the first place, I've been wondering that a lot myself. I didn't see nearly as much of it even in the Novus Ordo, so why do trads who should "know better" constantly fall into this pattern?
Quote from: Bonaventure on December 31, 2012, 01:27:42 AMUnfortunately, too many Catholics try to attach their own baggage onto what being Catholic means. Political, social, and cultural norms are attached. For some, it's a Leave it to Beaver, 1950s life. For others, it's bunkering up with grain, gold, and silver. The examples go on and on. Through the internet, I've met some intelligent, faithful, and charitable Catholics from all over the world. At the same time, I've encountered real Jew haters, real women haters, real racists, absolutely obsessed conspiracy theorists, and so on. Anyone who disagrees is a liberal or "not a trad," and not one iota of these things have to deal with doctrine or spirituality.
Very much this. Trads have the only true form of the Faith, but aren't much better as individuals than the heretics are.
I think we need to ask ourselves, "Why can't all baptized persons get along, whether they are Protestant or Catholic?"
The thing is, some people just are not meant to get along. There are traditionalists out there that are in schism with Rome, and there are those that aren't. A traditionalist who attends a diocesan TLM can't possibly get along with a hard-core sedevacantist.
Not necessarily. You might be surprised.
Quote from: bben15 on July 31, 2014, 08:28:46 PM
I think we need to ask ourselves, "Why can't all baptized persons get along, whether they are Protestant or Catholic?"
The thing is, some people just are not meant to get along. There are traditionalists out there that are in schism with Rome, and there are those that aren't. A traditionalist who attends a diocesan TLM can't possibly get along with a hard-core sedevacantist.
Why not? There is at least one user on here who does.
Quote from: Jayne on July 31, 2014, 09:33:59 AM
I saw this question in another thread and want to give it a thread of its own. It resonated with me because I have been thinking a lot lately about what I can do to be less argumentative.
I do think there is more to tensions among trads than some people being argumentative, though. That's just the piece I've been thinking on lately.
you could start by not derailing and trashing people who have attempted sincerely to be your friend.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on July 31, 2014, 09:26:59 PM
Quote from: bben15 on July 31, 2014, 08:28:46 PM
I think we need to ask ourselves, "Why can't all baptized persons get along, whether they are Protestant or Catholic?"
The thing is, some people just are not meant to get along. There are traditionalists out there that are in schism with Rome, and there are those that aren't. A traditionalist who attends a diocesan TLM can't possibly get along with a hard-core sedevacantist.
Why not? There is at least one user on here who does.
There are some nice folks who I think ate hardcore sedes who have been kind to me even though I believe Francis is the pope (unfortunately) and attend a diocesan TLM (in theory...in practice I haven't gone inside a church since Dec 2013
Quote from: bben15 on July 31, 2014, 08:28:46 PMThe thing is, some people just are not meant to get along. There are traditionalists out there that are in schism with Rome, and there are those that aren't. A traditionalist who attends a diocesan TLM can't possibly get along with a hard-core sedevacantist.
That doesn't explain it at all. Most of the stuff people get into heated arguments about here is waaay more trivial than this.
Quote from: Recovering NOer on July 31, 2014, 09:47:32 PM
Quote from: bben15 on July 31, 2014, 08:28:46 PMThe thing is, some people just are not meant to get along. There are traditionalists out there that are in schism with Rome, and there are those that aren't. A traditionalist who attends a diocesan TLM can't possibly get along with a hard-core sedevacantist.
That doesn't explain it at all. Most of the stuff people get into heated arguments about here is waaay more trivial than this.
Are you referring to the Oxford Comma discussion?
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on July 31, 2014, 09:51:04 PMAre you referring to the Oxford Comma discussion?
No, but that certainly doesn't hurt my case.
Quote from: Recovering NOer on July 31, 2014, 09:52:13 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on July 31, 2014, 09:51:04 PMAre you referring to the Oxford Comma discussion?
No, but that certainly doesn't hurt my case.
By the way, where do you stand on the Oxford comma issue?
I use it. LOL at it being an "issue."
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on July 31, 2014, 09:38:01 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 31, 2014, 09:33:59 AM
I saw this question in another thread and want to give it a thread of its own. It resonated with me because I have been thinking a lot lately about what I can do to be less argumentative.
I do think there is more to tensions among trads than some people being argumentative, though. That's just the piece I've been thinking on lately.
you could start by not derailing and trashing people who have attempted sincerely to be your friend.
By "not being able to get along," I meant that we can't attend each other's churches, receive each other's sacraments, and be in harmony with each other in regards to traditionalism. I've never heard of a sedevacantist attending a diocesan TLM, not have I ever heard of a diocesan traditionalist attending a sedevacantist chapel. Sedevacantists do not go to Novus Ordo priests for Confession, and vice versa. Plus, the average traditionalist in my diocese does not support sedevacantism, nor even the SSPX. Obviously, we can't get along in matters of doctrine. However, that doesn't mean that we can't be friends. I don't know any sedevacantists, but I have plenty of Protestant friends and relatives, and we get along just fine.
Quote from: bben15 on July 31, 2014, 10:04:57 PM
Plus, the average traditionalist in my diocese does not support sedevacantism, nor even the SSPX.
Are they even trad, then?
They're liberal and probably come to a liturgy for its superficial, aesthetic "value". That's how Anglicans think, not trads.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on July 31, 2014, 10:06:40 PM
Quote from: bben15 on July 31, 2014, 10:04:57 PM
Plus, the average traditionalist in my diocese does not support sedevacantism, nor even the SSPX.
Are they even trad, then?
One needn't not support sedevacantism to be a "trad", as that would be tending towards dogmatic sedevacantism
Sedevacantists often do not support the SSPX, so support of the SSPX is not necessary to traditionalism.
The FSSP supports neither the SSPX nor sedevacantism, and I doubt many would find it easy to accuse them of being liberal or not-trad without some interesting "logic" to back it up.
One could stand for the values, beliefs, etc., that the SSPX stands for as far as things in the Faith one must uphold, without supporting the SSPX. Reason? The tendency of many in the SSPX, meaning priests, and the laity which attend their chapels, to be outright unsupportable in their speech and behavior, often over things that have literally nothing to do with the Faith but somehow get wrapped up into exactly what Bonaventure said in that gold-nugget quote.
Theoretically, "It is not enough to avoid heresy, but one must also carefully shun all errors which more or less approach it; hence all must observe the constitutions and decrees by which the Holy See has proscribed and forbidden opinions of that sort" (c. 1324).
Adherence to Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium is the ultimate dividing line (aside from the question of whether it has erred, there's also the corollary of whether it approached error/heresy). Bonaventure correctly observed that some conflate non-doctrinal (i.e. practical) matters with those that are, but it's not unreasonable to assume that such people believe their sticking points to follow from this or that doctrinal/philosophical principle, and so are steadfast in maintaining their assertions.
If we had a hierarchy that was undoubtedly Catholic in belief and in practice, we would not likely be having this discussion, because there'd be no "sedevacantist v. SSPX v. diocesan" division. If anything, we'd be content with arguing Thomism v. Molinism over and over again.
From my standpoint, in order to be a trad, you must profess the Holy Catholic Faith whole and entire, and that necessarily means a rejection of the conciliar and post-conciliar errors, up to and including the NOM (although I think the latter conclusion can be reached over time, and is not immediately necessary). You must believe in the Social Reign of Christ the King, accept pre-conciliar ecumenism (that of the return of dissidents to the true Church), reject religious liberty in theory (and maintain a Catholic state's right to repress error; in practice, we should speak of tolerance, not liberty), and you must accept Vatican I/Pius XII's definition of the true Church and membership; "partial communion" must be rejected, as per Pope Pius IX (Iam Vos Omnes). Following this, one must likewise reject the conciliar practice of "communicatio in sacris" and accept the Holy Office's centuries' long decrees on the matter. Over time, one should come to recognize the errors of the new Mass (aside from the toned-down prayers, there's the issue of the form of Consecration itself).
Because we are all annoying.
Quote from: SouthpawLink on August 01, 2014, 07:25:22 AM
From my standpoint, in order to be a trad, you must profess the Holy Catholic Faith whole and entire, and that necessarily means a rejection of the conciliar and post-conciliar errors, up to and including the NOM (although I think the latter conclusion can be reached over time, and is not immediately necessary). You must believe in the Social Reign of Christ the King, accept pre-conciliar ecumenism (that of the return of dissidents to the true Church), reject religious liberty in theory (and maintain a Catholic state's right to repress error; in practice, we should speak of tolerance, not liberty), and you must accept Vatican I/Pius XII's definition of the true Church and membership; "partial communion" must be rejected, as per Pope Pius IX (Iam Vos Omnes). Following this, one must likewise reject the conciliar practice of "communicatio in sacris" and accept the Holy Office's centuries' long decrees on the matter. Over time, one should come to recognize the errors of the new Mass (aside from the toned-down prayers, there's the issue of the form of Consecration itself).
That's a very good summary.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on July 31, 2014, 09:26:59 PM
Quote from: bben15 on July 31, 2014, 08:28:46 PM
I think we need to ask ourselves, "Why can't all baptized persons get along, whether they are Protestant or Catholic?"
The thing is, some people just are not meant to get along. There are traditionalists out there that are in schism with Rome, and there are those that aren't. A traditionalist who attends a diocesan TLM can't possibly get along with a hard-core sedevacantist.
Why not? There is at least one user on here who does.
Well, there are at least two of us here then. A good friend of mine attends a diocesan TLM, but he also will come to the sedevacantist mission I assist at. We have the faith; the application of where to go we certainly do disagree on.
bben, I would say that for the most part you are correct about a sedevacantist not assisting at a diocesan TLM, even though I can think of a few that I know personally that do.
Joe
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on July 31, 2014, 09:38:01 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 31, 2014, 09:33:59 AM
I saw this question in another thread and want to give it a thread of its own. It resonated with me because I have been thinking a lot lately about what I can do to be less argumentative.
I do think there is more to tensions among trads than some people being argumentative, though. That's just the piece I've been thinking on lately.
you could start by not derailing and trashing people who have attempted sincerely to be your friend.
This, this, definitely this.
Quote from: SouthpawLink on August 01, 2014, 07:25:22 AM
From my standpoint, in order to be a trad, you must profess the Holy Catholic Faith whole and entire, and that necessarily means a rejection of the conciliar and post-conciliar errors, up to and including the NOM (although I think the latter conclusion can be reached over time, and is not immediately necessary). You must believe in the Social Reign of Christ the King, accept pre-conciliar ecumenism (that of the return of dissidents to the true Church), reject religious liberty in theory (and maintain a Catholic state's right to repress error; in practice, we should speak of tolerance, not liberty), and you must accept Vatican I/Pius XII's definition of the true Church and membership; "partial communion" must be rejected, as per Pope Pius IX (Iam Vos Omnes). Following this, one must likewise reject the conciliar practice of "communicatio in sacris" and accept the Holy Office's centuries' long decrees on the matter. Over time, one should come to recognize the errors of the new Mass (aside from the toned-down prayers, there's the issue of the form of Consecration itself).
This is incompatible at several points with my views, yet I feel that I do get along with you on a personal level. I respect that you are knowledgeable, reasonable and civil in your posts. I do not have a problem coexisting with you on a forum although worshiping together would be difficult.
How could worshipping with any fellow Catholic be difficult...unless you feel superior to the other. Further when Im at Liturgy I almost never pay attention to what the other laity are doing...I focus on Christ and Christ alone...this is the prob with Notards they focus on the people in the pews.
Worshiping together would difficult because we would not be able to agree on a Mass to attend.
Quote from: Jayne on August 02, 2014, 06:14:41 AM
Worshiping together would difficult because we would not be able to agree on a Mass to attend.
Why are you averse to the TLM? Is it somehow deficient to the NO? The difficulty would come if you asked Southpaw to come to the NO,
Hello Jayne,
Yes, I am aware that you disagree with me when it comes to the interpretation of recent magisterial documents on the nature of the Church ("partial/imperfect communion") and you very likely also disagree with me concerning the new Mass. Regardless, I agree that we've always gotten along pretty well, both here and elsewhere. ;)
In good conscience, and unless someone can overwhelmingly prove otherwise, no, I don't think we could attend the same Mass together, as worship reflects belief (and I cannot add my prayers to those of a priest who believes that Francis is the Sovereign Pontiff and is one in faith with him).
:pray1: for an end to the Modernist Crisis.
Voxx, it's not a matter of the TLM, but of being together at an "una cum" Mass (one with "Pope" Francis named in the Canon).
Quote from: SouthpawLink on August 02, 2014, 06:28:32 AM
Hello Jayne,
Yes, I am aware that you disagree with me when it comes to the interpretation of recent magisterial documents on the nature of the Church ("partial/imperfect communion") and you very likely also disagree with me concerning the new Mass. Regardless, I agree that we've always gotten along pretty well, both here and elsewhere. ;)
In good conscience, and unless someone can overwhelmingly prove otherwise, no, I don't think we could attend the same Mass together, as worship reflects belief (and I cannot add my prayers to those of a priest who believes that Francis is the Sovereign Pontiff and is one in faith with him).
:pray1: for an end to the Modernist Crisis.
Voxx, it's not a matter of the TLM, but of being together at an "una cum" Mass (one with "Pope" Francis named in the Canon).
oh I see...there is that...In the DL Francis is named Pope in the Litany (not sure if that is a Canon) but it seems simply to me to be a hiarchical mistake of fact and therefore I ignore it....God can work on that problem..its not my concern...the Litany names a few bishops in our eparchy as well who are lets just say undesirable.
Voxx,
Here's a brief explanation as to why I won't attend such Masses:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/B16inCanon.pdf
Quote from: SouthpawLink on August 02, 2014, 06:28:32 AM
Hello Jayne,
Yes, I am aware that you disagree with me when it comes to the interpretation of recent magisterial documents on the nature of the Church ("partial/imperfect communion") and you very likely also disagree with me concerning the new Mass. Regardless, I agree that we've always gotten along pretty well, both here and elsewhere. ;)
In good conscience, and unless someone can overwhelmingly prove otherwise, no, I don't think we could attend the same Mass together, as worship reflects belief (and I cannot add my prayers to those of a priest who believes that Francis is the Sovereign Pontiff and is one in faith with him).
:pray1: for an end to the Modernist Crisis.
Voxx, it's not a matter of the TLM, but of being together at an "una cum" Mass (one with "Pope" Francis named in the Canon).
That is a good explanation. I would love to see things resolved so that we could attend the same Mass. I add my prayers to yours.
Quote from: SouthpawLink on August 02, 2014, 06:40:01 AM
Voxx,
Here's a brief explanation as to why I won't attend such Masses:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/B16inCanon.pdf
I know the argument...I went round and round with Father Cekada about it....I think it is flawed in that in order to resolve it sedes become a new rite of the Church.
Quote from: Jayne on July 31, 2014, 09:33:59 AM
I saw this question in another thread and want to give it a thread of its own. It resonated with me because I have been thinking a lot lately about what I can do to be less argumentative.
I do think there is more to tensions among trads than some people being argumentative, though. That's just the piece I've been thinking on lately.
Fallen Human Nature, like every other group.
Trads need Baptism as well.
Quote from: verenaerin on August 01, 2014, 08:05:25 AM
Because we are all annoying.
That is part of it. Some of the failure to get along is just personal issues.
Some of it is the sort of thing in the quote from Bonaventure - disagreements about trivial things.
Some of it disagreement about central questions of faith and doctrine.
Quote from: Jayne on August 02, 2014, 04:48:05 AM
Quote from: SouthpawLink on August 01, 2014, 07:25:22 AM
From my standpoint, in order to be a trad, you must profess the Holy Catholic Faith whole and entire, and that necessarily means a rejection of the conciliar and post-conciliar errors, up to and including the NOM (although I think the latter conclusion can be reached over time, and is not immediately necessary). You must believe in the Social Reign of Christ the King, accept pre-conciliar ecumenism (that of the return of dissidents to the true Church), reject religious liberty in theory (and maintain a Catholic state's right to repress error; in practice, we should speak of tolerance, not liberty), and you must accept Vatican I/Pius XII's definition of the true Church and membership; "partial communion" must be rejected, as per Pope Pius IX (Iam Vos Omnes). Following this, one must likewise reject the conciliar practice of "communicatio in sacris" and accept the Holy Office's centuries' long decrees on the matter. Over time, one should come to recognize the errors of the new Mass (aside from the toned-down prayers, there's the issue of the form of Consecration itself).
This is incompatible at several points with my views, yet I feel that I do get along with you on a personal level. I respect that you are knowledgeable, reasonable and civil in your posts. I do not have a problem coexisting with you on a forum although worshiping together would be difficult.
I see absolutely nothing at odds with Catholic teaching in "Southpaw Links" statements, in the above post.
It is a very basic encapsulation of what a Catholic should believe.
Quote from: Older Salt on August 02, 2014, 06:52:55 AM
Quote from: Jayne on August 02, 2014, 04:48:05 AM
Quote from: SouthpawLink on August 01, 2014, 07:25:22 AM
From my standpoint, in order to be a trad, you must profess the Holy Catholic Faith whole and entire, and that necessarily means a rejection of the conciliar and post-conciliar errors, up to and including the NOM (although I think the latter conclusion can be reached over time, and is not immediately necessary). You must believe in the Social Reign of Christ the King, accept pre-conciliar ecumenism (that of the return of dissidents to the true Church), reject religious liberty in theory (and maintain a Catholic state's right to repress error; in practice, we should speak of tolerance, not liberty), and you must accept Vatican I/Pius XII's definition of the true Church and membership; "partial communion" must be rejected, as per Pope Pius IX (Iam Vos Omnes). Following this, one must likewise reject the conciliar practice of "communicatio in sacris" and accept the Holy Office's centuries' long decrees on the matter. Over time, one should come to recognize the errors of the new Mass (aside from the toned-down prayers, there's the issue of the form of Consecration itself).
This is incompatible at several points with my views, yet I feel that I do get along with you on a personal level. I respect that you are knowledgeable, reasonable and civil in your posts. I do not have a problem coexisting with you on a forum although worshiping together would be difficult.
I see absolutely nothing at odds with Catholic teaching in "Southpaw Links" statements, in the above post.
It is a very basic encapsulation of what a Catholic should believe.
I accept the authority of the post-conciliar Magisterium and, when necessary, I attend the NO. I also think it is possible to understand "partial communion" in an orthodox way. This is not compatible with his position. I agree with SPL on other points such as "the Social Reign of Christ the King, accept pre-conciliar ecumenism (that of the return of dissidents to the true Church), reject religious liberty in theory (and maintain a Catholic state's right to repress error; in practice, we should speak of
tolerance, not liberty)."
I really do not want to discuss these things any further in this thread since it would completely derail the topic.
Quote from: SouthpawLink on August 02, 2014, 06:40:01 AM
Voxx,
Here's a brief explanation as to why I won't attend such Masses:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/B16inCanon.pdf
Thanks for sharing this, however, I disagree with Fr. Cedeka on this point. I don't have any sede Masses close by (except for one 3/4 hour away with a weird time), so I go back and forth between Byzantine Rite and SSPX. But if I had the option, I would attend either SSPV or CMRI. I don't believe you lose sacramental grace by going to a Mass with a false Pope's name in the Canon. Just as people in the Great Western Schism did not avoid going to Mass because of a false Pope, neither will I.
Quote from: Older Salt on August 02, 2014, 06:52:55 AM
Quote from: Jayne on August 02, 2014, 04:48:05 AM
Quote from: SouthpawLink on August 01, 2014, 07:25:22 AM
From my standpoint, in order to be a trad, you must profess the Holy Catholic Faith whole and entire, and that necessarily means a rejection of the conciliar and post-conciliar errors, up to and including the NOM (although I think the latter conclusion can be reached over time, and is not immediately necessary). You must believe in the Social Reign of Christ the King, accept pre-conciliar ecumenism (that of the return of dissidents to the true Church), reject religious liberty in theory (and maintain a Catholic state's right to repress error; in practice, we should speak of tolerance, not liberty), and you must accept Vatican I/Pius XII's definition of the true Church and membership; "partial communion" must be rejected, as per Pope Pius IX (Iam Vos Omnes). Following this, one must likewise reject the conciliar practice of "communicatio in sacris" and accept the Holy Office's centuries' long decrees on the matter. Over time, one should come to recognize the errors of the new Mass (aside from the toned-down prayers, there's the issue of the form of Consecration itself).
This is incompatible at several points with my views, yet I feel that I do get along with you on a personal level. I respect that you are knowledgeable, reasonable and civil in your posts. I do not have a problem coexisting with you on a forum although worshiping together would be difficult.
I see absolutely nothing at odds with Catholic teaching in "Southpaw Links" statements, in the above post.
It is a very basic encapsulation of what a Catholic should believe.
There is no such thing as ecumenism in Catholicism. That was something the Protestants started because they saw their own disunity. Wayward Catholics got infected and then Mortalium Animos had to be written in 1928 to condemn it. Statistics show that it only started to skyrocket in about 1955 when Pius XII fell ill.
RobertJS,
To clarify, by "pre-conciliar ecumenism," I am referring to this passage from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos: "So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it" (n. 10.). I used the phrase out of convenience, and did not aim for precision.
See also: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM
Quote from: SouthpawLink on August 02, 2014, 10:16:22 AM
RobertJS,
To clarify, by "pre-conciliar ecumenism," I am referring to this passage from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos: "So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it" (n. 10.). I used the phrase out of convenience, and did not aim for precision.
See also: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM
The use of the word that way is not only imprecise, it is illegitimate, as well as adding confusion to those who should know that ecumenism foisted on the Church was a completely novel thing and against the teachings of the Church.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 03, 2014, 01:29:31 PM
Quote from: SouthpawLink on August 02, 2014, 10:16:22 AM
RobertJS,
To clarify, by "pre-conciliar ecumenism," I am referring to this passage from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos: "So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it" (n. 10.). I used the phrase out of convenience, and did not aim for precision.
See also: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM
The use of the word that way is not only imprecise, it is illegitimate, as well as adding confusion to those who should know that ecumenism foisted on the Church was a completely novel thing and against the teachings of the Church.
I agree. When people see the word "ecumenism", they usually do not associate it with anything from before the Council.
Are trad fora more uncharitable than any other fora?
Quote from: LouisIX on August 03, 2014, 01:57:00 PM
Are trad fora more uncharitable than any other fora?
No. Case in point: Catholic Answers Forum, TTA, Webdiplomacy, Fish Eaters (when dealing with Trads).
SD is the most charitable forum I know of.
Quote from: LouisIX on August 03, 2014, 01:57:00 PM
Are trad fora more uncharitable than any other fora?
To some extent it depends on the forum and the degree of enforcement.
I think atheist forums are the worst, followed by the Radical Protestants. The Orthodox forum isn't too bad, but they don't like "Papists" (i.e. us). Never again will I post on a non-Trad forum, simply because of the negative experiences I have had in the past.
Ive actually never been on any forums except FE then here. Unless you count my OZI SQUAD Delta force online team
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 03, 2014, 02:01:03 PM
I think atheist forums are the worst, followed by the Radical Protestants. The Orthodox forum isn't too bad, but they don't like "Papists" (i.e. us). Never again will I post on a non-Trad forum, simply because of the negative experiences I have had in the past.
I've had the most trouble with trad forums and forums run by English-speaking Eastern Europeans.
GameFAQs is fine if you keep away from the Religion and Politics boards, and the obvious problem places like CE. I've also been to mostly-liberal forums where most people are fine as long as you don't preach the Gospel every other post and tell people that they're going to Hell.
Many traditional Catholics on the internet seem to think, at least in practice, that being a "trad" imparts some special wisdom on the person, allowing them to make sweeping assertions in different fields of human knowledge in which they know nothing. 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
QuoteThis 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
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi177.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw206%2Fvoxxpopulisux%2F1238512678_thread_wrecker.gif&hash=ca7f4f7b42f13bfeaa4a50e2feea3a0c1929c326)
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. ::)
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 05, 2014, 03:24:45 PM
QuoteThis 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. ::)
Exactly. It's interesting that it seems to be the
heliocentrists who can't resist making snarky remarks on various threads completely unrelated to the issue. "This forum isn't ready to discuss science," and so forth. I guess that's the way of the sore loser.
Besides the "Catholic-And" effect, I think trads don't get along because of the priests they follow. We all agree in creed, cult, and code, so why don't we get along? The sede priests trump up the "una cum" argument and get us to parrot it. The indult priests get us to repeat the "sedes-are-protties" line. The SSPX get us to believe the "extra-fsspx-nulla-salus" line. Maybe it comes down to something as simple as this: each group wants to fill its own pews, build its own little empire, and run the competition out. All the sheep for me, as it were. We are the only show in town.
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.
Quote from: charlesh on August 08, 2014, 12:47:00 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.)
With respect to the OP, I really think it comes down to principles on the one hand, and lack of authority on the other. We all have problems/issues that need to be decided, but there's no one we can trust who has the authority to decide them, or who will use the authority to decide. And thus, we either live and let live, or live and do our best to convert the adversary.
Honestly, the latter is better, but the former is generally a heck of a lot easier. We should probably try harder to avoid it. Which, in turn, means that we actually
aren't arguing enough.
(The real issue, as it seems to me, is that we aren't arguing
charitably enough, on the one hand; and that we aren't willing to face the
discomfort of having our own views challenged, on the other. But then again, I might just be crazy.)
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 08, 2014, 07:06:38 PM
With respect to the OP, I really think it comes down to principles on the one hand, and lack of authority on the other. We all have problems/issues that need to be decided, but there's no one we can trust who has the authority to decide them, or who will use the authority to decide. And thus, we either live and let live, or live and do our best to convert the adversary.
Honestly, the latter is better, but the former is generally a heck of a lot easier. We should probably try harder to avoid it. Which, in turn, means that we actually aren't arguing enough.
(The real issue, as it seems to me, is that we aren't arguing charitably enough, on the one hand; and that we aren't willing to face the discomfort of having our own views challenged, on the other. But then again, I might just be crazy.)
It seems to me that we only have an obligation to argue for positions that we are sure are right. I am at a point of feeling confused and troubled by what is going on it the Church. About all I am sure about is my need for prayer, Sacraments and doing the duties of my state of life. I can understand why some people are reaching different conclusions from my own on various issues.
Jayne,
I kind of agree, and kind of don't. The reasons are as follows: firstly, I find myself leading a double life, or at least a life of isolation. I attend the Catholic University of America, and all of my housemates are Catholics. Yet, I seldom if ever feel that I am a Catholic among Catholics, because I've always been more traditional than any of them. That position has become even more extreme since I became a sedevacantist.
Although I tell myself that it's not a secret, the fact that I am a sedevacantist is not something I advertise, either. I have the feeling that for most Catholics, it would be better for me to be an Evangelical (especially if "most Catholics" includes Bergoglio), a Pentecostal, a snake-handler, a pro-abort atheist-- anything but a sedevacantist. That can't continue. If people are going to reject me, it has to be done openly. I don't mean to assume that it will happen any more.
Secondly, we all have an obligation to the truths that we have learned, even-- perhaps especially-- those that are unpleasant. We should share them whenever it will be helpful. Now, in the long run, the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic-- and I'm just about as convinced as I can imagine being of that fact-- is a disaster, but probably even more disastrous if it continues to be the case that almost no one realizes it. I hope and pray that I would be willing to die to make clear the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic, or is at least acting in a way that is unacceptable for a Catholic, let alone a hierarch, and above all for a pope.
Thirdly, if somehow I do turn out to be wrong, the sooner that gets corrected, the better. That means reading, sure, but it also means arguing. For this reason, I am willing to advise arguing even for something one doesn't believe, provided one is not going to cause scandal.
One has to face up to the truth, live up to the truth, and not be ashamed of the truth.
That, at least, is the best I can make of it.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 13, 2014, 05:09:14 PM
Jayne,
I kind of agree, and kind of don't. The reasons are as follows: firstly, I find myself leading a double life, or at least a life of isolation. I attend the Catholic University of America, and all of my housemates are Catholics. Yet, I seldom if ever feel that I am a Catholic among Catholics, because I've always been more traditional than any of them. That position has become even more extreme since I became a sedevacantist.
Although I tell myself that it's not a secret, the fact that I am a sedevacantist is not something I advertise, either. I have the feeling that for most Catholics, it would be better for me to be an Evangelical (especially if "most Catholics" includes Bergoglio), a Pentecostal, a snake-handler, a pro-abort atheist-- anything but a sedevacantist. That can't continue. If people are going to reject me, it has to be done openly. I don't mean to assume that it will happen any more.
Secondly, we all have an obligation to the truths that we have learned, even-- perhaps especially-- those that are unpleasant. We should share them whenever it will be helpful. Now, in the long run, the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic-- and I'm just about as convinced as I can imagine being of that fact-- is a disaster, but probably even more disastrous if it continues to be the case that almost no one realizes it. I hope and pray that I would be willing to die to make clear the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic, or is at least acting in a way that is unacceptable for a Catholic, let alone a hierarch, and above all for a pope.
Thirdly, if somehow I do turn out to be wrong, the sooner that gets corrected, the better. That means reading, sure, but it also means arguing. For this reason, I am willing to advise arguing even for something one doesn't believe, provided one is not going to cause scandal.
One has to face up to the truth, live up to the truth, and not be ashamed of the truth.
That, at least, is the best I can make of it.
I'm moving in the opposite direction. I've worn myself out with arguing about these things and I don't see that it has done any good to anyone.
I can understand why you want to argue, but it does not work for me anymore.
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.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 13, 2014, 05:09:14 PM
Jayne,
I kind of agree, and kind of don't. The reasons are as follows: firstly, I find myself leading a double life, or at least a life of isolation. I attend the Catholic University of America, and all of my housemates are Catholics. Yet, I seldom if ever feel that I am a Catholic among Catholics, because I've always been more traditional than any of them. That position has become even more extreme since I became a sedevacantist.
Although I tell myself that it's not a secret, the fact that I am a sedevacantist is not something I advertise, either. I have the feeling that for most Catholics, it would be better for me to be an Evangelical (especially if "most Catholics" includes Bergoglio), a Pentecostal, a snake-handler, a pro-abort atheist-- anything but a sedevacantist. That can't continue. If people are going to reject me, it has to be done openly. I don't mean to assume that it will happen any more.
Secondly, we all have an obligation to the truths that we have learned, even-- perhaps especially-- those that are unpleasant. We should share them whenever it will be helpful. Now, in the long run, the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic-- and I'm just about as convinced as I can imagine being of that fact-- is a disaster, but probably even more disastrous if it continues to be the case that almost no one realizes it. I hope and pray that I would be willing to die to make clear the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic, or is at least acting in a way that is unacceptable for a Catholic, let alone a hierarch, and above all for a pope.
Thirdly, if somehow I do turn out to be wrong, the sooner that gets corrected, the better. That means reading, sure, but it also means arguing. For this reason, I am willing to advise arguing even for something one doesn't believe, provided one is not going to cause scandal.
One has to face up to the truth, live up to the truth, and not be ashamed of the truth.
That, at least, is the best I can make of it.
Hi Junior Councilor,
I'll jump in here and apologize if I missed part of the issue since I haven't read the whole thread (time won't allow).
The root of your problem is that you are denying a dogmatic fact that Pope Francis is Pope. Here's a posting that covers part of the topic: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/05/everything-you-wanted-to-know.html, scroll down to the section on dogmatic facts.
Concerning Pope Francis not being Catholic is another area where you're in the weeds. Has Pope Francis explicitly denied a de fide teaching of the Church. Explicitly means that no judgement on your part is required.
The third point is that as a traditionalist you will hold, in greater or lesser degrees, a fundamentally different perspective that the other students. This will cause conflict, no way around it. Whether you seek isolation or they isolate you is a key point. If you seek isolation, then you'll be in trouble fairly quickly. If they shun you - that is another matter. In either case, when challenged you will need to explain your perspective by expounding on the teaching of the Church - not your own interpretation. In this manner it becomes the truth, not 'your' truth.
God Bless!
Tradical
Quote from: tradical on August 14, 2014, 09:31:49 AM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 13, 2014, 05:09:14 PM
Jayne,
I kind of agree, and kind of don't. The reasons are as follows: firstly, I find myself leading a double life, or at least a life of isolation. I attend the Catholic University of America, and all of my housemates are Catholics. Yet, I seldom if ever feel that I am a Catholic among Catholics, because I've always been more traditional than any of them. That position has become even more extreme since I became a sedevacantist.
Although I tell myself that it's not a secret, the fact that I am a sedevacantist is not something I advertise, either. I have the feeling that for most Catholics, it would be better for me to be an Evangelical (especially if "most Catholics" includes Bergoglio), a Pentecostal, a snake-handler, a pro-abort atheist-- anything but a sedevacantist. That can't continue. If people are going to reject me, it has to be done openly. I don't mean to assume that it will happen any more.
Secondly, we all have an obligation to the truths that we have learned, even-- perhaps especially-- those that are unpleasant. We should share them whenever it will be helpful. Now, in the long run, the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic-- and I'm just about as convinced as I can imagine being of that fact-- is a disaster, but probably even more disastrous if it continues to be the case that almost no one realizes it. I hope and pray that I would be willing to die to make clear the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic, or is at least acting in a way that is unacceptable for a Catholic, let alone a hierarch, and above all for a pope.
Thirdly, if somehow I do turn out to be wrong, the sooner that gets corrected, the better. That means reading, sure, but it also means arguing. For this reason, I am willing to advise arguing even for something one doesn't believe, provided one is not going to cause scandal.
One has to face up to the truth, live up to the truth, and not be ashamed of the truth.
That, at least, is the best I can make of it.
Hi Junior Councilor,
I'll jump in here and apologize if I missed part of the issue since I haven't read the whole thread (time won't allow).
The root of your problem is that you are denying a dogmatic fact that Pope Francis is Pope. Here's a posting that covers part of the topic: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/05/everything-you-wanted-to-know.html, scroll down to the section on dogmatic facts.
Concerning Pope Francis not being Catholic is another area where you're in the weeds. Has Pope Francis explicitly denied a de fide teaching of the Church. Explicitly means that no judgement on your part is required.
The third point is that as a traditionalist you will hold, in greater or lesser degrees, a fundamentally different perspective that the other students. This will cause conflict, no way around it. Whether you seek isolation or they isolate you is a key point. If you seek isolation, then you'll be in trouble fairly quickly. If they shun you - that is another matter. In either case, when challenged you will need to explain your perspective by expounding on the teaching of the Church - not your own interpretation. In this manner it becomes the truth, not 'your' truth.
God Bless!
Tradical
Excellent points, sir.
Quote from: tradical on August 14, 2014, 09:31:49 AM
The root of your problem is that you are denying a dogmatic fact that Pope Francis is Pope. Here's a posting that covers part of the topic: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/05/everything-you-wanted-to-know.html, scroll down to the section on dogmatic facts.
Concerning Pope Francis not being Catholic is another area where you're in the weeds. Has Pope Francis explicitly denied a de fide teaching of the Church. Explicitly means that no judgement on your part is required.
Well, I said I wanted argument... (although online was not really what I had in mind).
Tradical, the root of my problem is that Bergoglio is acting considerably less Catholic than I am. I've studied the dogmatic fact thing, and as far as I can tell, it addresses the election procedures, but not the question of whether the man elected pope is a public heretic. What I know for sure is that often dogmatic facts are useless when they would be most helpful. E.g.: it would have been really helpful to know that it was a dogmatic fact that X was pope during the Great Western Schism, as in fact it was. However, that dogmatic fact turned out to be quasi-impossible, at least for some people, to know.
In fact, it was a 'dogmatic fact' that made me a sedevacantist. The traditional teaching, as I understand it, is that a canonization is a 'dogmatic fact' and infallible. However, I regard the canonization of Karol Wojtyla as being impossible. Not so much because he couldn't be in heaven-- anything is possible, however unlikely, so far as that goes-- but because by such a canonization, the Church is clearly putting its seal of approval upon his public ministry as a whole, which,
extremely conspicuously, includes the Assisi prayer meetings with all their attendant scandal in matters concerning the First Commandment. Now, if we were in a time period where such a canonization were not likely, indeed CERTAIN, to be understood as approving the Assisi prayer meetings (which Wojtyla regarded as nothing less than an incarnation of the teaching of Vatican II), then I would be able to accept his canonization. However, we emphatically do not live in such a time period. Given that, I can't see how this canonization can avoid being a harmful universal disciplinary law, which the Church, according to traditional teaching, can never give us. And therefore, the man who carried it out must not have had the authority to do so.
So there's my real 'dogmatic fact' problem, if you want to tackle it. Good luck.
As for the weeds, you are mistaken in thinking that any judgment whatsoever does not require an application of the intellect. Even if Bergoglio were to affirm a heresy right in front of you, you would still make the judgment, "Yes, that came from his lips," etc. But even then, it would be exceedingly foolish to assume that a man who had otherwise shown himself to be orthodox was in fact a heretic, on the first showing. No, you would continue to watch, or even make inquiries to confirm what you had learned. But after a while, you would establish a pattern-- the man is, or is not, a heretic.
I will simply tell you this. I would have considered Bergoglio a heretic before he was pope, and I still consider him one now. I have not changed. I know lots of people who would argue that Cardinal Martini, whom Bergoglio greatly admires, is a heretic. Same for Kasper. But if either of them were elected pope, those same people would fall silent. I cannot and will not think or act that way.
Bergoglio is not a pope, he's a joke, and a bad one. May God have mercy on Him, and end his pretension-- for his own sake-- as soon as may be.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 14, 2014, 02:30:43 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 14, 2014, 09:31:49 AM
The root of your problem is that you are denying a dogmatic fact that Pope Francis is Pope. Here's a posting that covers part of the topic: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/05/everything-you-wanted-to-know.html, scroll down to the section on dogmatic facts.
Concerning Pope Francis not being Catholic is another area where you're in the weeds. Has Pope Francis explicitly denied a de fide teaching of the Church. Explicitly means that no judgement on your part is required.
Well, I said I wanted argument... (although online was not really what I had in mind).
Tradical, the root of my problem is that Bergoglio is acting considerably less Catholic than I am. I've studied the dogmatic fact thing, and as far as I can tell, it addresses the election procedures, but not the question of whether the man elected pope is a public heretic. What I know for sure is that often dogmatic facts are useless when they would be most helpful. E.g.: it would have been really helpful to know that it was a dogmatic fact that X was pope during the Great Western Schism, as in fact it was. However, that dogmatic fact turned out to be quasi-impossible, at least for some people, to know.
In fact, it was a 'dogmatic fact' that made me a sedevacantist. The traditional teaching, as I understand it, is that a canonization is a 'dogmatic fact' and infallible. However, I regard the canonization of Karol Wojtyla as being impossible. Not so much because he couldn't be in heaven-- anything is possible, however unlikely, so far as that goes-- but because by such a canonization, the Church is clearly putting its seal of approval upon his public ministry as a whole, which, extremely conspicuously, includes the Assisi prayer meetings with all their attendant scandal in matters concerning the First Commandment. Now, if we were in a time period where such a canonization were not likely, indeed CERTAIN, to be understood as approving the Assisi prayer meetings (which Wojtyla regarded as nothing less than an incarnation of the teaching of Vatican II), then I would be able to accept his canonization. However, we emphatically do not live in such a time period. Given that, I can't see how this canonization can avoid being a harmful universal disciplinary law, which the Church, according to traditional teaching, can never give us. And therefore, the man who carried it out must not have had the authority to do so.
So there's my real 'dogmatic fact' problem, if you want to tackle it. Good luck.
As for the weeds, you are mistaken in thinking that any judgment whatsoever does not require an application of the intellect. Even if Bergoglio were to affirm a heresy right in front of you, you would still make the judgment, "Yes, that came from his lips," etc. But even then, it would be exceedingly foolish to assume that a man who had otherwise shown himself to be orthodox was in fact a heretic, on the first showing. No, you would continue to watch, or even make inquiries to confirm what you had learned. But after a while, you would establish a pattern-- the man is, or is not, a heretic.
I will simply tell you this. I would have considered Bergoglio a heretic before he was pope, and I still consider him one now. I have not changed. I know lots of people who would argue that Cardinal Martini, whom Bergoglio greatly admires, is a heretic. Same for Kasper. But if either of them were elected pope, those same people would fall silent. I cannot and will not think or act that way.
Bergoglio is not a pope, he's a joke, and a bad one. May God have mercy on Him, and end his pretension-- for his own sake-- as soon as may be.
Hmmm,
I didn't mean to start an argument - just the way I come across online I guess.
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.
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.
Accepting the dogmatic fact (it would not be logical to reject one and accept another) - Pope Francis is Pope. It doesn't mean he's a good one.
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.
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.
Now, both the dogmatic facts are undefined and just common opinion at this time. As a layman, I will abide by each of them - but I will not expand their actions beyond what is the common theological opinion.
Lastly, the sin of another does not justify a sin on our part.
P^3
PS.
QuoteNo, you would continue to watch, or even make inquiries to confirm what you had learned. But after a while, you would establish a pattern-- the man is, or is not, a heretic.
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.
However, even in that case, until the Church makes the final declaration, he is still to be regarded as Pope.
Quote from: Older Salt on August 14, 2014, 08:57:35 AM
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.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 14, 2014, 03:49:13 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on August 14, 2014, 08:57:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Older Salt on August 14, 2014, 03:53:45 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 14, 2014, 03:49:13 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on August 14, 2014, 08:57:35 AM
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.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 14, 2014, 03:57:42 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on August 14, 2014, 03:53:45 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 14, 2014, 03:49:13 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on August 14, 2014, 08:57:35 AM
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.
Quote from: charlesh on August 08, 2014, 12:47:00 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.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 05, 2014, 03:24:45 PM
QuoteThis 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
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi177.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw206%2Fvoxxpopulisux%2F1238512678_thread_wrecker.gif&hash=ca7f4f7b42f13bfeaa4a50e2feea3a0c1929c326)
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.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 08, 2014, 07:06:38 PM
Quote from: charlesh on August 08, 2014, 12:47:00 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...
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on August 14, 2014, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: charlesh on August 08, 2014, 12:47:00 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.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 15, 2014, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on August 14, 2014, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: charlesh on August 08, 2014, 12:47:00 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
Quote from: tradical on August 15, 2014, 02:11:17 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 15, 2014, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on August 14, 2014, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: charlesh on August 08, 2014, 12:47:00 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.
Quote from: tradical on August 14, 2014, 03:16:34 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):
Quote6. 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).
QuoteNow 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.
If JP2 is a Saint then why is this?
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle9669558.ece%2Falternates%2Fw620%2Fglobal-peace-index-external.jpg&hash=dba20a762f376da7a171347ac2864d86faf41c9f)
only Country s in the world without conflict on their soil in Dark green
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 15, 2014, 07:51:08 PM
If JP2 is a Saint then why is this?
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle9669558.ece%2Falternates%2Fw620%2Fglobal-peace-index-external.jpg&hash=dba20a762f376da7a171347ac2864d86faf41c9f)
only Country s in the world without conflict on their soil in Dark green
what does this have to do with jpii
Assisi....prayers for world peace...no?
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 15, 2014, 08:00:30 PM
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?
Quote from: RobertJS on August 15, 2014, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on August 14, 2014, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: charlesh on August 08, 2014, 12:47:00 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.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 15, 2014, 03:51:15 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 15, 2014, 02:11:17 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 15, 2014, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on August 14, 2014, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: charlesh on August 08, 2014, 12:47:00 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
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 15, 2014, 05:23:22 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 14, 2014, 03:16:34 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):
Quote6. 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).
QuoteNow 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
Quotewhich 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.
No one asserts Jp2 hasnt been saved...notorious public sinners who havent publically repented of those sins can still get to heaven...but proclaiming a notorious sinner a saint is another. The question is was assisi...providibg cover for devient priests...kissing(venerating) the koran are notorious sins. Seems to me they are
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:24:30 AM
No one asserts Jp2 hasnt been saved...notorious public sinners who havent publically repented of those sins can still get to heaven...but proclaiming a notorious sinner a saint is another. The question is was assisi...providibg cover for devient priests...kissing(venerating) the koran are notorious sins. Seems to me they are
So you don't reject that actual canonization but reject the prudential decision to proceed with it?
P^3
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:24:30 AM
No one asserts Jp2 hasnt been saved...notorious public sinners who havent publically repented of those sins can still get to heaven...but proclaiming a notorious sinner a saint is another. The question is was assisi...providibg cover for devient priests...kissing(venerating) the koran are notorious sins. Seems to me they are
So you don't reject that actual canonization but reject the prudential decision to proceed with it?
P^3
No I reject it in toto because public unrepentant sinners cannot also be venerable saints.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:40:34 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:24:30 AM
No one asserts Jp2 hasnt been saved...notorious public sinners who havent publically repented of those sins can still get to heaven...but proclaiming a notorious sinner a saint is another. The question is was assisi...providibg cover for devient priests...kissing(venerating) the koran are notorious sins. Seems to me they are
So you don't reject that actual canonization but reject the prudential decision to proceed with it?
P^3
No I reject it in toto because public unrepentant sinners cannot also be venerable saints.
This.
A canonization means that the person in question is worthy of imitation. JPII never publicly repented for his public sins. Therefore, should we imitate his actions at Assisi, or his Koran-kissing, or his "interfaith services"? Of course not.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:40:34 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:24:30 AM
No one asserts Jp2 hasnt been saved...notorious public sinners who havent publically repented of those sins can still get to heaven...but proclaiming a notorious sinner a saint is another. The question is was assisi...providibg cover for devient priests...kissing(venerating) the koran are notorious sins. Seems to me they are
So you don't reject that actual canonization but reject the prudential decision to proceed with it?
P^3
No I reject it in toto because public unrepentant sinners cannot also be venerable saints.
Why not? How do you know he didn't repent?
This seems to be a beam and sliver type of scenario.
The end point is that there seems to be a limit on God's mercy that this canonization cannot have been legit because God could not have forgiven Pope John Paul II for his enormous mistakes.
I guess Pope Peter isn't a Saint after all.
P^3
Come on tradical,
you cannot be serious.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 16, 2014, 12:23:18 PM
Come on tradical,
you cannot be serious.
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!
Its not about whos in heaven...its about whos life was so obviously Christ like that we cannot err if we follow their example...this is the traditional understanding of veneration of saints. I am not an idol worshipper I dont worship men or women...I worship CHRIST in men or women. St Paul murdered Christians...he publically repented his public sins and THEN lived an outstanding Christian life and died a martyr s death....JP2 did nothing beyond his bare papal responsabltys...the only exceptional actions (or innactions) all HARMED the Faith...IE assisi...etc.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 16, 2014, 11:42:42 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:40:34 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:24:30 AM
No one asserts Jp2 hasnt been saved...notorious public sinners who havent publically repented of those sins can still get to heaven...but proclaiming a notorious sinner a saint is another. The question is was assisi...providibg cover for devient priests...kissing(venerating) the koran are notorious sins. Seems to me they are
So you don't reject that actual canonization but reject the prudential decision to proceed with it?
P^3
No I reject it in toto because public unrepentant sinners cannot also be venerable saints.
This.
A canonization means that the person in question is worthy of imitation. JPII never publicly repented for his public sins. Therefore, should we imitate his actions at Assisi, or his Koran-kissing, or his "interfaith services"? Of course not.
Whether or not this is 'proof' that Pope Francis is not Pope is that point that was being argued. Also, it is assumed that you would imitate his virtues not his vices and mistakes.
Taking the extreme example of St. Peter, would you imitate his betrayal or his life long repentance?
P^3
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 06:32:10 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 16, 2014, 11:42:42 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:40:34 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:24:30 AM
No one asserts Jp2 hasnt been saved...notorious public sinners who havent publically repented of those sins can still get to heaven...but proclaiming a notorious sinner a saint is another. The question is was assisi...providibg cover for devient priests...kissing(venerating) the koran are notorious sins. Seems to me they are
So you don't reject that actual canonization but reject the prudential decision to proceed with it?
P^3
No I reject it in toto because public unrepentant sinners cannot also be venerable saints.
This.
A canonization means that the person in question is worthy of imitation. JPII never publicly repented for his public sins. Therefore, should we imitate his actions at Assisi, or his Koran-kissing, or his "interfaith services"? Of course not.
Whether or not this is 'proof' that Pope Francis is not Pope is that point that was being argued. Also, it is assumed that you would imitate his virtues not his vices and mistakes.
Taking the extreme example of St. Peter, would you imitate his betrayal or his life long repentance?
P^3
You obviously have been indoctrinated with a post VAT2 understanding of the Veneration of Saints.....purgatory is part of Heaven...but no venerable saints reside there.
And your question makes my point...show me the life long repentance of JP2 and then I will venerate him as a saint. Bishop Lefevere of Bishop Sheen or even Father Gruner are better candidates (except Gruner hasnt passed away yet)
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 03:55:50 PM
Its not about whos in heaven...its about whos life was so obviously Christ like that we cannot err if we follow their example...this is the traditional understanding of veneration of saints. I am not an idol worshipper I dont worship men or women...I worship CHRIST in men or women. St Paul murdered Christians...he publically repented his public sins and THEN lived an outstanding Christian life and died a martyr s death....JP2 did nothing beyond his bare papal responsabltys...the only exceptional actions (or innactions) all HARMED the Faith...IE assisi...etc.
Oh I see, you want to pass judgement on his life instead of God.
Got it!
The two points still stand as Catholic pre-conciliar doctrine. Accept it or reject it as a whole, but please don't cherry pick the dogmatic facts you like and discard the ones that don't support your theories.
P^3
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 06:45:04 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 06:32:10 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 16, 2014, 11:42:42 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:40:34 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 11:24:30 AM
No one asserts Jp2 hasnt been saved...notorious public sinners who havent publically repented of those sins can still get to heaven...but proclaiming a notorious sinner a saint is another. The question is was assisi...providibg cover for devient priests...kissing(venerating) the koran are notorious sins. Seems to me they are
So you don't reject that actual canonization but reject the prudential decision to proceed with it?
P^3
No I reject it in toto because public unrepentant sinners cannot also be venerable saints.
This.
A canonization means that the person in question is worthy of imitation. JPII never publicly repented for his public sins. Therefore, should we imitate his actions at Assisi, or his Koran-kissing, or his "interfaith services"? Of course not.
Whether or not this is 'proof' that Pope Francis is not Pope is that point that was being argued. Also, it is assumed that you would imitate his virtues not his vices and mistakes.
Taking the extreme example of St. Peter, would you imitate his betrayal or his life long repentance?
P^3
You obviously have been indoctrinated with a post VAT2 understanding of the Veneration of Saints.....purgatory is part of Heaven...but no venerable saints reside there.
And your question makes my point...show me the life long repentance of JP2 and then I will venerate him as a saint. Bishop Lefevere of Bishop Sheen or even Father Gruner are better candidates (except Gruner hasnt passed away yet)
As per usual - the old shlick of 'indoctrinated with a post V2 ...'
I am sticking to Church doctrine on the matter concerning what is covered by the infallibility of the canonization, if you care to venture a rational opinion on them - then please do so.
P^3
Dont question my rationality son...you are in the dock not me...Please show me a 'Saint" who openly and unapologetic-ally escalated the auto destruction of the Church.... JP2 Clearly damaged the Church and individual Catholics....show me Just One saint who spent his life un-repentantly doing this and I will concede instantly.
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 08:33:34 AM
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.
QuoteIn 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 from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 16, 2014, 06:56:18 PM
Dont question my rationality son...you are in the dock not me...Please show me a 'Saint" who openly and unapologetic-ally escalated the auto destruction of the Church.... JP2 Clearly damaged the Church and individual Catholics....show me Just One saint who spent his life un-repentantly doing this and I will concede instantly.
Sorry, I am not in the dock, I'm sticking to the dogmatic fact point which you (and others) seem to have difficulty accepting.
The dogmatic fact doctrine is there and it is clear. Read it and weep until the Church makes a definitive declaration on the specific matters.
QuoteAdditional 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
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 16, 2014, 06:58:36 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 08:33:34 AM
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.
QuoteIn 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?
QuoteRespectfully, 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:
QuoteAlso, 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
QuoteAdditional 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.
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 07:13:24 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.
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.
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.
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:
QuoteHi 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
QuoteHello 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
Quote from: Jayne on August 17, 2014, 05:54:47 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. :)
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 17, 2014, 10:11:39 PM
Quote from: Jayne on August 17, 2014, 05:54:47 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.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 17, 2014, 09:01:59 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: QuoteHi 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
QuoteHello 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
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 16, 2014, 07:51:04 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 16, 2014, 07:13:24 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
Tradical,
here is the quote from Billot:
Quotehttp://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.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 18, 2014, 08:38:36 PM
Tradical,
here is the quote from Billot:
Quotehttp://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:
QuoteHe 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
Seeing quotes from Billot here makes me happy. Good on you, lads!
Quote from: tradical on August 18, 2014, 01:36:24 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...
Tradical,
I submitted your reply to John Lane at Bellarmine forums,
and here is his reponse:
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 20, 2014, 04:11:34 PM
Tradical,
I submitted your reply to John Lane at Bellarmine forums,
and here is his reponse:
QuoteI 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
tradical, it is fine if you want to say as soon as a man is elected pope, then it is a dogmatic fact he is the pope. But that dogmatic fact can go away. It is not permanent. Here are the 4 ways:
Involuntarily:
1. Death
2. Insanity
Voluntarily:
3. Resignation
4. Choosing heresy
The Church says that if number 4 is the case, the man automatically ceases to be pope. The bishops' continued recognition doesn't make him a pope against divine law that he ceased. Determined recognition only makes them go with him into heresy.
St. Bernard believed the final Antichrist would be a false pope suckering most of the world of Catholics. The bishop's recognition won't make him the pope, it only makes them fall into apostasy.
This is rock solid. Please don't ignore it.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 09:13:35 AM
tradical, it is fine if you want to say as soon as a man is elected pope, then it is a dogmatic fact he is the pope. But that dogmatic fact can go away. It is not permanent. Here are the 4 ways:
Involuntarily:
1. Death
2. Insanity
Voluntarily:
3. Resignation
4. Choosing heresy
The Church says that if number 4 is the case, the man automatically ceases to be pope. The bishops' continued recognition doesn't make him a pope against divine law that he ceased. Determined recognition only makes them go with him into heresy.
St. Bernard believed the final Antichrist would be a false pope suckering most of the world of Catholics. The bishop's recognition won't make him the pope, it only makes them fall into apostasy.
This is rock solid. Please don't ignore it.
Look at your assertions.
QuoteThe Church says that if number 4 is the case,...
Are you certain that is all the 'Church says' - what does the 'Church' actually say about the loss of office - nothing. What you are dealing with is the opinion of theologians. This way we have clarity on the level of authority that we are discussing.
Now concerning #4, you are only stating part of the opinion and it is by no means the only opinion on this topic. Selecting one and rejecting another opinion without reason is not rational.
So I am not 'ignoring' the 'fact', I am simply taking into account the whole premise put forward and the consistency between the cited authorities. A Catholic does not have actionable knowledge that a Pope has lost his office until the Church makes a declaration. http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/03/sedevacantism-and-manifest-heretic.html
As far as:
QuoteSt. Bernard believed the final Antichrist would be a false pope ...
What St. Bernard believed is ok, however that provides neither you nor I actionable information. How do you know that Pope Francis is the last Pope? You won't know until he does some of the actions listed in the apocalypse (which he hasn't).
So quoting St. Bernard as it is a fact to support your assertion is a non sequitor.
Lastly, with respect to:
Quotetradical, it is fine if you want to say as soon as a man is elected pope, then it is a dogmatic fact he is the pope.
What you and the other sedes seem to have a problem with is that I am simply taking the consistant and (as far as I can tell) universal opinion of theologians that the acceptance of a newly elected Pope by all the bishops in union with the See of Peter establishes an infallible (ie can't be wrong) dogmatic fact that the elected man IS Pope. Even the lauded and finally provided citation of Cardinal Billot is consistent with what constitutes the dogmatic fact.
So ... I'm not really saying anything - I'm just taking what is contained in the theological text books at face value without trying to warp it to suit my own opinion.
P^3
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.
This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.
Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?
Which?
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:16:46 AM
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.
This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.
Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?
Which?
Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.
If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.
If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.
P^3
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 09:13:35 AM
tradical, it is fine if you want to say as soon as a man is elected pope, then it is a dogmatic fact he is the pope. But that dogmatic fact can go away. It is not permanent. Here are the 4 ways:
Involuntarily:
1. Death
2. Insanity
2b His porch swing can break and leave him in a permanent vegetative state.
Voluntarily:
3. Resignation
4. Choosing heresy
Fixed.
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 10:24:18 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:16:46 AM
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.
This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.
Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?
Which?
Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.
If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.
If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.
P^3
If #4 is what you need more information for, then obviously it will need to be provided to you.
Your response to the Antichrist question seems to be saying that the majority of bishops will not recognize him as a true pope. But that is flatly against what is predicted in Scripture to happen - the majority of bishops falling into apostasy. You are trying to maintain that the majority of bishops cannot go into apostasy, which is plainly false.
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 08:14:02 AM
I think the question that Sedevacantists need to answer is: What would they have to change/do if their theory is wrong.
I think I would have to try to think up some other synthesis for Christianity, because it would seem absolutely clear to me that the claims of the Catholic Church are false-- yet the miracles that back up individual claims are real enough.
I guess I would have the option of becoming a modernist too-- which may, indeed, come to the same thing as the above. After all, the Church made its peace with modernism at Vatican II, as the head of Bergoglio's select commission of Cardinals has said. But frankly, yuck.
You have to realize that sedevacantism is a last-ditch defense. I don't think most people will go there unless they don't think they can otherwise keep the Catholic faith-- and even then, they probably have a part of their mind that says "you're just rationalizing-- you should be more honest and just admit that the Church has defected." But then, there actually is a basis in history and theology for the claims of sedevacantism, so it can't
just be written off as rationalizing.
So, if you're going to argue here, realize that you're on the edge of a knife-- stray but a little and you will fail. If you convince people that the recognition by the bishops makes a man infallibly the pope, but you fail to remove their objection-- for example-- that a true pope could never canonize a man who committed public scandals against the first commandment... well, in that case, you should expect to be the immediate cause of people apostasizing.
Personally, if I were you, I would try to remove the objection before insisting on the 'dogmatic fact' argument.
God bless.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 21, 2014, 12:25:28 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 08:14:02 AM
I think the question that Sedevacantists need to answer is: What would they have to change/do if their theory is wrong.
I think I would have to try to think up some other synthesis for Christianity, because it would seem absolutely clear to me that the claims of the Catholic Church are false-- yet the miracles that back up individual claims are real enough.
I guess I would have the option of becoming a modernist too-- which may, indeed, come to the same thing as the above. After all, the Church made its peace with modernism at Vatican II, as the head of Bergoglio's select commission of Cardinals has said. But frankly, yuck.
You have to realize that sedevacantism is a last-ditch defense. I don't think most people will go there unless they don't think they can otherwise keep the Catholic faith-- and even then, they probably have a part of their mind that says "you're just rationalizing-- you should be more honest and just admit that the Church has defected." But then, there actually is a basis in history and theology for the claims of sedevacantism, so it can't just be written off as rationalizing.
So, if you're going to argue here, realize that you're on the edge of a knife-- stray but a little and you will fail. If you convince people that the recognition by the bishops makes a man infallibly the pope, but you fail to remove their objection-- for example-- that a true pope could never canonize a man who committed public scandals against the first commandment... well, in that case, you should expect to be the immediate cause of people apostasizing.
Personally, if I were you, I would try to remove the objection before insisting on the 'dogmatic fact' argument.
God bless.
This is exacxtly the case...well stated. Remove the objection to a ST John Paul2 and I shall return to the position that the Man in rome holds the true seat of Peter.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:44:12 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 10:24:18 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:16:46 AM
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.
This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.
Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?
Which?
Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.
If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.
If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.
P^3
If #4 is what you need more information for, then obviously it will need to be provided to you.
Your response to the Antichrist question seems to be saying that the majority of bishops will not recognize him as a true pope. But that is flatly against what is predicted in Scripture to happen - the majority of bishops falling into apostasy. You are trying to maintain that the majority of bishops cannot go into apostasy, which is plainly false.
You are off base. What I am maintaining is that for the past 6 elections the Bishops in union have all agreed who was Pope.
If you want to segue into the assertion that there has been a complete apostasy of Bishops - well you go ahead and prove that for each individual bishop from the successive conclaves were in a state of apostasy.
Also please keep in mind that it has to be explicit because if you think it was only in the 'internal forum' then your theory is pooched because you can't prove it.
P^3
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 21, 2014, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 21, 2014, 12:25:28 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 08:14:02 AM
I think the question that Sedevacantists need to answer is: What would they have to change/do if their theory is wrong.
I think I would have to try to think up some other synthesis for Christianity, because it would seem absolutely clear to me that the claims of the Catholic Church are false-- yet the miracles that back up individual claims are real enough.
I guess I would have the option of becoming a modernist too-- which may, indeed, come to the same thing as the above. After all, the Church made its peace with modernism at Vatican II, as the head of Bergoglio's select commission of Cardinals has said. But frankly, yuck.
You have to realize that sedevacantism is a last-ditch defense. I don't think most people will go there unless they don't think they can otherwise keep the Catholic faith-- and even then, they probably have a part of their mind that says "you're just rationalizing-- you should be more honest and just admit that the Church has defected." But then, there actually is a basis in history and theology for the claims of sedevacantism, so it can't just be written off as rationalizing.
So, if you're going to argue here, realize that you're on the edge of a knife-- stray but a little and you will fail. If you convince people that the recognition by the bishops makes a man infallibly the pope, but you fail to remove their objection-- for example-- that a true pope could never canonize a man who committed public scandals against the first commandment... well, in that case, you should expect to be the immediate cause of people apostasizing.
Personally, if I were you, I would try to remove the objection before insisting on the 'dogmatic fact' argument.
God bless.
This is exactly the case...well stated. Remove the objection to a ST John Paul2 and I shall return to the position that the Man in rome holds the true seat of Peter.
Thank you, sir. :toth:
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 21, 2014, 12:25:28 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 08:14:02 AM
I think the question that Sedevacantists need to answer is: What would they have to change/do if their theory is wrong.
So, if you're going to argue here, realize that you're on the edge of a knife-- stray but a little and you will fail. If you convince people that the recognition by the bishops makes a man infallibly the pope, but you fail to remove their objection-- for example-- that a true pope could never canonize a man who committed public scandals against the first commandment... well, in that case, you should expect to be the immediate cause of people apostasizing.
Personally, if I were you, I would try to remove the objection before insisting on the 'dogmatic fact' argument.
God bless.
The problem is that the 'objections' go on ad-infinitem.
The root issue is the uncertainty of who is Pope. Once it is ascertained who is the Pope (Francis for better or worse ... mostly worse) - it becomes a question of reconciling the person's beliefs with the rest of the doctrine. Point by point.
For example: Is Pope John Paul II a Saint? Well, following the general opinion of theologians (which is the same authority for the other dogmatic fact) the answer is yes.
Does this create a problem for the indefectibility of the Church? The answer is no.
All that is infallible with regards to canonization is that Pope John Paul II is in Heaven. By the mercy of God he was in a state of grace when he died.
Does the extension of his 'cult' (in the proper sense when discussing Saints) to the Universal Church impact the Church's indefectibility? The answer is no. As long as it does not explicitly require an immoral act (eg Have you kissed a Koran today?) no - not every act of discipline is guaranteed to be perfect.
But a person has to be willing to study the implications of each act and not jump off into rash assumptions that every bishop has left the Church etc.
P^3
I
The church teaches infallabley in her Traditions....and there has never been a saint who was a public and notorious. Unrepentant sinner up. Until their death. According to Church Tradition one is a venerated saint when. One is unmistakenly acting as Christ would.
Quote from: Greg on August 21, 2014, 10:27:44 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 09:13:35 AM
tradical, it is fine if you want to say as soon as a man is elected pope, then it is a dogmatic fact he is the pope. But that dogmatic fact can go away. It is not permanent. Here are the 4 ways:
Involuntarily:
1. Death
2. Insanity
2b His porch swing can break and leave him in a permanent vegetative state.
Voluntarily:
3. Resignation
4. Choosing heresy
Fixed.
Yes, brain death is the worst form of mental health.
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:44:12 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 10:24:18 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:16:46 AM
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.
This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.
Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?
Which?
Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.
If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.
If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.
P^3
If #4 is what you need more information for, then obviously it will need to be provided to you.
Your response to the Antichrist question seems to be saying that the majority of bishops will not recognize him as a true pope. But that is flatly against what is predicted in Scripture to happen - the majority of bishops falling into apostasy. You are trying to maintain that the majority of bishops cannot go into apostasy, which is plainly false.
You are off base. What I am maintaining is that for the past 6 elections the Bishops in union have all agreed who was Pope.
If you want to segue into the assertion that there has been a complete apostasy of Bishops - well you go ahead and prove that for each individual bishop from the successive conclaves were in a state of apostasy.
Also please keep in mind that it has to be explicit because if you think it was only in the 'internal forum' then your theory is pooched because you can't prove it.
P^3
Apostasy or heresy, it doesn't matter.
I have already presented to you the example of St. Athanasius & followers and how they completely separated from the Arian clergy because of their association with that
one, subtle, philosophical error against the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, this was before Rome condemned Arianism. The state of the bishops since the late 1960's has far exceeded that historical example. Now it is the heresy of religious liberty to the clear activity at Assisi.
Mortalium Animos of 1928 condemns the bishops for apostasy, and those who support them:
"For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that
one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. "
Couldnt be clearer than that. There is no rebuttle possible;; Assisi was exactly what was condemned
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 03:52:36 AM
Couldnt be clearer than that. There is no rebuttle possible;; Assisi was exactly what was condemned
And John Paul the Great did it anyway.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 04:28:28 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 03:52:36 AM
Couldnt be clearer than that. There is no rebuttle possible;; Assisi was exactly what was condemned
And John Paul the Great did it anyway.
More than once.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 22, 2014, 02:07:34 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:44:12 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 10:24:18 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:16:46 AM
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.
This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.
Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?
Which?
Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.
If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.
If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.
P^3
If #4 is what you need more information for, then obviously it will need to be provided to you.
Your response to the Antichrist question seems to be saying that the majority of bishops will not recognize him as a true pope. But that is flatly against what is predicted in Scripture to happen - the majority of bishops falling into apostasy. You are trying to maintain that the majority of bishops cannot go into apostasy, which is plainly false.
You are off base. What I am maintaining is that for the past 6 elections the Bishops in union have all agreed who was Pope.
If you want to segue into the assertion that there has been a complete apostasy of Bishops - well you go ahead and prove that for each individual bishop from the successive conclaves were in a state of apostasy.
Also please keep in mind that it has to be explicit because if you think it was only in the 'internal forum' then your theory is pooched because you can't prove it.
P^3
Apostasy or heresy, it doesn't matter.
I have already presented to you the example of St. Athanasius & followers and how they completely separated from the Arian clergy because of their association with that one, subtle, philosophical error against the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, this was before Rome condemned Arianism. The state of the bishops since the late 1960's has far exceeded that historical example. Now it is the heresy of religious liberty to the clear activity at Assisi. Mortalium Animos of 1928 condemns the bishops for apostasy, and those who support them:
"For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. "
Around and around we go.
Athanasius: Incorrect. Go and reread the history. He continually went back to his See when allowed to do so.
Religious Liberty: Sorry, this is not a de fide teaching of the Church. We're dealing with lower levels of authority, please try again.
Mortalium Animos: See above. Also you misunderstand what is an condemnation of an action and a condemnation of a person. Were there any anathema's included?
Robert at this point I have concluded that your misconceptions of what constitutes formal heresy and how to recognize when a person incurs a censure are legion.
For that reason, I will not follow you down every rabbit hole that, in your attempts to justify your decisions, you happen across.
The dogmatic fact remains for your to accept or reject.
Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ.
Once you've accepted Catholic Doctrine on that point, we can then deal with the consequences of that fact.
P^3
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 10:31:50 AM
Around and around we go.
Stop swinging your errors in a circle, and I won't chase you with them.
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 10:31:50 AMAthanasius: Incorrect. Go and reread the history. He continually went back to his See when allowed to do so.
His own see has nothing to do with this. I am talking about his famous letter to his flock, and treating the Arian clergy as no longer representatives of Catholicism because of their one heresy, or even association with that one.
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 10:31:50 AM
Religious Liberty: Sorry, this is not a de fide teaching of the Church. We're dealing with lower levels of authority, please try again.
Nor was Arius' heresy a de fide teaching of the Church, yet St. Athanasius immediately reacted, treating them as non-Catholic even before the Church condemned them. Go read the penultimate chapter of "Liberalism is a sin" to see what error you fall into....a
species of satanic jansenism which insists Catholics wait only for the top authority to declare something condemned before we react.
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 10:31:50 AM
Once you've accepted Catholic Doctrine on that point, we can then deal with the consequences of that fact.
Again, you fall right into the logical fallacy of
begging the question. Circular reasoning. The bishops who do the recognizing must themselves
not be heretics. If you don't recognize this, you will say that the Antichrist could be the true pope if the majority of bishops recognize him as such despite the Antichrist and those bishops being heretics. Insane.
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 10:31:50 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 22, 2014, 02:07:34 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:44:12 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 10:24:18 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:16:46 AM
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.
This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.
Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?
Which?
Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.
If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.
If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.
P^3
If #4 is what you need more information for, then obviously it will need to be provided to you.
Your response to the Antichrist question seems to be saying that the majority of bishops will not recognize him as a true pope. But that is flatly against what is predicted in Scripture to happen - the majority of bishops falling into apostasy. You are trying to maintain that the majority of bishops cannot go into apostasy, which is plainly false.
You are off base. What I am maintaining is that for the past 6 elections the Bishops in union have all agreed who was Pope.
If you want to segue into the assertion that there has been a complete apostasy of Bishops - well you go ahead and prove that for each individual bishop from the successive conclaves were in a state of apostasy.
Also please keep in mind that it has to be explicit because if you think it was only in the 'internal forum' then your theory is pooched because you can't prove it.
P^3
Apostasy or heresy, it doesn't matter.
I have already presented to you the example of St. Athanasius & followers and how they completely separated from the Arian clergy because of their association with that one, subtle, philosophical error against the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, this was before Rome condemned Arianism. The state of the bishops since the late 1960's has far exceeded that historical example. Now it is the heresy of religious liberty to the clear activity at Assisi. Mortalium Animos of 1928 condemns the bishops for apostasy, and those who support them:
"For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. "
Around and around we go.
Athanasius: Incorrect. Go and reread the history. He continually went back to his See when allowed to do so.
Religious Liberty: Sorry, this is not a de fide teaching of the Church. We're dealing with lower levels of authority, please try again.
Mortalium Animos: See above. Also you misunderstand what is an condemnation of an action and a condemnation of a person. Were there any anathema's included?
Robert at this point I have concluded that your misconceptions of what constitutes formal heresy and how to recognize when a person incurs a censure are legion.
For that reason, I will not follow you down every rabbit hole that, in your attempts to justify your decisions, you happen across.
The dogmatic fact remains for your to accept or reject.
Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ.
Once you've accepted Catholic Doctrine on that point, we can then deal with the consequences of that fact.
P^3
:lol: :lol:
And by the way, Pius IX condemned religious liberty in the Syllabus of errors. And it is impossible for the Church to promulgate error. Do the math. The NO sect is not Catholic.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 10:31:50 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 22, 2014, 02:07:34 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:44:12 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 10:24:18 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:16:46 AM
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.
This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.
Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?
Which?
Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.
If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.
If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.
P^3
If #4 is what you need more information for, then obviously it will need to be provided to you.
Your response to the Antichrist question seems to be saying that the majority of bishops will not recognize him as a true pope. But that is flatly against what is predicted in Scripture to happen - the majority of bishops falling into apostasy. You are trying to maintain that the majority of bishops cannot go into apostasy, which is plainly false.
You are off base. What I am maintaining is that for the past 6 elections the Bishops in union have all agreed who was Pope.
If you want to segue into the assertion that there has been a complete apostasy of Bishops - well you go ahead and prove that for each individual bishop from the successive conclaves were in a state of apostasy.
Also please keep in mind that it has to be explicit because if you think it was only in the 'internal forum' then your theory is pooched because you can't prove it.
P^3
Apostasy or heresy, it doesn't matter.
I have already presented to you the example of St. Athanasius & followers and how they completely separated from the Arian clergy because of their association with that one, subtle, philosophical error against the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, this was before Rome condemned Arianism. The state of the bishops since the late 1960's has far exceeded that historical example. Now it is the heresy of religious liberty to the clear activity at Assisi. Mortalium Animos of 1928 condemns the bishops for apostasy, and those who support them:
"For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. "
Around and around we go.
Athanasius: Incorrect. Go and reread the history. He continually went back to his See when allowed to do so.
Religious Liberty: Sorry, this is not a de fide teaching of the Church. We're dealing with lower levels of authority, please try again.
Mortalium Animos: See above. Also you misunderstand what is an condemnation of an action and a condemnation of a person. Were there any anathema's included?
Robert at this point I have concluded that your misconceptions of what constitutes formal heresy and how to recognize when a person incurs a censure are legion.
For that reason, I will not follow you down every rabbit hole that, in your attempts to justify your decisions, you happen across.
The dogmatic fact remains for your to accept or reject.
Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ.
Once you've accepted Catholic Doctrine on that point, we can then deal with the consequences of that fact.
P^3
:lol: :lol:
And by the way, Pius IX condemned religious liberty in the Syllabus of errors. And it is impossible for the Church to promulgate error. Do the math. The NO sect is not Catholic.
[/quote
Wow - there is so much wrong with this statement ... but if you don't believe that the Church under Pope Francis is the Catholic Church. You better start looking for the Four Marks.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 11:43:42 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 10:31:50 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 22, 2014, 02:07:34 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:44:12 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 10:24:18 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 21, 2014, 10:16:46 AM
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.
This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.
Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?
Which?
Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.
If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.
If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.
P^3
If #4 is what you need more information for, then obviously it will need to be provided to you.
Your response to the Antichrist question seems to be saying that the majority of bishops will not recognize him as a true pope. But that is flatly against what is predicted in Scripture to happen - the majority of bishops falling into apostasy. You are trying to maintain that the majority of bishops cannot go into apostasy, which is plainly false.
You are off base. What I am maintaining is that for the past 6 elections the Bishops in union have all agreed who was Pope.
If you want to segue into the assertion that there has been a complete apostasy of Bishops - well you go ahead and prove that for each individual bishop from the successive conclaves were in a state of apostasy.
Also please keep in mind that it has to be explicit because if you think it was only in the 'internal forum' then your theory is pooched because you can't prove it.
P^3
Apostasy or heresy, it doesn't matter.
I have already presented to you the example of St. Athanasius & followers and how they completely separated from the Arian clergy because of their association with that one, subtle, philosophical error against the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, this was before Rome condemned Arianism. The state of the bishops since the late 1960's has far exceeded that historical example. Now it is the heresy of religious liberty to the clear activity at Assisi. Mortalium Animos of 1928 condemns the bishops for apostasy, and those who support them:
"For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. "
Around and around we go.
Athanasius: Incorrect. Go and reread the history. He continually went back to his See when allowed to do so.
Religious Liberty: Sorry, this is not a de fide teaching of the Church. We're dealing with lower levels of authority, please try again.
Mortalium Animos: See above. Also you misunderstand what is an condemnation of an action and a condemnation of a person. Were there any anathema's included?
Robert at this point I have concluded that your misconceptions of what constitutes formal heresy and how to recognize when a person incurs a censure are legion.
For that reason, I will not follow you down every rabbit hole that, in your attempts to justify your decisions, you happen across.
The dogmatic fact remains for your to accept or reject.
Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ.
Once you've accepted Catholic Doctrine on that point, we can then deal with the consequences of that fact.
P^3
:lol: :lol:
And by the way, Pius IX condemned religious liberty in the Syllabus of errors. And it is impossible for the Church to promulgate error. Do the math. The NO sect is not Catholic.
[/quote
Wow - there is so much wrong with this statement ... but if you don't believe that the Church under Pope Francis is the Catholic Church. You better start looking for the Four Marks.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
What specifically is wrong with the statement?
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 07:28:49 PM
The problem is that the 'objections' go on ad-infinitem.
Logically, if that were true, I would always have been a sedevacantist. In reality, I became one shortly after April 27. So did voxx. He has gone so as to agree that if you deal with that one objection, he will return to the sedeplenist view. At this point, I will probably be a bit more demanding than that, but nonetheless, you have my major objection before you. If you want to make progress with me, I can guarantee you're going to have to remove that roadblock.
Quote
The root issue is the uncertainty of who is Pope. Once it is ascertained who is the Pope (Francis for better or worse ... mostly worse) - it becomes a question of reconciling the person's beliefs with the rest of the doctrine. Point by point.
No, it really isn't. The root issue is why the modern popes teach differently, and often opposite, to what popes did prior to Vatican II. If you can explain that,
then I agree that who the pope is falls into place, point by point. Otherwise, I see no solution that allows me to keep the Catholic faith in an intellectually honest way.
Quote
For example: Is Pope John Paul II a Saint? Well, following the general opinion of theologians (which is the same authority for the other dogmatic fact) the answer is yes.
Does this create a problem for the indefectibility of the Church? The answer is no.
All that is infallible with regards to canonization is that Pope John Paul II is in Heaven. By the mercy of God he was in a state of grace when he died.
Does the extension of his 'cult' (in the proper sense when discussing Saints) to the Universal Church impact the Church's indefectibility? The answer is no. As long as it does not explicitly require an immoral act (eg Have you kissed a Koran today?) no - not every act of discipline is guaranteed to be perfect.
OK, I'm going to need more than a pair of
ipse dixits to convince me that a) the canonization of Wojtyla does not impact the Church's indefectibility or b) that no disciplinary act impacts the Church's indefectibility unless it explicitly requires an immoral act.
The reason is this. Although canonizing Wojtyla does not explicitly state that kissing the Koran, leading Assisi prayer meetings, etc., are good things, that is the clear implication-- unless we elsewhere make clear that those
are bad things. That's even more the case in this day and age, when most bishops appear to think all of those were good things, when Wojtyla never apologized for any of them (despite being the apologizer-in-chief), and when few Catholics even seem to realize there might be a problem. Under those circumstances, how can one claim that by canonizing such a man, the Church is not leading people into error? Is't possible? Is't probable? I don't see how.
There you have my objection. Deal with it if you can. It seems to me-- as an issue of the First Commandment-- to be more important than theological hair-splitting about dogmatic facts, especially when the reality seems to be that the current papal claimant doesn't believe I'm doing anything wrong anyway. As far as I can tell, he would rather I was an evangelical-- as are other members of my family.
I tell you again, that IF you manage to convince me of the question of dogmatic facts without convincing me that Wojtyla's canonization was not harmful-- both parts of which seem to me pretty difficult, but the second definitely more-- you will be convincing me that the Catholic faith is intellectually and logically untenable, because it can be historically demonstrated to have betrayed its own doctrine.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:19:33 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 21, 2014, 07:28:49 PM
The problem is that the 'objections' go on ad-infinitem.
Logically, if that were true, I would always have been a sedevacantist. In reality, I became one shortly after April 27. So did voxx. He has gone so as to agree that if you deal with that one objection, he will return to the sedeplenist view. At this point, I will probably be a bit more demanding than that, but nonetheless, you have my major objection before you. If you want to make progress with me, I can guarantee you're going to have to remove that roadblock.
Quote
The root issue is the uncertainty of who is Pope. Once it is ascertained who is the Pope (Francis for better or worse ... mostly worse) - it becomes a question of reconciling the person's beliefs with the rest of the doctrine. Point by point.
No, it really isn't. The root issue is why the modern popes teach differently, and often opposite, to what popes did prior to Vatican II. If you can explain that, then I agree that who the pope is falls into place, point by point. Otherwise, I see no solution that allows me to keep the Catholic faith in an intellectually honest way.
Quote
For example: Is Pope John Paul II a Saint? Well, following the general opinion of theologians (which is the same authority for the other dogmatic fact) the answer is yes.
Does this create a problem for the indefectibility of the Church? The answer is no.
All that is infallible with regards to canonization is that Pope John Paul II is in Heaven. By the mercy of God he was in a state of grace when he died.
Does the extension of his 'cult' (in the proper sense when discussing Saints) to the Universal Church impact the Church's indefectibility? The answer is no. As long as it does not explicitly require an immoral act (eg Have you kissed a Koran today?) no - not every act of discipline is guaranteed to be perfect.
OK, I'm going to need more than a pair of ipse dixits to convince me that a) the canonization of Wojtyla does not impact the Church's indefectibility or b) that no disciplinary act impacts the Church's indefectibility unless it explicitly requires an immoral act.
The reason is this. Although canonizing Wojtyla does not explicitly state that kissing the Koran, leading Assisi prayer meetings, etc., are good things, that is the clear implication-- unless we elsewhere make clear that those are bad things. That's even more the case in this day and age, when most bishops appear to think all of those were good things, when Wojtyla never apologized for any of them (despite being the apologizer-in-chief), and when few Catholics even seem to realize there might be a problem. Under those circumstances, how can one claim that by canonizing such a man, the Church is not leading people into error? Is't possible? Is't probable? I don't see how.
There you have my objection. Deal with it if you can. It seems to me-- as an issue of the First Commandment-- to be more important than theological hair-splitting about dogmatic facts, especially when the reality seems to be that the current papal claimant doesn't believe I'm doing anything wrong anyway. As far as I can tell, he would rather I was an evangelical-- as are other members of my family.
I tell you again, that IF you manage to convince me of the question of dogmatic facts without convincing me that Wojtyla's canonization was not harmful-- both parts of which seem to me pretty difficult, but the second definitely more-- you will be convincing me that the Catholic faith is intellectually and logically untenable, because it can be historically demonstrated to have betrayed its own doctrine.
Sorry JuniorC.
The point about dogmatic facts is you either accept them or you don't as the Church understands them. That is the key to this whole conundrum, understanding the doctrines etc as the Church does.
I don't have time to go through it all hear as the 'bandwidth' is to constrained.
I suggest you review the Catechism of the Council of Trent - particularly the section on the 'One Holy Catholic Church' and obtain a copy of Ott. - I have a link on my blog to an e-copy.
These two resources have been invaluable to me in developing a good perspective on this crisis and how to maintain a firm footing.
P^3
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Did you even read the post?
If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.
P^3
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Did you even read the post?
If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.
P^3
Yeah I read the Posts...but you just asserted flatly he was wrong...you didnt bother to highlight HERE in the thread where he was in error...you just linked your blog as if that was all that was needed. Look its cool you started a blog...and its got great goals...but blogs are a dime a dozen. Do the work and explain where he has the four marks wrong..other wise I would advise sybvl to simply link his blog (which is much snazzier and more entertaining I have to add).
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Did you even read the post?
If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.
P^3
Yeah I read the Posts...but you just asserted flatly he was wrong...you didnt bother to highlight HERE in the thread where he was in error...you just linked your blog as if that was all that was needed. Look its cool you started a blog...and its got great goals...but blogs are a dime a dozen. Do the work and explain where he has the four marks wrong..other wise I would advise sybvl to simply link his blog (which is much snazzier and more entertaining I have to add).
Thanks Voxx. :)
tradical, to summarize your reply to my last on the dogmatic fact question:
Quotea. 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.
Yes but where does the power of infallibly defining a dogmatic fact come from? The bishops without the Pope are not infallible. If we accept that it comes from the bishops agreeing that such a man is the Pope, we would end up in a circular argument, as follows:
1. Francis is elected Pope, but his election is doubtful.
2. All the bishops agree that Francis is the Pope.
3. Francis is therefore the Pope and the bishops united with him agree on this.
4. The bishops united with the Pope are infallible, therefore Francis is the Pope.
We are establishing a infallible dogmatic fact (is this guy the Pope?), from a non-infallible source ei. The bishops without the Pope. In order to arrive at an infallible authority of the bishops united to the Pope.
As John Lane commented in his forum:
QuoteExactly, Mike. I've made the same point before. The thesis that tradical and others take from Ott and Hunter is that the bishops, without the pope, are infallible in a sole judgement - that a newly elected pope is truly pope. This is a radical novelty in the realm of infallibility, unheard of until now. The bishops, united with the pope, are infallible, and not otherwise.
The argument must be something else - that is, the root of the argument, the thing that leads to the conclusion, must be something other than the infallibility of the magisterium. Billot says it is the fact that the entire Church accepts what the pope teaches, so that if it were possible for the Church to be mistaken about who the pope is, the faithful could be misled. Tradical and his type, as JS Daly has pointed out, simply deny the major premise - they cheerfully deny that anybody needs to believe what the pope teaches, merely because he teaches it, unless once or twice per century he solemnises a particular doctrine (i.e. solemnly defines it). THEN, the faithful must believe what the pope teaches, on his authority as pope, but not otherwise. Nor am I exaggerating their position. Show me a traditionalist who expends any effort trying to accept what Bergoglio teaches and I'll show you a "Conservative." Actually, tradical's theory is a tendentious and false representation of what he and all other traditionalists do. They present it as "Believe the pope unless he contradicts tradtion," but in fact that first half of the proposition is never reduced to act. We all habitually ignore Bergoglio, as he deserves: we say, because he isn't pope, and tradical denies the fact, and claims that traditionalists don't habitually ignore Bergoglio. Well, on that score I'm more than happy to let the public judge which of us is telling the truth.
As for the rest of tradical's post, he'll need to unfold his reasoning a bit more than he has in order to put his case. I can't understand most of what he has written, I'm afraid. He says that he doesn't have time to go into it, well if he isn't taking it seriously then I have no problem with that - just as long as everybody is clear that only one side takes these matters seriously.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 08:52:59 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Did you even read the post?
If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.
P^3
Yeah I read the Posts...but you just asserted flatly he was wrong...you didnt bother to highlight HERE in the thread where he was in error...you just linked your blog as if that was all that was needed. Look its cool you started a blog...and its got great goals...but blogs are a dime a dozen. Do the work and explain where he has the four marks wrong..other wise I would advise sybvl to simply link his blog (which is much snazzier and more entertaining I have to add).
Thanks Voxx. :)
You are right, I was rude. I apologize. The post was wrong on so many levels that it evoked a cultural immune response especially when I thought about the harm it might do to Catholics who are simply scandalized by the behaviour of Pope Francis and don't know their faith.
Now I will write what I should have written.
The assertions made are wrong on a number of fronts.
The first of which is that it ignores completely what the Church Teaches concerning the Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity of the Church as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and other sources. I have studied this topic and written an article (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html). Reproduced below is an excerpt and it is clear that what has been presented is by Sbyvl36 is not consistent with Church Teaching.
Secondarily, it also contravenes the senta certa doctrine of the indefectibility and visibility of the Church. Particularly this: "Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic", because it asserts that the Church under the leadership (such as it is) of Pope Francis is not the Catholic Church thereby saying that those hapless modern Catholics are outside the True Church of Christ. However the Papacy is intimately linked to the visibility of the Church (First Vatican Council), so the question becomes "Where is the Church?" that has the Four Marks. Sbyvl did not provide an answer instead he/she simply issued a FUD (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/10/fear-uncertainty-doubt-fud.html)statement that could adversely affect the understanding of impressionable and ignorant readers.
So Sbyvl36, next time you have the urge to spout off about Catholic Doctrine, before you endanger the souls of others and thereby your own salvation, please study the topic at hand from reputable sources. The reputable sources I mean Catechisms and theology text books. Don't refer to speeches etc because they may be in reaction to something specific or not speaking on a doctrinal level.
Here is what the Church Teaches concerning the Four Marks. The full article can be found here: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
QuoteApostolic
The Church of Christ can be recognized by its Apostolic origin, for "the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession".
Catholic
The Catholic Church is Universal, "embraces ... all mankind" and includes "all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time". Finally, the Church is called Universal because "all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her".
Holy
The Church is Holy for the following reasons: it is consecrated and dedicated to God; because the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, is united to its head: Our Lord Jesus Christ; and lastly the Church has the true worship of God.
The Catechism of Trent closes this explanation with the following:
... the Church alone has the legitimate worship of sacrifice, and the salutary use of the Sacraments, which are the efficacious instruments of divine grace, used by God to produce true holiness. Hence, to possess true holiness, we must belong to this Church. The Church therefore it is clear, is holy, and holy because she is the body of Christ, by whom she is sanctified, and in whose blood she is washed.
Lastly, in this crisis of the Church it is also critical to note that:
"... the Church, although numbering among her children many sinners, is called holy. ... so in like manner the faithful, although offending in many things and violating the engagements to which they had pledged themselves, are still called holy, because they have been made the people of God and have consecrated themselves to Christ by faith and Baptism. ..." (Catechism of Trent)
One
Finally we reach the first 'Mark' of the Church of Christ: Oneness, or more succinctly the Church of Christ can be known by its Unity. This is the one mark that, in my opinion, has suffered the most in this crisis as a result of a 'diabolical disorientation'.
For completeness, I will use two additional resources: The documents of the First Vatican Council and finally the theology textbook Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ott.
The authors of the Catechism divide their explanation into Unity of Government and Unity in Spirit, Hope and Faith.
Concerning Unity of Government the doctrine is clear and precise: Christ is the invisible head of "the Church, which is his body", the visible "governor" is the Pope "the legitimate successor of Peter".
Of the Pope, the authors further explain, that the Fathers of the Church are unanimous in teaching that the "visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church".
Interestingly, the authors of the Catechism of Trent expended four to five times as many lines expounding on the unifying role of the Pope vs the following passage which lists the other unifying aspects within the Church.
Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one.
Given the attacks against the Papacy, the Fathers of the First Vatican Council put forth the following more detailed explanation on the relation of the Pope and the Church's unity:
"The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God,all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.
...
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. " (First Vatican Council Session 4)
Echoing the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, Dr. Ott, in his text Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, provides a detailed explanation of unity:
"One may, with the Vatican Council, distinguish a two-fold unity of the Church:
Unity of Faith
This consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. ... Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided.
Unity of Communion
This consists, on the one hand, in the subjection of the members of the Church to the authority of the bishops and of the Pope (unity of government or hierarchical unity) ; on the other hand, in the binding of the members among themselves to a social unity by participation in the same cult and in the same means of grace (unity of cult or liturgical unity).
The unity of both faith and of communion is guaranteed by the Primacy of the Pope, the Supreme Teacher and Pastor of the Church (centrum unitatis : D 1960). One is cut off from the unity of Faith by heresy and from the unity of communion by schism.
...
St. Thomas declares that the unity of the Church is founded on three elements: The common faith of all members of the Church, the common Hope of eternal life, and the common Love of God and of one another in mutual service. Fidelity to the unity of the Church is a condition for the attaining of eternal salvation. "
Quote from: tradical link=topic=8028.msg178964#msg178964 date=1408807139
quote author=Sbyvl36 link=topic=8028.msg178795#msg178795 date=1408762379]
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Did you even read the post?
If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.
P^3
Yeah I read the Posts...but you just asserted flatly he was wrong...you didnt bother to highlight HERE in the thread where he was in error...you just linked your blog as if that was all that was needed. Look its cool you started a blog...and its got great goals...but blogs are a dime a dozen. Do the work and explain where he has the four marks wrong..other wise I would advise sybvl to simply link his blog (which is much snazzier and more entertaining I have to add).
Thanks Voxx. :)
You are right, I was rude. I apologize. The post was wrong on so many levels that it evoked a cultural immune response especially when I thought about the harm it might do to Catholics who are simply scandalized by the behaviour of Pope Francis
and don't know their faith. Fixed this for you since it is a horribly presumptions way to phrase it
Now I will write what I should have written.
The assertions made are wrong on a number of fronts.
The first of which is that it ignores completely what the Church Teaches concerning the Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity of the Church as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and other sources. I have studied this topic and written an article (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html). Reproduced below is an excerpt and it is clear that what has been presented is by Sbyvl36 is not consistent with Church Teaching.
Secondarily, it also contravenes the senta certa doctrine of the indefectibility and visibility of the Church. Particularly this: "Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic", because it asserts that the Church under the leadership (such as it is) of Pope Francis is not the Catholic Church thereby saying that those hapless modern Catholics are outside the True Church of Christ. However the Papacy is intimately linked to the visibility of the Church (First Vatican Council), so the question becomes "Where is the Church?" that has the Four Marks. Sbyvl did not provide an answer instead he/she simply issued a FUD (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/10/fear-uncertainty-doubt-fud.html)statement that could adversely affect the understanding of impressionable and ignorant readers.
So Sbyvl36, next time you have the urge to spout off about Catholic Doctrine, before you endanger the souls of others and thereby your own salvation, please study the topic at hand from reputable sources. The reputable sources I mean Catechisms and theology text books. Don't refer to speeches etc because they may be in reaction to something specific or not speaking on a doctrinal level.
Here is what the Church Teaches concerning the Four Marks. The full article can be found here: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
QuoteApostolic
The Church of Christ can be recognized by its Apostolic origin, for "the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession".
Catholic
The Catholic Church is Universal, "embraces ... all mankind" and includes "all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time". Finally, the Church is called Universal because "all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her".
Holy
The Church is Holy for the following reasons: it is consecrated and dedicated to God; because the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, is united to its head: Our Lord Jesus Christ; and lastly the Church has the true worship of God.
The Catechism of Trent closes this explanation with the following:
... the Church alone has the legitimate worship of sacrifice, and the salutary use of the Sacraments, which are the efficacious instruments of divine grace, used by God to produce true holiness. Hence, to possess true holiness, we must belong to this Church. The Church therefore it is clear, is holy, and holy because she is the body of Christ, by whom she is sanctified, and in whose blood she is washed.
Lastly, in this crisis of the Church it is also critical to note that:
"... the Church, although numbering among her children many sinners, is called holy. ... so in like manner the faithful, although offending in many things and violating the engagements to which they had pledged themselves, are still called holy, because they have been made the people of God and have consecrated themselves to Christ by faith and Baptism. ..." (Catechism of Trent)
One
Finally we reach the first 'Mark' of the Church of Christ: Oneness, or more succinctly the Church of Christ can be known by its Unity. This is the one mark that, in my opinion, has suffered the most in this crisis as a result of a 'diabolical disorientation'.
For completeness, I will use two additional resources: The documents of the First Vatican Council and finally the theology textbook Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ott.
The authors of the Catechism divide their explanation into Unity of Government and Unity in Spirit, Hope and Faith.
Concerning Unity of Government the doctrine is clear and precise: Christ is the invisible head of "the Church, which is his body", the visible "governor" is the Pope "the legitimate successor of Peter".
Of the Pope, the authors further explain, that the Fathers of the Church are unanimous in teaching that the "visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church".
Interestingly, the authors of the Catechism of Trent expended four to five times as many lines expounding on the unifying role of the Pope vs the following passage which lists the other unifying aspects within the Church.
Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one.
Given the attacks against the Papacy, the Fathers of the First Vatican Council put forth the following more detailed explanation on the relation of the Pope and the Church's unity:
"The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God,all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.
...
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. " (First Vatican Council Session 4)
Echoing the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, Dr. Ott, in his text Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, provides a detailed explanation of unity:
"One may, with the Vatican Council, distinguish a two-fold unity of the Church:
Unity of Faith
This consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. ... Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided.
Unity of Communion
This consists, on the one hand, in the subjection of the members of the Church to the authority of the bishops and of the Pope (unity of government or hierarchical unity) ; on the other hand, in the binding of the members among themselves to a social unity by participation in the same cult and in the same means of grace (unity of cult or liturgical unity).
The unity of both faith and of communion is guaranteed by the Primacy of the Pope, the Supreme Teacher and Pastor of the Church (centrum unitatis : D 1960). One is cut off from the unity of Faith by heresy and from the unity of communion by schism.
...
St. Thomas declares that the unity of the Church is founded on three elements: The common faith of all members of the Church, the common Hope of eternal life, and the common Love of God and of one another in mutual service. Fidelity to the unity of the Church is a condition for the attaining of eternal salvation. "
[/quote]
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 22, 2014, 11:14:55 PM
tradical, to summarize your reply to my last on the dogmatic fact question:
Quotea. 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.
Yes but where does the power of infallibly defining a dogmatic fact come from? The bishops without the Pope are not infallible. If we accept that it comes from the bishops agreeing that such a man is the Pope, we would end up in a circular argument, as follows:
1. Francis is elected Pope, but his election is doubtful.
2. All the bishops agree that Francis is the Pope.
3. Francis is therefore the Pope and the bishops united with him agree on this.
4. The bishops united with the Pope are infallible, therefore Francis is the Pope.
We are establishing a infallible dogmatic fact (is this guy the Pope?), from a non-infallible source ei. The bishops without the Pope. In order to arrive at an infallible authority of the bishops united to the Pope.
As John Lane commented in his forum:
QuoteExactly, Mike. I've made the same point before. The thesis that tradical and others take from Ott and Hunter is that the bishops, without the pope, are infallible in a sole judgement - that a newly elected pope is truly pope. This is a radical novelty in the realm of infallibility, unheard of until now. The bishops, united with the pope, are infallible, and not otherwise.
The argument must be something else - that is, the root of the argument, the thing that leads to the conclusion, must be something other than the infallibility of the magisterium. Billot says it is the fact that the entire Church accepts what the pope teaches, so that if it were possible for the Church to be mistaken about who the pope is, the faithful could be misled. Tradical and his type, as JS Daly has pointed out, simply deny the major premise - they cheerfully deny that anybody needs to believe what the pope teaches, merely because he teaches it, unless once or twice per century he solemnises a particular doctrine (i.e. solemnly defines it). THEN, the faithful must believe what the pope teaches, on his authority as pope, but not otherwise. Nor am I exaggerating their position. Show me a traditionalist who expends any effort trying to accept what Bergoglio teaches and I'll show you a "Conservative." Actually, tradical's theory is a tendentious and false representation of what he and all other traditionalists do. They present it as "Believe the pope unless he contradicts tradtion," but in fact that first half of the proposition is never reduced to act. We all habitually ignore Bergoglio, as he deserves: we say, because he isn't pope, and tradical denies the fact, and claims that traditionalists don't habitually ignore Bergoglio. Well, on that score I'm more than happy to let the public judge which of us is telling the truth.
As for the rest of tradical's post, he'll need to unfold his reasoning a bit more than he has in order to put his case. I can't understand most of what he has written, I'm afraid. He says that he doesn't have time to go into it, well if he isn't taking it seriously then I have no problem with that - just as long as everybody is clear that only one side takes these matters seriously.
Hi Michael,
First your source refers to Billot, and I demonstrate that Billot is consistent with Hunter et al. Now he introduces the source of the infallibility.
So what he's doing is introducing a red herring.
As far as taking this seriously, I do ... however I also have learned to recognize when someone is simply putting up other excuses and leading me down the 'garden path' it is apparent that they are working under a confirmation bias / cognitive dissonance. They don't want to accept something that goes against their beliefs.
In this case John (for whatever reason) doesn't believe that Pope Francis is Pope.
I have presented the preconciliar doctrine of dogmatic facts which was accepted by the theologians cited and I'm assuming universally since it is contained in the theological texts cited upto 1950.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-vBOCqMzQKdo%2FU-aBRp0OJOI%2FAAAAAAAAAOM%2FcfjLzW-khCc%2Fs1600%2Fcognitive%2Bdissonance%2Bfig1.gif&hash=d15d890dfc83b6403731206b5297314b77563df3)
Now this 'fact' (action in the diagram) is inconsistent with John's belief and it causes discomfort. He has decided to try and change the perception of the action and prove that the dogmatic fact is not infallible as it does not require the 'Pope'.
This kind of behaviour, although probably not culpable, is not rational.
Either John accepts the universally accepted teaching of the dogmatic facts which includes who is Pope, that canonizations are infallible, which councils were ecumenical etc or he doesn't.
But don't pick and choose which dogmatic fact to accept.
P^3
PS. With respect to John's inversion of the principle as related by Billot. I don't know how I can make it any clearer. All the authors state that the acceptance of the Pope establishes a dogmatic fact. It does not state that this acceptance is manifested by taking the Pope as the 'rule of faith'.
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 09:18:59 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 08:52:59 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Did you even read the post?
If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.
P^3
Yeah I read the Posts...but you just asserted flatly he was wrong...you didnt bother to highlight HERE in the thread where he was in error...you just linked your blog as if that was all that was needed. Look its cool you started a blog...and its got great goals...but blogs are a dime a dozen. Do the work and explain where he has the four marks wrong..other wise I would advise sybvl to simply link his blog (which is much snazzier and more entertaining I have to add).
Thanks Voxx. :)
You are right, I was rude. I apologize. The post was wrong on so many levels that it evoked a cultural immune response especially when I thought about the harm it might do to Catholics who are simply scandalized by the behaviour of Pope Francis and don't know their faith.
Now I will write what I should have written.
The assertions made are wrong on a number of fronts.
The first of which is that it ignores completely what the Church Teaches concerning the Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity of the Church as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and other sources. I have studied this topic and written an article (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html). Reproduced below is an excerpt and it is clear that what has been presented is by Sbyvl36 is not consistent with Church Teaching.
Secondarily, it also contravenes the senta certa doctrine of the indefectibility and visibility of the Church. Particularly this: "Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic", because it asserts that the Church under the leadership (such as it is) of Pope Francis is not the Catholic Church thereby saying that those hapless modern Catholics are outside the True Church of Christ. However the Papacy is intimately linked to the visibility of the Church (First Vatican Council), so the question becomes "Where is the Church?" that has the Four Marks. Sbyvl did not provide an answer instead he/she simply issued a FUD (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/10/fear-uncertainty-doubt-fud.html)statement that could adversely affect the understanding of impressionable and ignorant readers.
So Sbyvl36, next time you have the urge to spout off about Catholic Doctrine, before you endanger the souls of others and thereby your own salvation, please study the topic at hand from reputable sources. The reputable sources I mean Catechisms and theology text books. Don't refer to speeches etc because they may be in reaction to something specific or not speaking on a doctrinal level.
Here is what the Church Teaches concerning the Four Marks. The full article can be found here: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
QuoteApostolic
The Church of Christ can be recognized by its Apostolic origin, for "the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession".
Catholic
The Catholic Church is Universal, "embraces ... all mankind" and includes "all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time". Finally, the Church is called Universal because "all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her".
Holy
The Church is Holy for the following reasons: it is consecrated and dedicated to God; because the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, is united to its head: Our Lord Jesus Christ; and lastly the Church has the true worship of God.
The Catechism of Trent closes this explanation with the following:
... the Church alone has the legitimate worship of sacrifice, and the salutary use of the Sacraments, which are the efficacious instruments of divine grace, used by God to produce true holiness. Hence, to possess true holiness, we must belong to this Church. The Church therefore it is clear, is holy, and holy because she is the body of Christ, by whom she is sanctified, and in whose blood she is washed.
Lastly, in this crisis of the Church it is also critical to note that:
"... the Church, although numbering among her children many sinners, is called holy. ... so in like manner the faithful, although offending in many things and violating the engagements to which they had pledged themselves, are still called holy, because they have been made the people of God and have consecrated themselves to Christ by faith and Baptism. ..." (Catechism of Trent)
One
Finally we reach the first 'Mark' of the Church of Christ: Oneness, or more succinctly the Church of Christ can be known by its Unity. This is the one mark that, in my opinion, has suffered the most in this crisis as a result of a 'diabolical disorientation'.
For completeness, I will use two additional resources: The documents of the First Vatican Council and finally the theology textbook Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ott.
The authors of the Catechism divide their explanation into Unity of Government and Unity in Spirit, Hope and Faith.
Concerning Unity of Government the doctrine is clear and precise: Christ is the invisible head of "the Church, which is his body", the visible "governor" is the Pope "the legitimate successor of Peter".
Of the Pope, the authors further explain, that the Fathers of the Church are unanimous in teaching that the "visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church".
Interestingly, the authors of the Catechism of Trent expended four to five times as many lines expounding on the unifying role of the Pope vs the following passage which lists the other unifying aspects within the Church.
Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one.
Given the attacks against the Papacy, the Fathers of the First Vatican Council put forth the following more detailed explanation on the relation of the Pope and the Church's unity:
"The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God,all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.
...
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. " (First Vatican Council Session 4)
Echoing the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, Dr. Ott, in his text Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, provides a detailed explanation of unity:
"One may, with the Vatican Council, distinguish a two-fold unity of the Church:
Unity of Faith
This consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. ... Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided.
Unity of Communion
This consists, on the one hand, in the subjection of the members of the Church to the authority of the bishops and of the Pope (unity of government or hierarchical unity) ; on the other hand, in the binding of the members among themselves to a social unity by participation in the same cult and in the same means of grace (unity of cult or liturgical unity).
The unity of both faith and of communion is guaranteed by the Primacy of the Pope, the Supreme Teacher and Pastor of the Church (centrum unitatis : D 1960). One is cut off from the unity of Faith by heresy and from the unity of communion by schism.
...
St. Thomas declares that the unity of the Church is founded on three elements: The common faith of all members of the Church, the common Hope of eternal life, and the common Love of God and of one another in mutual service. Fidelity to the unity of the Church is a condition for the attaining of eternal salvation. "
There is no reason for you to be condescending. Your entire argument rests upon the idea that Francis is the pope and that the changes wrought at Vatican II were done by valid Bishops of Rome. We disagree here. And if you are wrong on this fundamental issue, your entire argument falls apart, whereas even if Francis were the pope, I am not outside the Church for believing otherwise. For a doubtful pope is no pope at all. And there plenty of people who were on the wrong side of the Great Western Schism. But because the Church is in a state of Crisis, they were not outside communion of the Church. That is why I believe groups such as the SSPX and FSSP are still Catholic, even if I disagree on their method of responding to the Crisis.
Further, an interregnum in the Papacy does not mean that the Church is no longer visible. It just means we are in-between reigns. There are plenty of valid bishops and priests. The Traditional Mass is being said all over the world, and the Church goes on, even if there is no pope right now.
Read these from the CMRI:
QuoteA. Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis [1929], Rev. A. Dorsch
? ?The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet].?
B. The Relations of the Church to Society [1882], Fr. Edward J. O?Reilly, S.J.
? ?In the first place, there was all throughout from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope?with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.?
C. The Catholic?s Ready Answer [1915], Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J.
? ?If during the entire schism (nearly 40 years) there had been no Pope at all?that would not prove that the office and authority of Peter was not transmitted to the next Pope duly elected.?
D. The Defense of the Catholic Church [1927] Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.
? ?The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ?s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: 'A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope?; and Suarez, S.J., says: 'At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope.... Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all....??
- See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html#sthash.Uzhh09NT.dpuf (http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html#sthash.Uzhh09NT.dpuf)
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 09:54:18 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 09:18:59 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 08:52:59 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Did you even read the post?
If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.
P^3
Yeah I read the Posts...but you just asserted flatly he was wrong...you didnt bother to highlight HERE in the thread where he was in error...you just linked your blog as if that was all that was needed. Look its cool you started a blog...and its got great goals...but blogs are a dime a dozen. Do the work and explain where he has the four marks wrong..other wise I would advise sybvl to simply link his blog (which is much snazzier and more entertaining I have to add).
Thanks Voxx. :)
You are right, I was rude. I apologize. The post was wrong on so many levels that it evoked a cultural immune response especially when I thought about the harm it might do to Catholics who are simply scandalized by the behaviour of Pope Francis and don't know their faith.
Now I will write what I should have written.
The assertions made are wrong on a number of fronts.
The first of which is that it ignores completely what the Church Teaches concerning the Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity of the Church as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and other sources. I have studied this topic and written an article (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html). Reproduced below is an excerpt and it is clear that what has been presented is by Sbyvl36 is not consistent with Church Teaching.
Secondarily, it also contravenes the senta certa doctrine of the indefectibility and visibility of the Church. Particularly this: "Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic", because it asserts that the Church under the leadership (such as it is) of Pope Francis is not the Catholic Church thereby saying that those hapless modern Catholics are outside the True Church of Christ. However the Papacy is intimately linked to the visibility of the Church (First Vatican Council), so the question becomes "Where is the Church?" that has the Four Marks. Sbyvl did not provide an answer instead he/she simply issued a FUD (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/10/fear-uncertainty-doubt-fud.html)statement that could adversely affect the understanding of impressionable and ignorant readers.
So Sbyvl36, next time you have the urge to spout off about Catholic Doctrine, before you endanger the souls of others and thereby your own salvation, please study the topic at hand from reputable sources. The reputable sources I mean Catechisms and theology text books. Don't refer to speeches etc because they may be in reaction to something specific or not speaking on a doctrinal level.
Here is what the Church Teaches concerning the Four Marks. The full article can be found here: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
QuoteApostolic
The Church of Christ can be recognized by its Apostolic origin, for "the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession".
Catholic
The Catholic Church is Universal, "embraces ... all mankind" and includes "all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time". Finally, the Church is called Universal because "all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her".
Holy
The Church is Holy for the following reasons: it is consecrated and dedicated to God; because the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, is united to its head: Our Lord Jesus Christ; and lastly the Church has the true worship of God.
The Catechism of Trent closes this explanation with the following:
... the Church alone has the legitimate worship of sacrifice, and the salutary use of the Sacraments, which are the efficacious instruments of divine grace, used by God to produce true holiness. Hence, to possess true holiness, we must belong to this Church. The Church therefore it is clear, is holy, and holy because she is the body of Christ, by whom she is sanctified, and in whose blood she is washed.
Lastly, in this crisis of the Church it is also critical to note that:
"... the Church, although numbering among her children many sinners, is called holy. ... so in like manner the faithful, although offending in many things and violating the engagements to which they had pledged themselves, are still called holy, because they have been made the people of God and have consecrated themselves to Christ by faith and Baptism. ..." (Catechism of Trent)
One
Finally we reach the first 'Mark' of the Church of Christ: Oneness, or more succinctly the Church of Christ can be known by its Unity. This is the one mark that, in my opinion, has suffered the most in this crisis as a result of a 'diabolical disorientation'.
For completeness, I will use two additional resources: The documents of the First Vatican Council and finally the theology textbook Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ott.
The authors of the Catechism divide their explanation into Unity of Government and Unity in Spirit, Hope and Faith.
Concerning Unity of Government the doctrine is clear and precise: Christ is the invisible head of "the Church, which is his body", the visible "governor" is the Pope "the legitimate successor of Peter".
Of the Pope, the authors further explain, that the Fathers of the Church are unanimous in teaching that the "visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church".
Interestingly, the authors of the Catechism of Trent expended four to five times as many lines expounding on the unifying role of the Pope vs the following passage which lists the other unifying aspects within the Church.
Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one.
Given the attacks against the Papacy, the Fathers of the First Vatican Council put forth the following more detailed explanation on the relation of the Pope and the Church's unity:
"The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God,all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.
...
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. " (First Vatican Council Session 4)
Echoing the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, Dr. Ott, in his text Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, provides a detailed explanation of unity:
"One may, with the Vatican Council, distinguish a two-fold unity of the Church:
Unity of Faith
This consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. ... Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided.
Unity of Communion
This consists, on the one hand, in the subjection of the members of the Church to the authority of the bishops and of the Pope (unity of government or hierarchical unity) ; on the other hand, in the binding of the members among themselves to a social unity by participation in the same cult and in the same means of grace (unity of cult or liturgical unity).
The unity of both faith and of communion is guaranteed by the Primacy of the Pope, the Supreme Teacher and Pastor of the Church (centrum unitatis : D 1960). One is cut off from the unity of Faith by heresy and from the unity of communion by schism.
...
St. Thomas declares that the unity of the Church is founded on three elements: The common faith of all members of the Church, the common Hope of eternal life, and the common Love of God and of one another in mutual service. Fidelity to the unity of the Church is a condition for the attaining of eternal salvation. "
There is no reason for you to be condescending. Your entire argument rests upon the idea that Francis is the pope and that the changes wrought at Vatican II were done by valid Bishops of Rome. We disagree here. And if you are wrong on this fundamental issue, your entire argument falls apart, whereas even if Francis were the pope, I am not outside the Church for believing otherwise. For a doubtful pope is no pope at all. And there plenty of people who were on the wrong side of the Great Western Schism. But because the Church is in a state of Crisis, they were not outside communion of the Church. That is why I believe groups such as the SSPX and FSSP are still Catholic, even if I disagree on their method of responding to the Crisis.
Further, an interregnum in the Papacy does not mean that the Church is no longer visible. It just means we are in-between reigns. There are plenty of valid bishops and priests. The Traditional Mass is being said all over the world, and the Church goes on, even if there is no pope right now.
Read these from the CMRI:
QuoteA. Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis [1929], Rev. A. Dorsch
— "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]."
B. The Relations of the Church to Society [1882], Fr. Edward J. O'Reilly, S.J.
— "In the first place, there was all throughout from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope—with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."
C. The Catholic's Ready Answer [1915], Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J.
— "If during the entire schism (nearly 40 years) there had been no Pope at all—that would not prove that the office and authority of Peter was not transmitted to the next Pope duly elected."
D. The Defense of the Catholic Church [1927] Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.
— "The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ's Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: 'A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope'; and Suarez, S.J., says: 'At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope.... Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all....'"
- See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html#sthash.Uzhh09NT.dpuf (http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html#sthash.Uzhh09NT.dpuf)
Well Sbyvl,
Actually my argument rests upon understanding the doctrine of the Church as the Church understands it.
Period.
There was no doubt about J23 and P6 when they were elected. Likewise there was no doubt about JP1, JP2, B16, and F ... because there were no other apparently legitimate candidates to confuse the issue.
Finally, following the doctrine of the Church concerning the establishment of the dogmatic fact that each of the aforementioned Popes was a lawfully elected Pope simply reaffirms and makes it infallibly so. Following this doctrine there is no reason to doubt their election etc.
However, if you believe that denying this puts you (an other of similar thought) outside the Church - it does not it is not a matter of faith (de fide) that they were Popes.
It just means that you are wrong for denying the fact.
Now if Pope Francis were to define the dogma of Our Lady being Mediatrix of All Graces and you refused to submit to his judgment on this - then you would fall materially into the sin of heresy and potentially schism.
P^3
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 23, 2014, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: tradical link=topic=8028.msg178964#msg178964 date=1408807139
quote author=Sbyvl36 link=topic=8028.msg178795#msg178795 date=1408762379]
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Did you even read the post?
If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.
P^3
Yeah I read the Posts...but you just asserted flatly he was wrong...you didnt bother to highlight HERE in the thread where he was in error...you just linked your blog as if that was all that was needed. Look its cool you started a blog...and its got great goals...but blogs are a dime a dozen. Do the work and explain where he has the four marks wrong..other wise I would advise sybvl to simply link his blog (which is much snazzier and more entertaining I have to add).
Thanks Voxx. :)
You are right, I was rude. I apologize. The post was wrong on so many levels that it evoked a cultural immune response especially when I thought about the harm it might do to Catholics who are simply scandalized by the behaviour of Pope Francis and don't know their faith. Fixed this for you since it is a horribly presumptions way to phrase it
Now I will write what I should have written.
The assertions made are wrong on a number of fronts.
The first of which is that it ignores completely what the Church Teaches concerning the Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity of the Church as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and other sources. I have studied this topic and written an article (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html). Reproduced below is an excerpt and it is clear that what has been presented is by Sbyvl36 is not consistent with Church Teaching.
Secondarily, it also contravenes the senta certa doctrine of the indefectibility and visibility of the Church. Particularly this: "Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic", because it asserts that the Church under the leadership (such as it is) of Pope Francis is not the Catholic Church thereby saying that those hapless modern Catholics are outside the True Church of Christ. However the Papacy is intimately linked to the visibility of the Church (First Vatican Council), so the question becomes "Where is the Church?" that has the Four Marks. Sbyvl did not provide an answer instead he/she simply issued a FUD (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/10/fear-uncertainty-doubt-fud.html)statement that could adversely affect the understanding of impressionable and ignorant readers.
So Sbyvl36, next time you have the urge to spout off about Catholic Doctrine, before you endanger the souls of others and thereby your own salvation, please study the topic at hand from reputable sources. The reputable sources I mean Catechisms and theology text books. Don't refer to speeches etc because they may be in reaction to something specific or not speaking on a doctrinal level.
Here is what the Church Teaches concerning the Four Marks. The full article can be found here: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
QuoteApostolic
The Church of Christ can be recognized by its Apostolic origin, for "the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession".
Catholic
The Catholic Church is Universal, "embraces ... all mankind" and includes "all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time". Finally, the Church is called Universal because "all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her".
Holy
The Church is Holy for the following reasons: it is consecrated and dedicated to God; because the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, is united to its head: Our Lord Jesus Christ; and lastly the Church has the true worship of God.
The Catechism of Trent closes this explanation with the following:
... the Church alone has the legitimate worship of sacrifice, and the salutary use of the Sacraments, which are the efficacious instruments of divine grace, used by God to produce true holiness. Hence, to possess true holiness, we must belong to this Church. The Church therefore it is clear, is holy, and holy because she is the body of Christ, by whom she is sanctified, and in whose blood she is washed.
Lastly, in this crisis of the Church it is also critical to note that:
"... the Church, although numbering among her children many sinners, is called holy. ... so in like manner the faithful, although offending in many things and violating the engagements to which they had pledged themselves, are still called holy, because they have been made the people of God and have consecrated themselves to Christ by faith and Baptism. ..." (Catechism of Trent)
One
Finally we reach the first 'Mark' of the Church of Christ: Oneness, or more succinctly the Church of Christ can be known by its Unity. This is the one mark that, in my opinion, has suffered the most in this crisis as a result of a 'diabolical disorientation'.
For completeness, I will use two additional resources: The documents of the First Vatican Council and finally the theology textbook Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ott.
The authors of the Catechism divide their explanation into Unity of Government and Unity in Spirit, Hope and Faith.
Concerning Unity of Government the doctrine is clear and precise: Christ is the invisible head of "the Church, which is his body", the visible "governor" is the Pope "the legitimate successor of Peter".
Of the Pope, the authors further explain, that the Fathers of the Church are unanimous in teaching that the "visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church".
Interestingly, the authors of the Catechism of Trent expended four to five times as many lines expounding on the unifying role of the Pope vs the following passage which lists the other unifying aspects within the Church.
Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one.
Given the attacks against the Papacy, the Fathers of the First Vatican Council put forth the following more detailed explanation on the relation of the Pope and the Church's unity:
"The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God,all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.
...
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. " (First Vatican Council Session 4)
Echoing the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, Dr. Ott, in his text Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, provides a detailed explanation of unity:
"One may, with the Vatican Council, distinguish a two-fold unity of the Church:
Unity of Faith
This consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. ... Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided.
Unity of Communion
This consists, on the one hand, in the subjection of the members of the Church to the authority of the bishops and of the Pope (unity of government or hierarchical unity) ; on the other hand, in the binding of the members among themselves to a social unity by participation in the same cult and in the same means of grace (unity of cult or liturgical unity).
The unity of both faith and of communion is guaranteed by the Primacy of the Pope, the Supreme Teacher and Pastor of the Church (centrum unitatis : D 1960). One is cut off from the unity of Faith by heresy and from the unity of communion by schism.
...
St. Thomas declares that the unity of the Church is founded on three elements: The common faith of all members of the Church, the common Hope of eternal life, and the common Love of God and of one another in mutual service. Fidelity to the unity of the Church is a condition for the attaining of eternal salvation. "
[/quote]
An you think that Sbyvl's post wasn't presumptuous.
Concerning Catholic's not knowing their faith - I think you misunderstood.
I am concerned about modern Catholics who are scandalized by Pope Francis and decide to check out Tradition. If they find Sbyvl's post it could cause them to make rash judgements due to their lack of grounding in Catholic doctrine.
P^3
There were clear issues at the 1958 Conclave. There was a fist fight at the stove, resulting in the mix-up in smoke signals. Someone was elected prior to Roncalli, and then forced to either not accept his election or just brushed aside. Numerous cardinals looked "pale and shaken" upon the end of the Conclave.
Roncalli was known to be a Modernist, Ecumenist, and Freemason before and during his Pontificate. Thus he is barred by Cum ex Apostolatus Officio from becoming pope.
The same goes for Montini. And there were similar issues at the 1963 Conclave.
In 1978, there were only three valid Cardinals left, and all of them voted for Siri both times according to witness testimony. Furthermore, both JPI and JPII were heretics as well, so they never became pope.
Ratzinger was a lunatic leftist at Vatican II, and his writings are very sketchy (Case in point: Jesus of Nazareth). He wasn't even a valid bishop, being ordained in the new invalid rite. To see his heresies, take a look at: http://www.romancatholicism.org/101-benedict.html (http://www.romancatholicism.org/101-benedict.html). I think the others are kind of obvious.
Francis is not even a valid priest. He is a Modernist, Ecumenist, and Relativist. He spews heresy on a daily basis. There is absolutely no way he could be the pope. He is a layman.
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 10:14:25 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 23, 2014, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: tradical link=topic=8028.msg178964#msg178964 date=1408807139
quote author=Sbyvl36 link=topic=8028.msg178795#msg178795 date=1408762379]
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Did you even read the post?
If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.
P^3
Yeah I read the Posts...but you just asserted flatly he was wrong...you didnt bother to highlight HERE in the thread where he was in error...you just linked your blog as if that was all that was needed. Look its cool you started a blog...and its got great goals...but blogs are a dime a dozen. Do the work and explain where he has the four marks wrong..other wise I would advise sybvl to simply link his blog (which is much snazzier and more entertaining I have to add).
Thanks Voxx. :)
You are right, I was rude. I apologize. The post was wrong on so many levels that it evoked a cultural immune response especially when I thought about the harm it might do to Catholics who are simply scandalized by the behaviour of Pope Francis and don't know their faith. Fixed this for you since it is a horribly presumptions way to phrase it
Now I will write what I should have written.
The assertions made are wrong on a number of fronts.
The first of which is that it ignores completely what the Church Teaches concerning the Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity of the Church as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and other sources. I have studied this topic and written an article (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html). Reproduced below is an excerpt and it is clear that what has been presented is by Sbyvl36 is not consistent with Church Teaching.
Secondarily, it also contravenes the senta certa doctrine of the indefectibility and visibility of the Church. Particularly this: "Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic", because it asserts that the Church under the leadership (such as it is) of Pope Francis is not the Catholic Church thereby saying that those hapless modern Catholics are outside the True Church of Christ. However the Papacy is intimately linked to the visibility of the Church (First Vatican Council), so the question becomes "Where is the Church?" that has the Four Marks. Sbyvl did not provide an answer instead he/she simply issued a FUD (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/10/fear-uncertainty-doubt-fud.html)statement that could adversely affect the understanding of impressionable and ignorant readers.
So Sbyvl36, next time you have the urge to spout off about Catholic Doctrine, before you endanger the souls of others and thereby your own salvation, please study the topic at hand from reputable sources. The reputable sources I mean Catechisms and theology text books. Don't refer to speeches etc because they may be in reaction to something specific or not speaking on a doctrinal level.
Here is what the Church Teaches concerning the Four Marks. The full article can be found here: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
QuoteApostolic
The Church of Christ can be recognized by its Apostolic origin, for "the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession".
Catholic
The Catholic Church is Universal, "embraces ... all mankind" and includes "all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time". Finally, the Church is called Universal because "all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her".
Holy
The Church is Holy for the following reasons: it is consecrated and dedicated to God; because the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, is united to its head: Our Lord Jesus Christ; and lastly the Church has the true worship of God.
The Catechism of Trent closes this explanation with the following:
... the Church alone has the legitimate worship of sacrifice, and the salutary use of the Sacraments, which are the efficacious instruments of divine grace, used by God to produce true holiness. Hence, to possess true holiness, we must belong to this Church. The Church therefore it is clear, is holy, and holy because she is the body of Christ, by whom she is sanctified, and in whose blood she is washed.
Lastly, in this crisis of the Church it is also critical to note that:
"... the Church, although numbering among her children many sinners, is called holy. ... so in like manner the faithful, although offending in many things and violating the engagements to which they had pledged themselves, are still called holy, because they have been made the people of God and have consecrated themselves to Christ by faith and Baptism. ..." (Catechism of Trent)
One
Finally we reach the first 'Mark' of the Church of Christ: Oneness, or more succinctly the Church of Christ can be known by its Unity. This is the one mark that, in my opinion, has suffered the most in this crisis as a result of a 'diabolical disorientation'.
For completeness, I will use two additional resources: The documents of the First Vatican Council and finally the theology textbook Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ott.
The authors of the Catechism divide their explanation into Unity of Government and Unity in Spirit, Hope and Faith.
Concerning Unity of Government the doctrine is clear and precise: Christ is the invisible head of "the Church, which is his body", the visible "governor" is the Pope "the legitimate successor of Peter".
Of the Pope, the authors further explain, that the Fathers of the Church are unanimous in teaching that the "visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church".
Interestingly, the authors of the Catechism of Trent expended four to five times as many lines expounding on the unifying role of the Pope vs the following passage which lists the other unifying aspects within the Church.
Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one.
Given the attacks against the Papacy, the Fathers of the First Vatican Council put forth the following more detailed explanation on the relation of the Pope and the Church's unity:
"The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God,all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.
...
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. " (First Vatican Council Session 4)
Echoing the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, Dr. Ott, in his text Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, provides a detailed explanation of unity:
"One may, with the Vatican Council, distinguish a two-fold unity of the Church:
Unity of Faith
This consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. ... Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided.
Unity of Communion
This consists, on the one hand, in the subjection of the members of the Church to the authority of the bishops and of the Pope (unity of government or hierarchical unity) ; on the other hand, in the binding of the members among themselves to a social unity by participation in the same cult and in the same means of grace (unity of cult or liturgical unity).
The unity of both faith and of communion is guaranteed by the Primacy of the Pope, the Supreme Teacher and Pastor of the Church (centrum unitatis : D 1960). One is cut off from the unity of Faith by heresy and from the unity of communion by schism.
...
St. Thomas declares that the unity of the Church is founded on three elements: The common faith of all members of the Church, the common Hope of eternal life, and the common Love of God and of one another in mutual service. Fidelity to the unity of the Church is a condition for the attaining of eternal salvation. "
An you think that Sbyvl's post wasn't presumptuous.
Concerning Catholic's not knowing their faith - I think you misunderstood.
I am concerned about modern Catholics who are scandalized by Pope Francis and decide to check out Tradition. If they find Sbyvl's post it could cause them to make rash judgements due to their lack of grounding in Catholic doctrine.
P^3
[/quote]
No, if people see that post, they will hopefully scroll down to my other arguments and realize that the See of Peter is vacant.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 10:18:02 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 10:14:25 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 23, 2014, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: tradical link=topic=8028.msg178964#msg178964 date=1408807139
quote author=Sbyvl36 link=topic=8028.msg178795#msg178795 date=1408762379]
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 22, 2014, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 22, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 22, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One. All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council. For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.
2. It's no longer Holy. I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense. And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.
3. It's no longer Catholic. The New Mass is not universal. Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world. Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.
4. It's no longer Apostolic. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void". Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not. The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria. Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out. It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.
Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target. I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now. But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Did you even read the post?
If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.
P^3
Yeah I read the Posts...but you just asserted flatly he was wrong...you didnt bother to highlight HERE in the thread where he was in error...you just linked your blog as if that was all that was needed. Look its cool you started a blog...and its got great goals...but blogs are a dime a dozen. Do the work and explain where he has the four marks wrong..other wise I would advise sybvl to simply link his blog (which is much snazzier and more entertaining I have to add).
Thanks Voxx. :)
You are right, I was rude. I apologize. The post was wrong on so many levels that it evoked a cultural immune response especially when I thought about the harm it might do to Catholics who are simply scandalized by the behaviour of Pope Francis and don't know their faith. Fixed this for you since it is a horribly presumptions way to phrase it
Now I will write what I should have written.
The assertions made are wrong on a number of fronts.
The first of which is that it ignores completely what the Church Teaches concerning the Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity of the Church as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and other sources. I have studied this topic and written an article (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html). Reproduced below is an excerpt and it is clear that what has been presented is by Sbyvl36 is not consistent with Church Teaching.
Secondarily, it also contravenes the senta certa doctrine of the indefectibility and visibility of the Church. Particularly this: "Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic", because it asserts that the Church under the leadership (such as it is) of Pope Francis is not the Catholic Church thereby saying that those hapless modern Catholics are outside the True Church of Christ. However the Papacy is intimately linked to the visibility of the Church (First Vatican Council), so the question becomes "Where is the Church?" that has the Four Marks. Sbyvl did not provide an answer instead he/she simply issued a FUD (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/10/fear-uncertainty-doubt-fud.html)statement that could adversely affect the understanding of impressionable and ignorant readers.
So Sbyvl36, next time you have the urge to spout off about Catholic Doctrine, before you endanger the souls of others and thereby your own salvation, please study the topic at hand from reputable sources. The reputable sources I mean Catechisms and theology text books. Don't refer to speeches etc because they may be in reaction to something specific or not speaking on a doctrinal level.
Here is what the Church Teaches concerning the Four Marks. The full article can be found here: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html
P^3
QuoteApostolic
The Church of Christ can be recognized by its Apostolic origin, for "the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession".
Catholic
The Catholic Church is Universal, "embraces ... all mankind" and includes "all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time". Finally, the Church is called Universal because "all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her".
Holy
The Church is Holy for the following reasons: it is consecrated and dedicated to God; because the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, is united to its head: Our Lord Jesus Christ; and lastly the Church has the true worship of God.
The Catechism of Trent closes this explanation with the following:
... the Church alone has the legitimate worship of sacrifice, and the salutary use of the Sacraments, which are the efficacious instruments of divine grace, used by God to produce true holiness. Hence, to possess true holiness, we must belong to this Church. The Church therefore it is clear, is holy, and holy because she is the body of Christ, by whom she is sanctified, and in whose blood she is washed.
Lastly, in this crisis of the Church it is also critical to note that:
"... the Church, although numbering among her children many sinners, is called holy. ... so in like manner the faithful, although offending in many things and violating the engagements to which they had pledged themselves, are still called holy, because they have been made the people of God and have consecrated themselves to Christ by faith and Baptism. ..." (Catechism of Trent)
One
Finally we reach the first 'Mark' of the Church of Christ: Oneness, or more succinctly the Church of Christ can be known by its Unity. This is the one mark that, in my opinion, has suffered the most in this crisis as a result of a 'diabolical disorientation'.
For completeness, I will use two additional resources: The documents of the First Vatican Council and finally the theology textbook Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ott.
The authors of the Catechism divide their explanation into Unity of Government and Unity in Spirit, Hope and Faith.
Concerning Unity of Government the doctrine is clear and precise: Christ is the invisible head of "the Church, which is his body", the visible "governor" is the Pope "the legitimate successor of Peter".
Of the Pope, the authors further explain, that the Fathers of the Church are unanimous in teaching that the "visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church".
Interestingly, the authors of the Catechism of Trent expended four to five times as many lines expounding on the unifying role of the Pope vs the following passage which lists the other unifying aspects within the Church.
Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one.
Given the attacks against the Papacy, the Fathers of the First Vatican Council put forth the following more detailed explanation on the relation of the Pope and the Church's unity:
"The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God,all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.
...
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. " (First Vatican Council Session 4)
Echoing the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, Dr. Ott, in his text Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, provides a detailed explanation of unity:
"One may, with the Vatican Council, distinguish a two-fold unity of the Church:
Unity of Faith
This consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. ... Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided.
Unity of Communion
This consists, on the one hand, in the subjection of the members of the Church to the authority of the bishops and of the Pope (unity of government or hierarchical unity) ; on the other hand, in the binding of the members among themselves to a social unity by participation in the same cult and in the same means of grace (unity of cult or liturgical unity).
The unity of both faith and of communion is guaranteed by the Primacy of the Pope, the Supreme Teacher and Pastor of the Church (centrum unitatis : D 1960). One is cut off from the unity of Faith by heresy and from the unity of communion by schism.
...
St. Thomas declares that the unity of the Church is founded on three elements: The common faith of all members of the Church, the common Hope of eternal life, and the common Love of God and of one another in mutual service. Fidelity to the unity of the Church is a condition for the attaining of eternal salvation. "
An you think that Sbyvl's post wasn't presumptuous.
Concerning Catholic's not knowing their faith - I think you misunderstood.
I am concerned about modern Catholics who are scandalized by Pope Francis and decide to check out Tradition. If they find Sbyvl's post it could cause them to make rash judgements due to their lack of grounding in Catholic doctrine.
P^3
No, if people see that post, they will hopefully scroll down to my other arguments and realize that the See of Peter is vacant.
[/quote]
And if they conclude that the Catholic Church isn't the Church and lose the faith - are you willing to answer for that when you die?
Ap
Trim your quotes.
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 10:22:28 AM
And if they conclude that the Catholic Church isn't the Church and lose the faith - are you willing to answer for that when you die?
Ap
That wouldn't be my responsibility. I would have shown them the truth. It's their problem if they reject it. Christ showed people the new and true covenant. Does he have the offenses of all those who rejected him on his slate? Of course not.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 10:44:00 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 10:22:28 AM
That wouldn't be my responsibility. I would have shown them the truth. It's their problem if they reject it. Christ showed people the new and true covenant. Does he have the offenses of all those who rejected him on his slate? Of course not.
And you are so certain of the truth that you have to reject pre-conciliar doctrine ... such as dogmatic facts?
P^3
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 11:01:31 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 10:44:00 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 10:22:28 AM
That wouldn't be my responsibility. I would have shown them the truth. It's their problem if they reject it. Christ showed people the new and true covenant. Does he have the offenses of all those who rejected him on his slate? Of course not.
And you are so certain of the truth that you have to reject pre-conciliar doctrine ... such as dogmatic facts?
P^3
You keep ignoring the fact that a pope becoming a heretic ceases automatically to be pope. That is divine law. The continued recognition by bishops does not trump the divine law of what occurs, so there is no more dogmatic fact he is the pope if choosing heresy made him cease to be. I have said this multiple times and you just keep running from it.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 23, 2014, 11:14:20 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 11:01:31 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 10:44:00 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 10:22:28 AM
That wouldn't be my responsibility. I would have shown them the truth. It's their problem if they reject it. Christ showed people the new and true covenant. Does he have the offenses of all those who rejected him on his slate? Of course not.
And you are so certain of the truth that you have to reject pre-conciliar doctrine ... such as dogmatic facts?
P^3
You keep ignoring the fact that a pope becoming a heretic ceases automatically to be pope. That is divine law. The continued recognition by bishops does not trump the divine law of what occurs, so there is no more dogmatic fact he is the pope if choosing heresy made him cease to be. I have said this multiple times and you just keep running from it.
First: You have not demonstrated heresy on the part of any of the Popes. By heresy, I mean heresy in the first degree (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/01/heresy-plain-and-not-so-simple.html)
Second: If it is Divine Law - then provide a reference to support your assertion. There are a number of opinions on the matter none of which have been selected by the Church in a formal manner.
Third: What part of the following (particularly "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") do you not understand:
Quote
Hunter:
... 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)
Ott:
Dogmatic Facts (facta dogmatica). By these are understood historical facts, which are not revealed, but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example, the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Peter. (D 1350: sensum quem verba prae se ferunt). (p9)
Billot
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. ... 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.
St. Alphonsus de Ligouri
"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".
I'll try and put this very plainly and simply:
If you suspected J23, P6, JP1, JP2, B16 and F of heresy before their election - their acceptance upon election to the See of Peter by the Bishops infallibly means you're wrong ... because they can't be wrong.
The only escape that you have as a sedevacantist, without rejecting the doctrine, is to prove heresy in the first degree on the part of the Pope - post election.
Lastly, I am not talking about theoretical cases - I talking about the cases of the recent pontificates. All of your 'theoretical' cases citing prophecies etc are not relevant - we're dealing with the reality as it is according to the doctrine of the Church.
If you have to reject or modify (ala John Lane/Daly) a doctrine of the Church in order to make your theory logical - then it is safe to conclude that your theory is flawed.
P^3
And I explained in the other thread that the Spotless Bride of Christ is "holy", and is prevented from every degree of corruption in law, liturgy and doctrine.
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 11:39:59 AM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 23, 2014, 11:14:20 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 11:01:31 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 10:44:00 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 10:22:28 AM
That wouldn't be my responsibility. I would have shown them the truth. It's their problem if they reject it. Christ showed people the new and true covenant. Does he have the offenses of all those who rejected him on his slate? Of course not.
And you are so certain of the truth that you have to reject pre-conciliar doctrine ... such as dogmatic facts?
P^3
You keep ignoring the fact that a pope becoming a heretic ceases automatically to be pope. That is divine law. The continued recognition by bishops does not trump the divine law of what occurs, so there is no more dogmatic fact he is the pope if choosing heresy made him cease to be. I have said this multiple times and you just keep running from it.
First: You have not demonstrated heresy on the part of any of the Popes. By heresy, I mean heresy in the first degree (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/01/heresy-plain-and-not-so-simple.html)
Second: If it is Divine Law - then provide a reference to support your assertion. There are a number of opinions on the matter none of which have been selected by the Church in a formal manner.
Third: What part of the following (particularly "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") do you not understand:
Quote
Hunter:
... 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)
Ott:
Dogmatic Facts (facta dogmatica). By these are understood historical facts, which are not revealed, but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example, the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Peter. (D 1350: sensum quem verba prae se ferunt). (p9)
Billot
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. ... 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.
St. Alphonsus de Ligouri
"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".
I'll try and put this very plainly and simply:
If you suspected J23, P6, JP1, JP2, B16 and F of heresy before their election - their acceptance upon election to the See of Peter by the Bishops infallibly means you're wrong ... because they can't be wrong.
The only escape that you have as a sedevacantist, without rejecting the doctrine, is to prove heresy in the first degree on the part of the Pope - post election.
Lastly, I am not talking about theoretical cases - I talking about the cases of the recent pontificates. All of your 'theoretical' cases citing prophecies etc are not relevant - we're dealing with the reality as it is according to the doctrine of the Church.
If you have to reject or modify (ala John Lane/Daly) a doctrine of the Church in order to make your theory logical - then it is safe to conclude that your theory is flawed.
P^3
So Arius and his bishops weren't wrong? The Bishops are not protected. They can apostasise.It doesn't have to be in the "first degree". It just has to be public. Read the link I provided on Benedict, and then do your homework on the others. I'm not going to spoon-feed this to you.
Pope Paul IV laid down the law Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which states that heretics are barred by divine law from the Papacy, even if all the Cardinals are in agreement.
I'm not rejecting anything. Paul IV wasn't the only one to say that a heretic cannot be the pope. Read what St. Bellarmine said. This is not an extreme opinion. This is the unanimous law of the Church. And I agree that private revelation doesn't really matter to prove my case, but it does help. There is a prophecy that was posted on a different thread in the Sede section that said that the lineage of the Popes would "seem to have been extinguished" for some time. Prophecies do predict an extended vacancy of the Holy See. But I'm sure you are going to ignore that too.
Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559
Quote"Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— "Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
— "It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
— "Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .
— "Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
— "Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power."
Coronata — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950
Quote"Appointment to the Office of the Primacy.
1. What is required by divine law for this appointment . . . Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded. . . "
"It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.
"If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority."
Marato — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1921
Quote"Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity."
Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927
Quote"Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church."
CANON 6.6
QuoteAll former disciplinary laws which were in force until now, and are neither explicitly nor implicitly contained in the Code, shall be regarded as having lost all force, unless they are found in the approved liturgical books, or they are laws derived from the natural and the positive divine law.
A. Dorsch — Institutions Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1928
Quote"The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state . . .
"Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body . . . Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way —that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not . . .
"For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died —for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.
"These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary" (De Ecclesia 2:196-7).
Fr. Edward J. O'Reilly, S.J. — The Relations of the Church to Society, 1882
Quote"We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all throughout, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope —with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."
Msgr. Charles Journet, The Church of the Incarnate Word
B. The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See
QuoteWe must not think of the church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be recondensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous.* 'But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven .. . But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to who He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter.
*During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. "The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power."
Msgr. Journet — The Church of the Incarnate Word
Quote"During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power 'of applying the Papacy to such and such a person' devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God."
Cajetan, O. P. — De Comparatione Autoritatis Papae et Concilii
Quote". . . by exception and by suppletory manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the inexistence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happens at the time of a schism."
Billot — De Ecclesia Christi
Quote"When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council."
"Because 'natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a Superior is passed to the immediate inferior, because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need."
Vitoria — De Potestate Ecclesiae
Quote"Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him... If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father.
"Hence such an election; 'a tota Ecclesia debet provideri et non ab aliqua partuculari Ecclesia.' ("It should be carried by all the Church and not by any particular Church.") And this is because "Ilia potestas est communis et spectat ad totam Ecclesiam. Ergo a tata Ecclesia debet provideri.'" ("That power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.")
Cajetan:
Quote"Immediately, one ought to resists in facie, a pope who is publicly destroying the Church; for example, to want to give ecclesiastical benefits for money or charge of services. And one ought to refuse, with all obedience and respect, and not to give possession of these benefits to those who bought them."
Silvestra:
Quote"What is there to do when the pope wishes without reason to abrogate the positive right order? To this he responds, 'He certainly sins; one ought not to permit him to proceed thus, nor ought one to obey him in what is bad; one ought to resist him with a polite reprehension. In consequence, if he wished to deliver all the treasures of the Church and the patrimony of St. Peter to his parents; if he was left to destroy the Church or in similar works, one ought not to permit him to work in this form, having the obligation of giving him resistance. And the reason for this is, in these matters he has no right to destroy. Immediately evident of what he is doing, it is licit to resist him. Of all this it results that, if the pope, by his order or his acts, destroys the Church, one can resist and impede the execution of his commands.'"
Suarez:
Quote"If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist; if attacked by force, one shall be able to resist with force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense."
St. Robert Bellarmine:
Quote"Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that attacks the body, it is also licit to resist (him) who attacks the soul, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, he who intends to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of that which he wills. It is not licit, with everything, to judge him impose a punishment, or depose him, for these actions are accorded to one superior to the pope."
St. Francis de Sales:
Quote"Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . "
St. Robert Bellarmine:
Quote
"A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
Quote"If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant."
St. Antoninus:
Quote"In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off."
Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
Quote"Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church." And also: "A doubtful pope is no pope."
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913
Quote"The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."
Pope Innocent III:
Quote"The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'"
Matthaeus Conte a Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950
Quote"If indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority."
A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949
Quote"At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess."
Edward F. Regatillo — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956
Quote"'The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.' This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could he be its head."
- See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-sede-quotes.html#sthash.LMKHlvAc.dpuf (http://www.cmri.org/02-sede-quotes.html#sthash.LMKHlvAc.dpuf)
QuoteAn you think that Sbyvl's post wasn't presumptuous.
Concerning Catholic's not knowing their faith - I think you misunderstood.
I am concerned about modern Catholics who are scandalized by Pope Francis and decide to check out Tradition. If they find Sbyvl's post it could cause them to make rash judgements due to their lack of grounding in Catholic doctrine.
P^3
More presumptions on your part...what are you the savior of all the catholics?...and further.it was arguments made to me by a trad friend just like sybvl used that established me into tradition. It makes more sense than:
Well ya all the bishops and popes are evil men and do evil...and teach evil...but MEH we still have to accept them as valid because we just cant be catholic unless we do....
Further -further...I see how idiotic and mundane and faggy the NO mass is compared to the Liturgy I attend....your position holds very few reasonable answers considering what my own eyes see.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 12:30:43 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 11:39:59 AM
I'll try and put this very plainly and simply:
If you suspected J23, P6, JP1, JP2, B16 and F of heresy before their election - their acceptance upon election to the See of Peter by the Bishops infallibly means you're wrong ... because they can't be wrong.
The only escape that you have as a sedevacantist, without rejecting the doctrine, is to prove heresy in the first degree on the part of the Pope - post election.
Lastly, I am not talking about theoretical cases - I talking about the cases of the recent pontificates. All of your 'theoretical' cases citing prophecies etc are not relevant - we're dealing with the reality as it is according to the doctrine of the Church.
If you have to reject or modify (ala John Lane/Daly) a doctrine of the Church in order to make your theory logical - then it is safe to conclude that your theory is flawed.
P^3
So Arius and his bishops weren't wrong? The Bishops are not protected. They can apostasise.
It doesn't have to be in the "first degree". It just has to be public. Read the link I provided on Benedict, and then do your homework on the others. I'm not going to spoon-feed this to you.
Pope Paul IV laid down the law Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which states that heretics are barred by divine law from the Papacy, even if all the Cardinals are in agreement.
I'm not rejecting anything. Paul IV wasn't the only one to say that a heretic cannot be the pope. Read what St. Bellarmine said. This is not an extreme opinion. This is the unanimous law of the Church. And I agree that private revelation doesn't really matter to prove my case, but it does help. There is a prophecy that was posted on a different thread in the Sede section that said that the lineage of the Popes would "seem to have been extinguished" for some time. Prophecies do predict an extended vacancy of the Holy See. But I'm sure you are going to ignore that too.
are you really saying that the Pope Julious wasn't validly elected?
That's a little extreme for a sede ...
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 23, 2014, 12:51:32 PM
QuoteAn you think that Sbyvl's post wasn't presumptuous.
Concerning Catholic's not knowing their faith - I think you misunderstood.
I am concerned about modern Catholics who are scandalized by Pope Francis and decide to check out Tradition. If they find Sbyvl's post it could cause them to make rash judgements due to their lack of grounding in Catholic doctrine.
P^3
More presumptions on your part...what are you the savior of all the catholics?...and further.it was arguments made to me by a trad friend just like sybvl used that established me into tradition. It makes more sense than:
Well ya all the bishops and popes are evil men and do evil...and teach evil...but MEH we still have to accept them as valid because we just cant be catholic unless we do....
Further -further...I see how idiotic and mundane and faggy the NO mass is compared to the Liturgy I attend....your position holds very few reasonable answers considering what my own eyes see.
sigh
that is exactly what is contained in the catechism of the council of trent.
QuoteBut although the Catholic faith uniformly and truly teaches that the good and the bad belong to the Church, yet the same faith declares that the condition of both is very different. The wicked are contained in the Church, as the chaff is mingled with the grain on the threshing floor, or as dead members sometimes remain attached to a
living body. ...But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.
concerning the liturgy, there is a difference between what is the Church's discipline (the n.o.m. as promulgated) and the abuses you've witnessed.
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 12:30:43 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 11:39:59 AM
I'll try and put this very plainly and simply:
If you suspected J23, P6, JP1, JP2, B16 and F of heresy before their election - their acceptance upon election to the See of Peter by the Bishops infallibly means you're wrong ... because they can't be wrong.
The only escape that you have as a sedevacantist, without rejecting the doctrine, is to prove heresy in the first degree on the part of the Pope - post election.
Lastly, I am not talking about theoretical cases - I talking about the cases of the recent pontificates. All of your 'theoretical' cases citing prophecies etc are not relevant - we're dealing with the reality as it is according to the doctrine of the Church.
If you have to reject or modify (ala John Lane/Daly) a doctrine of the Church in order to make your theory logical - then it is safe to conclude that your theory is flawed.
P^3
So Arius and his bishops weren't wrong? The Bishops are not protected. They can apostasise.
It doesn't have to be in the "first degree". It just has to be public. Read the link I provided on Benedict, and then do your homework on the others. I'm not going to spoon-feed this to you.
Pope Paul IV laid down the law Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which states that heretics are barred by divine law from the Papacy, even if all the Cardinals are in agreement.
I'm not rejecting anything. Paul IV wasn't the only one to say that a heretic cannot be the pope. Read what St. Bellarmine said. This is not an extreme opinion. This is the unanimous law of the Church. And I agree that private revelation doesn't really matter to prove my case, but it does help. There is a prophecy that was posted on a different thread in the Sede section that said that the lineage of the Popes would "seem to have been extinguished" for some time. Prophecies do predict an extended vacancy of the Holy See. But I'm sure you are going to ignore that too.
are you really saying that the Pope Julious wasn't validly elected?
That's a little extreme for a sede ...
Where did I say that? All I've said is that John23 and Co. weren't validly elected.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 12:30:43 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 11:39:59 AM
I'll try and put this very plainly and simply:
If you suspected J23, P6, JP1, JP2, B16 and F of heresy before their election - their acceptance upon election to the See of Peter by the Bishops infallibly means you're wrong ... because they can't be wrong.
The only escape that you have as a sedevacantist, without rejecting the doctrine, is to prove heresy in the first degree on the part of the Pope - post election.
Lastly, I am not talking about theoretical cases - I talking about the cases of the recent pontificates. All of your 'theoretical' cases citing prophecies etc are not relevant - we're dealing with the reality as it is according to the doctrine of the Church.
If you have to reject or modify (ala John Lane/Daly) a doctrine of the Church in order to make your theory logical - then it is safe to conclude that your theory is flawed.
P^3
So Arius and his bishops weren't wrong? The Bishops are not protected. They can apostasise.
It doesn't have to be in the "first degree". It just has to be public. Read the link I provided on Benedict, and then do your homework on the others. I'm not going to spoon-feed this to you.
Pope Paul IV laid down the law Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which states that heretics are barred by divine law from the Papacy, even if all the Cardinals are in agreement.
I'm not rejecting anything. Paul IV wasn't the only one to say that a heretic cannot be the pope. Read what St. Bellarmine said. This is not an extreme opinion. This is the unanimous law of the Church. And I agree that private revelation doesn't really matter to prove my case, but it does help. There is a prophecy that was posted on a different thread in the Sede section that said that the lineage of the Popes would "seem to have been extinguished" for some time. Prophecies do predict an extended vacancy of the Holy See. But I'm sure you are going to ignore that too.
are you really saying that the Pope Julious wasn't validly elected?
That's a little extreme for a sede ...
Where did I say that? All I've said is that John23 and Co. weren't validly elected.
oh so you aren't saying that?
are you saying that +L apostatized?
Sigh...your your own worse enemy. Your arrogance pollutes all you write.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 12:35:39 PM
Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559
....
This post was extremely lengthy, but masterful as a demonstration of the general principle. I'm not sure it directly affects tradical's argument, because he's disputing about this (or rather these) particular pontiffs rather than the principle. He seems to admit the principle; he simply denies it as regarding our here and now.
Regardless, I have saved this post
tout entier for future reference and citation. Thanks very much, Sbyvl.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 23, 2014, 02:47:36 PM
Sigh...your your own worse enemy. Your arrogance pollutes all you write.
Sorry,I see the rejection of the 'dogmatic facts' as an arrogation of the authority to decide what is and what is not Catholic Doctrine to suit one's own beliefs and preferences.
These doctrines a clear, from reputable pre-conciliar sources, but they are rejected because they don't suit the sedevacantist worldview.
This is the epitome of confirmation bias.
wrt:
QuoteSbyvl: All I've said is that John23 and Co. weren't validly elected.
All I've done is demonstrate that it is a dogmatic fact that they were validly elected based on Church doctrine with no interpretation required on my part.
Having reviewed the 1986 conference, it is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre held the same belief: The post conciliar Popes were validly elected.
Whether or not they have each lost their Papacy is another issue entirely.
P^3
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 23, 2014, 04:05:31 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 12:35:39 PM
Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559
....
This post was extremely lengthy, but masterful as a demonstration of the general principle. I'm not sure it directly affects tradical's argument, because he's disputing about this (or rather these) particular pontiffs rather than the principle. He seems to admit the principle; he simply denies it as regarding our here and now.
Regardless, I have saved this post tout entier for future reference and citation. Thanks very much, Sbyvl.
JuniorC,
I can't recall if I gave you this reference:
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/94-contra-sedevacantism/293-cum-ex-apostolatus-and-loss-of-office.html
P^3
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 04:06:37 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 23, 2014, 02:47:36 PM
Sigh...your your own worse enemy. Your arrogance pollutes all you write.
Sorry,I see the rejection of the 'dogmatic facts' as an arrogation of the authority to decide what is and what is not Catholic Doctrine to suit one's own beliefs and preferences.
These doctrines a clear, from reputable pre-conciliar sources, but they are rejected because they don't suit the sedevacantist worldview.
This is the epitome of confirmation bias.
wrt:
QuoteSbyvl: All I've said is that John23 and Co. weren't validly elected.
All I've done is demonstrate that it is a dogmatic fact that they were validly elected based on Church doctrine with no interpretation required on my part.
Having reviewed the 1986 conference, it is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre held the same belief: The post conciliar Popes were validly elected.
Whether or not they have each lost their Papacy is another issue entirely.
P^3
Its not what your saying but how....sigh.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 23, 2014, 04:16:39 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 04:06:37 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 23, 2014, 02:47:36 PM
Sigh...your your own worse enemy. Your arrogance pollutes all you write.
Sorry,I see the rejection of the 'dogmatic facts' as an arrogation of the authority to decide what is and what is not Catholic Doctrine to suit one's own beliefs and preferences.
These doctrines a clear, from reputable pre-conciliar sources, but they are rejected because they don't suit the sedevacantist worldview.
This is the epitome of confirmation bias.
wrt:
QuoteSbyvl: All I've said is that John23 and Co. weren't validly elected.
All I've done is demonstrate that it is a dogmatic fact that they were validly elected based on Church doctrine with no interpretation required on my part.
Having reviewed the 1986 conference, it is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre held the same belief: The post conciliar Popes were validly elected.
Whether or not they have each lost their Papacy is another issue entirely.
P^3
Its not what your saying but how....sigh.
So are you saying that you agree with what I have written just wish I would express it differently?
P^3
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:41:37 PM
The point about dogmatic facts is you either accept them or you don't as the Church understands them. That is the key to this whole conundrum, understanding the doctrines etc as the Church does.
So you claim, but you're absolutely refusing, as far as I can tell, to show me or anyone else here how this is the key to this whole conundrum. Let me try and show you:
Suppose I accept all you have to say on dogmatic facts-- and if it weren't for my objection, I probably would-- then what happens? Well, we still have an unparalleled crisis in the Church where a Protestantized liturgy has been imposed from Rome for over 40 years, while the same Rome has been embracing and encouraging others to embrace the worst kinds of false ecumenism, and holding up a false interpretation of religious liberty which their predecessors literally called "madness." We still have a situation where the Church of Rome itself appears to be teaching, if not outright heresy, then at least errors that have been condemned outright. Not condemned as "cannot safely be taught," which implies that it might be possible, under certain circumstances, for them to be taught safely-- but condemned
absolutely, meaning "no exceptions." To me, that looks a heck of a lot like the Church teaching error, which is part of what "defection" means to me.
So as far as I can tell, what you are telling us is, accept that the Pope is the Pope, just don't listen to anything he says. How is that the key to the whole conundrum? How does that solve anything?
To me, your dogmatic facts argument truly looks like finding an excuse to believe what you want to believe and ignoring all the opposing evidence, because it looks too unthinkable. I think it's time to play turnabout, because turnabout is fair play. I've told you exactly what I would have to do if I accepted your argument; will you tell me what you would have to do if you accepted mine? What exactly is it about sedevacantism that's so horrible, so unthinkable-- when the SSPX et al. already essentially act like sedevacantists, seldom, if ever, listening to anything he has to say, especially on doctrine, and denying the validity of his canonizations-- which are also held to be dogmatic facts? Or do you condemn the SSPX along with us? And if so, what for? What is is they're disobeying that's so horribly wrong? How is what they're doing soooo much worse than what St. Athanasius did?
QuoteI don't have time to go through it all hear as the 'bandwidth' is to constrained.
Look, if you don't have the time, you don't have the time. Duty of state comes first. But when you make post after post just examining one argument, and then excusing yourself from all the others, it does become a touch harder to believe. It starts to look like denial, and refusal to deal with any argument but the one where you think you're strongest. Moreover, an apologist should always seek the argument that is most likely to convince, not the one that is most intellectually rigorous: you're dealing with real people, so you have to adapt to your audience. I tell you once again that to me it looks like absolute theological quibbling to focus on "dogmatic facts" in the face of the "canonization" of a man who apparently unrepentantly sinned against the First Commandment as the Church has always understood it. If you do not face that argument, I guarantee that I'm going to see your argument as an example of "the letter killeth," and think that you're ignoring "the spirit that giveth life."
If you don't answer any other question: What would you have to do if what we're arguing is right, and the see of St. Peter, whether before or after the election, has now become vacant?
QuoteI suggest you review the Catechism of the Council of Trent - particularly the section on the 'One Holy Catholic Church' and obtain a copy of Ott. - I have a link on my blog to an e-copy.
These two resources have been invaluable to me in developing a good perspective on this crisis and how to maintain a firm footing.
I have both, and I also consider them to have helped me considerably.
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 04:12:05 PM
I can't recall if I gave you this reference:
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/94-contra-sedevacantism/293-cum-ex-apostolatus-and-loss-of-office.html
You did, and I read it, again,
tout entier. I think the other article that you referenced, by Siscoe of the Remnant, I believe, was far better done. All I remember taking away from this first one was a mild dislike for the manner of both of the interlocutors. Siscoe's piece, by contrast, while not wholly convincing, was far more informative and gave me a great deal to discuss with my roommates. For example, the fact that Bellarmine apparently holds that Liberius (if memory serves) was truly deposed by the Roman clergy on the mere grounds that he
seemed to be a heretic, is very interesting indeed.
So back to the original question: Why can't trad get along?
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reocities.com%2FPentagon%2FQuarters%2F7229%2Forg.gif&hash=1ddcfa3b975ba196b884a5328a2e1e2f8e20fd39)
Because there are a number of different 'sub-cultures' present with different assumptions concerning the pre-conciliar doctrine of the Church and the nature / severity of this crisis.
Lumping sede, SSPX, Eccleisa Dei into one bunch reveals some commonality at the top level of artifacts. In general we dress the same, have similar liturgies, catechisms etc.
It is at the lower two levels that the differences become apparent.
Most of the differences will deal with two elements: The Papacy / occupant of the See of Peter and doctrines / dogmas of the Church.
Concerning doctrines: A good example is the ongoing debate about the pre-conciliar doctrine of dogmatic facts.
Some will accept that the post-conciliar Popes were validly elected and have not been declared manifest or notorious heretics by either their own clear admission or that of the Church.
This is the dividing line between the sedevacantists and the SSPX /FSSP et al.
At the assumption level (in general) the sedevacantists have strong assumption that is something along the lines of: They (modern Catholics, hierarchy) can't do what they're doing and still be the Catholic Church.
The list goes on.
In the final analysis, the reason why 'trads' can't get along is because there is insufficient overlap in their cultural beliefs and assumptions.
If all accepted the pre-conciliar doctrine of the Church as the Church understood them the trads would be able to unite as the doctrine etc would foster a strong commonality in their cultures.
Until this happens, 'trads' won't get along.
P^3
Well I certainly wasn't expecting an on topic post at this stage of the thread. Nobody expects an on topic post. ;D
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 23, 2014, 04:33:37 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 04:12:05 PM
I can't recall if I gave you this reference:
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/94-contra-sedevacantism/293-cum-ex-apostolatus-and-loss-of-office.html
You did, and I read it, again, tout entier. I think the other article that you referenced, by Siscoe of the Remnant, I believe, was far better done. All I remember taking away from this first one was a mild dislike for the manner of both of the interlocutors. Siscoe's piece, by contrast, while not wholly convincing, was far more informative and gave me a great deal to discuss with my roommates. For example, the fact that Bellarmine apparently holds that Liberius (if memory serves) was truly deposed by the Roman clergy on the mere grounds that he seemed to be a heretic, is very interesting indeed.
Boniface (unam sanctam) has some training and appears to be an academic, that comes through in his writing style.
Siscoe, if I remember correctly is not academically trained, hence the easier writing.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 23, 2014, 04:26:27 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 22, 2014, 08:41:37 PM
The point about dogmatic facts is you either accept them or you don't as the Church understands them. That is the key to this whole conundrum, understanding the doctrines etc as the Church does.
So you claim, but you're absolutely refusing, as far as I can tell, to show me or anyone else here how this is the key to this whole conundrum. Let me try and show you:
Suppose I accept all you have to say on dogmatic facts-- and if it weren't for my objection, I probably would-- then what happens? Well, we still have an unparalleled crisis in the Church where a Protestantized liturgy has been imposed from Rome for over 40 years, while the same Rome has been embracing and encouraging others to embrace the worst kinds of false ecumenism, and holding up a false interpretation of religious liberty which their predecessors literally called "madness." We still have a situation where the Church of Rome itself appears to be teaching, if not outright heresy, then at least errors that have been condemned outright. Not condemned as "cannot safely be taught," which implies that it might be possible, under certain circumstances, for them to be taught safely-- but condemned absolutely, meaning "no exceptions." To me, that looks a heck of a lot like the Church teaching error, which is part of what "defection" means to me.
So as far as I can tell, what you are telling us is, accept that the Pope is the Pope, just don't listen to anything he says. How is that the key to the whole conundrum? How does that solve anything?
To me, your dogmatic facts argument truly looks like finding an excuse to believe what you want to believe and ignoring all the opposing evidence, because it looks too unthinkable. I think it's time to play turnabout, because turnabout is fair play. I've told you exactly what I would have to do if I accepted your argument; will you tell me what you would have to do if you accepted mine? What exactly is it about sedevacantism that's so horrible, so unthinkable-- when the SSPX et al. already essentially act like sedevacantists, seldom, if ever, listening to anything he has to say, especially on doctrine, and denying the validity of his canonizations-- which are also held to be dogmatic facts? Or do you condemn the SSPX along with us? And if so, what for? What is is they're disobeying that's so horribly wrong? How is what they're doing soooo much worse than what St. Athanasius did?
QuoteI don't have time to go through it all hear as the 'bandwidth' is to constrained.
Look, if you don't have the time, you don't have the time. Duty of state comes first. But when you make post after post just examining one argument, and then excusing yourself from all the others, it does become a touch harder to believe. It starts to look like denial, and refusal to deal with any argument but the one where you think you're strongest. Moreover, an apologist should always seek the argument that is most likely to convince, not the one that is most intellectually rigorous: you're dealing with real people, so you have to adapt to your audience. I tell you once again that to me it looks like absolute theological quibbling to focus on "dogmatic facts" in the face of the "canonization" of a man who apparently unrepentantly sinned against the First Commandment as the Church has always understood it. If you do not face that argument, I guarantee that I'm going to see your argument as an example of "the letter killeth," and think that you're ignoring "the spirit that giveth life."
If you don't answer any other question: What would you have to do if what we're arguing is right, and the see of St. Peter, whether before or after the election, has now become vacant?
QuoteI suggest you review the Catechism of the Council of Trent - particularly the section on the 'One Holy Catholic Church' and obtain a copy of Ott. - I have a link on my blog to an e-copy.
These two resources have been invaluable to me in developing a good perspective on this crisis and how to maintain a firm footing.
I have both, and I also consider them to have helped me considerably.
Good post. Thank you!
Aeternitus, what is your personal view of "sedevacantism" with some detail?
Quote from: RobertJS on August 23, 2014, 05:10:31 PM
Aeternitus, what is your personal view of "sedevacantism" with some detail?
Why?
Quote from: Aeternitus on August 23, 2014, 05:12:05 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 23, 2014, 05:10:31 PM
Aeternitus, what is your personal view of "sedevacantism" with some detail?
Why?
I, and I think others knowing your contribution to this forum, would be interested. I understand if you refuse to answer.
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 04:45:36 PM
Well I certainly wasn't expecting an on topic post at this stage of the thread. Nobody expects an on topic post. ;D
Yeah, I was just thinking about making one earlier today but saw that the thread was too far gone. Anyway it really doesn't help the whole situation when we can't even agree on what a trad IS. Commonly accepted definitions run the gamut from 1) a person who enthusiastically embraces all V2 teachings/papal claimants/disciplines and is basically a neocath BUT still promotes and has a preference for the TLM "because it's prettier" to 2) dogmatic sedevacantist home-aloners, with many many other "in-between" perspectives which are still no less adamant.
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 04:43:03 PM
So back to the original question: Why can't trad get along?
Because there are a number of different 'sub-cultures' present with different assumptions concerning the pre-conciliar doctrine of the Church and the nature / severity of this crisis.
Lumping sede, SSPX, Eccleisa Dei into one bunch reveals some commonality at the top level of artifacts. In general we dress the same, have similar liturgies, catechisms etc.
It is at the lower two levels that the differences become apparent.
Most of the differences will deal with two elements: The Papacy / occupant of the See of Peter and doctrines / dogmas of the Church.
Concerning doctrines: A good example is the ongoing debate about the pre-conciliar doctrine of dogmatic facts.
Some will accept that the post-conciliar Popes were validly elected and have not been declared manifest or notorious heretics by either their own clear admission or that of the Church.
This is the dividing line between the sedevacantists and the SSPX /FSSP et al.
At the assumption level (in general) the sedevacantists have strong assumption that is something along the lines of: They (modern Catholics, hierarchy) can't do what they're doing and still be the Catholic Church.
The list goes on.
In the final analysis, the reason why 'trads' can't get along is because there is insufficient overlap in their cultural beliefs and assumptions.
If all accepted the pre-conciliar doctrine of the Church as the Church understood them the trads would be able to unite as the doctrine etc would foster a strong commonality in their cultures.
Until this happens, 'trads' won't get along.
P^3
In general, this is a pretty good post. There are some real insights here. However, it's totally unrealistic to suppose that trads will be able to unite in their understanding of the pre-conciliar doctrine when, realistically, all of them are opposing the one man who can bring unity to the Church: the pope (or claimant, depending on your position). Bp. Williamson, whatever you may think about his other positions, is dead on target with this point.
Quote
Some will accept that the post-conciliar Popes were validly elected and have not been declared manifest or notorious heretics by either their own clear admission or that of the Church.
This is the dividing line between the sedevacantists and the SSPX /FSSP et al.
I observe, however, that the SSPX also rejects a particular brand of dogmatic facts-- papal canonizations. I believe the level of theological consensus for this brand of dogmatic fact is at least as high as that for the validity of a papal election. Thus, if the sedevacantists are bad, it would seem, by your own argument, that the SSPX is just as bad, or perhaps even worse.
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 04:47:18 PM
Boniface (unam sanctam) has some training and appears to be an academic, that comes through in his writing style.
Siscoe, if I remember correctly is not academically trained, hence the easier writing.
Um, honestly, I perceived it as being almost entirely the other way around. Siscoe's article seemed far more coherent, well-reasoned, and polite. Both interlocutors on unamsanctam (the sedeplenist
and the sedevacantist) seemed a little bit juvenile, and I was frequently unimpressed with their arguments.
Quote from: Aeternitus on August 23, 2014, 05:07:55 PM
Good post. Thank you!
Aeternitus, you are quite welcome. :toth:
Oremus pro invicem (let us pray for one another).
It doesn't surprise me that "Aeternitus" would refrain from giving his personal view of sedevacantism when directly asked. Shouldn't any Catholic profess his faith when asked....especially when asked when you are using a fake name?
Tradical quotes Hunter as proof of the doctrine that the unanimous acceptance of a Pope Elect by the Bishops creates a dogmatic fact, i.e. makes the legitimacy of his election infallibly true. For this he only quotes Hunter, as Billot and others merely speak of the universal and pacifical acceptance of the whole Universal Church, not merely the bishops.
So let's take a closer look at what Hunter is saying:
QuoteFirst, 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.
1. "if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope",
- Far from impossible, this situation already happened during the Western Schism, and the uncertainty lasted for 40 years. Therefore, it is entirely possible that it could be happening now.
2. "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"
- this presupposes that there is a Pope, but what happened during every period of
sede vacante, or, what happened during the four decades of the Western Schism? Did the bishops of the world (the Teaching Church) temporarily lose the ability to teach? To say such a thing would not only be ridiculous but also at least an error because it would mean that the Constitution of the Church has changed from the one divinely instituted by Christ, which is impossible.
3. "if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise would be falsified, which is impossible"
- But during the Western Schism the uncertainty was not resolved for 40 years, and yet obviously the Teaching Church still exercised the power of teaching, and Christ's promise did not fail. So a similar situation is possible today as well. What is certain is that one day it will be resolved.
Quote
...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.
This presupposes the existence of a true Pope, who is the head mentioned above, so that if the entire body of bishops were to adhere to an antipope while a true pope was alive they would be separated from their head.
But if we are in a period of vacancy then there is no pope and no head of the body of bishops, so if the body of bishops were to unknowingly recognize an antipope they would merely make an error of fact and would not be separated from their head, since they would not have a head during that period.
If we consider all of this, then we can see that the doctrine expressed in
Cum ex Apostolatus - that the election of a heretic would be invalid even if accepted by every single cardinal, agrees perfectly with the dogmatic fact that the pacific and universal adherence of the
whole Church (not merely the bishops) to a Pontiff makes his election infallibly legitimate, because the adherence of merely the cardinals or the bishops is not the same as the universal adherence of the whole Church.
Therefore, Tradical's basis for disproving sedevacantism is not correct.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 23, 2014, 04:26:27 PM
If you don't answer any other question: What would you have to do if what we're arguing is right, and the see of St. Peter, whether before or after the election, has now become vacant?
If 'sedevacantism' is correct and the See of Peter has been vacant since V2, then ultimately I would logically arrive at the following conclusion:
Jesus Christ was not the Son of God because:
1. The dogmatic fact established by the acceptance of the Popes would be false, meaning that the Bishops in union with Rome were unable to determine who was the principle of unity as declared by Vatican I,
2. Without the principle of unity of faith and unity of government (as a result of #1) the Church loses the mark of unity.
3. Without all Four Marks the social organism known as the Catholic Church ceases to be the Church of Christ
4. Jesus' promise of indefectibility as well as the First Vatican Council declaration of the perpetual line of successors is broken.
That's it in a nutshell.
P^3
PS. Going offline for a few weeks now so this is my last post. If you wish to continue the discussion please PM me. (thought better about exposing my email to robomailers)
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 07:24:59 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 23, 2014, 04:26:27 PM
If you don't answer any other question: What would you have to do if what we're arguing is right, and the see of St. Peter, whether before or after the election, has now become vacant?
If 'sedevacantism' is correct and the See of Peter has been vacant since V2, then ultimately I would logically arrive at the following conclusion:
Jesus Christ was not the Son of God because:
1. The dogmatic fact established by the acceptance of the Popes would be false, meaning that the Bishops in union with Rome were unable to determine who was the principle of unity as declared by Vatican I,
2. Without the principle of unity of faith and unity of government (as a result of #1) the Church loses the mark of unity.
3. Without all Four Marks the social organism known as the Catholic Church ceases to be the Church of Christ
4. Jesus' promise of indefectibility as well as the First Vatican Council declaration of the perpetual line of successors is broken.
Your logic is deeply flawed, otherwise you might say the same thing for the four decades of the Western Schism or the three years of sede vacante from 1268 to 1271 , since in the former case the bishops were unable to determine who was the real pope, and in the latter case there was no pope. Yet the Church lost neither Unity, Holiness, Catholicity nor Apostolicity, it remained indefectible and the promise of perpetual successors was not broken. Following your logic, the conclusions you presented above would also apply to the historical examples I gave.
As I demonstrated above, you can't use Hunter to prove your claim regarding the dogmatic fact, since what he wrote can only be applied to solve the question when several popes exist in a given time, only one of which is the real pope, and the others being antipopes. In the case of a sede vacante, i.e. when there is no true pope, regardless of how many antipopes there are at the time, what Hunter wrote is inapplicable.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 23, 2014, 04:05:31 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on August 23, 2014, 12:35:39 PM
Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559
....
This post was extremely lengthy, but masterful as a demonstration of the general principle.
...
Regardless, I have saved this post tout entier for future reference and citation. Thanks very much, Sbyvl.
This.
Quote from: Recovering NOer on August 23, 2014, 05:28:10 PM
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 04:45:36 PM
Well I certainly wasn't expecting an on topic post at this stage of the thread. Nobody expects an on topic post. ;D
Yeah, I was just thinking about making one earlier today but saw that the thread was too far gone. Anyway it really doesn't help the whole situation when we can't even agree on what a trad IS. Commonly accepted definitions run the gamut from 1) a person who enthusiastically embraces all V2 teachings/papal claimants/disciplines and is basically a neocath BUT still promotes and has a preference for the TLM "because it's prettier" to 2) dogmatic sedevacantist home-aloners, with many many other "in-between" perspectives which are still no less adamant.
The reason some cannot see a clear definition of what defines a Traditional Catholic is mainly because many have lost the Idea of variety in unity. Many trads...and mostly SSPX..but more than a few NO Trads demand a monolithic consensus on the personal implimentation of faith and morals....they are intolerant of any who are not exactly like them or their group...intolerant of those not as holy as they should be....intolerant of those who do not have the same priorities or prayerlife as them....intolerant of even their grammer skills...or willingness to bother. St Paul points out that we are a BODY...with many different and unique jobs to do....Ive always considered my self a calloused heel at the bottom of the foot of the Body of Christ...I think for instance because some here at SD dont understand me in this light I have endured a couple bans and been out in iggy bins. Me personally....I try to be tolerant of fellow trads by seeing them as fitting into certain roles needed in the Body...we would all get along better I think if we remembered St.Pauls description of the Body of Christ.
some callouses demand a trip to the podiatrist
Quote from: Chestertonian on August 24, 2014, 11:35:39 AM
some callouses demand a trip to the podiatrist
Whereas others just ask politely.
Quote from: Stranger on August 23, 2014, 06:57:37 PM
Tradical quotes Hunter as proof of the doctrine that the unanimous acceptance of a Pope Elect by the Bishops creates a dogmatic fact, i.e. makes the legitimacy of his election infallibly true. For this he only quotes Hunter, as Billot and others merely speak of the universal and pacifical acceptance of the whole Universal Church, not merely the bishops.
So let's take a closer look at what Hunter is saying:
QuoteFirst, 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.
1. "if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope",
- Far from impossible, this situation already happened during the Western Schism, and the uncertainty lasted for 40 years. Therefore, it is entirely possible that it could be happening now.
2. "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"
- this presupposes that there is a Pope, but what happened during every period of sede vacante, or, what happened during the four decades of the Western Schism? Did the bishops of the world (the Teaching Church) temporarily lose the ability to teach? To say such a thing would not only be ridiculous but also at least an error because it would mean that the Constitution of the Church has changed from the one divinely instituted by Christ, which is impossible.
3. "if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise would be falsified, which is impossible"
- But during the Western Schism the uncertainty was not resolved for 40 years, and yet obviously the Teaching Church still exercised the power of teaching, and Christ's promise did not fail. So a similar situation is possible today as well. What is certain is that one day it will be resolved.
Quote
...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.
This presupposes the existence of a true Pope, who is the head mentioned above, so that if the entire body of bishops were to adhere to an antipope while a true pope was alive they would be separated from their head. But if we are in a period of vacancy then there is no pope and no head of the body of bishops, so if the body of bishops were to unknowingly recognize an antipope they would merely make an error of fact and would not be separated from their head, since they would not have a head during that period.
If we consider all of this, then we can see that the doctrine expressed in Cum ex Apostolatus - that the election of a heretic would be invalid even if accepted by every single cardinal, agrees perfectly with the dogmatic fact that the pacific and universal adherence of the whole Church (not merely the bishops) to a Pontiff makes his election infallibly legitimate, because the adherence of merely the cardinals or the bishops is not the same as the universal adherence of the whole Church.
Therefore, Tradical's basis for disproving sedevacantism is not correct.
Sorry Stranger, but your reasoning is flawed at the root as you have committed the same logical error at John Daly and John Lane.
QuoteFirst, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope
This is what establishes the dogmatic fact. The secondary portion are reasons why it is so.
It is important to note that it is not just Hunter but Billot, Ott St. Alphone de Ligouri who are all in complete agreement on the doctrine. The difference is in the rational for supporting the existence of the dogmatic fact.
That you believe there is no uncertainty does not logically invalidate the principle as noted.
Recourse to the Western Schism is also mistaken because of this statement
Quote]if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up,
This demonstrates that there must be a way to ascertain who is the valid Vicar of Christ. This demonstrates that the unanimous recognition by the Bishops establishes this fact removing any doubt.
It is important to read the whole and not discard elements that do not coincide with one's beliefs.
Last point, we must accept the teaching of the Church as the Church understands them.
Your assertions are counter to the explicit sense of the text, and the referenced theological texts.
P^3
Quote from: tradical on August 27, 2014, 11:07:38 AM
Quote from: Stranger on August 23, 2014, 06:57:37 PM
Tradical quotes Hunter as proof of the doctrine that the unanimous acceptance of a Pope Elect by the Bishops creates a dogmatic fact, i.e. makes the legitimacy of his election infallibly true. For this he only quotes Hunter, as Billot and others merely speak of the universal and pacifical acceptance of the whole Universal Church, not merely the bishops.
So let's take a closer look at what Hunter is saying:
QuoteFirst, 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.
1. "if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope",
- Far from impossible, this situation already happened during the Western Schism, and the uncertainty lasted for 40 years. Therefore, it is entirely possible that it could be happening now.
2. "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"
- this presupposes that there is a Pope, but what happened during every period of sede vacante, or, what happened during the four decades of the Western Schism? Did the bishops of the world (the Teaching Church) temporarily lose the ability to teach? To say such a thing would not only be ridiculous but also at least an error because it would mean that the Constitution of the Church has changed from the one divinely instituted by Christ, which is impossible.
3. "if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise would be falsified, which is impossible"
- But during the Western Schism the uncertainty was not resolved for 40 years, and yet obviously the Teaching Church still exercised the power of teaching, and Christ's promise did not fail. So a similar situation is possible today as well. What is certain is that one day it will be resolved.
Quote
...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.
This presupposes the existence of a true Pope, who is the head mentioned above, so that if the entire body of bishops were to adhere to an antipope while a true pope was alive they would be separated from their head. But if we are in a period of vacancy then there is no pope and no head of the body of bishops, so if the body of bishops were to unknowingly recognize an antipope they would merely make an error of fact and would not be separated from their head, since they would not have a head during that period.
If we consider all of this, then we can see that the doctrine expressed in Cum ex Apostolatus - that the election of a heretic would be invalid even if accepted by every single cardinal, agrees perfectly with the dogmatic fact that the pacific and universal adherence of the whole Church (not merely the bishops) to a Pontiff makes his election infallibly legitimate, because the adherence of merely the cardinals or the bishops is not the same as the universal adherence of the whole Church.
Therefore, Tradical's basis for disproving sedevacantism is not correct.
Sorry Stranger, but your reasoning is flawed at the root as you have committed the same logical error at John Daly and John Lane.
QuoteFirst, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope
This is what establishes the dogmatic fact. The secondary portion are reasons why it is so.
It is important to note that it is not just Hunter but Billot, Ott St. Alphone de Ligouri who are all in complete agreement on the doctrine. The difference is in the rational for supporting the existence of the dogmatic fact.
That you believe there is no uncertainty does not logically invalidate the principle as noted.
Recourse to the Western Schism is also mistaken because of this statement
Quote]if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up,
This demonstrates that there must be a way to ascertain who is the valid Vicar of Christ. This demonstrates that the unanimous recognition by the Bishops establishes this fact removing any doubt.
It is important to read the whole and not discard elements that do not coincide with one's beliefs.
Last point, we must accept the teaching of the Church as the Church understands them.
Your assertions are counter to the explicit sense of the text, and the referenced theological texts.
P^3
I can't believe you are still ignoring the fact that I have already debunked this. You have ignored my question about the great apostasy and how the majority of bishops can recognize the Antichrist as a true pope.
You ignore the principle behind St. Athanasius' example, teaching us that once the bishops are suspect of heresy, they automatically are not included in the group of bishops who are to recognize which pope.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 27, 2014, 11:30:46 AM
I can't believe you are still ignoring the fact that I have already debunked this. You have ignored my question about the great apostasy and how the majority of bishops can recognize the Antichrist as a true pope.
You ignore the principle behind St. Athanasius' example, teaching us that once the bishops are suspect of heresy, they automatically are not included in the group of bishops who are to recognize which pope.
Hi Robert,
Your question is loaded with your assertions. I do believe that this is 'begging the question'.
You have debunked nothing.
In order for your assertion to be correct then all the bishops of the Church must have apostatized. Basically, I don't think that Archbishop Lefebvre (to name one of many) apostatized. There are others but since you are asserting that they 'all' committed that sin ... will one case disproves your entire thesis.
Logically, you are taking be generalizations and trying to apply to a specific situation.
All you have to do is prove that every single bishop committed apostasy - well good luck with that and by the way - if you do go through all umpteen thousand and prove your point you then run into another doctrine that is higher than the dogmatic facts: The indefectibility of the Church.
P^3
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on August 24, 2014, 05:44:34 AM
Quote from: Recovering NOer on August 23, 2014, 05:28:10 PM
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 04:45:36 PM
Well I certainly wasn't expecting an on topic post at this stage of the thread. Nobody expects an on topic post. ;D
Yeah, I was just thinking about making one earlier today but saw that the thread was too far gone. Anyway it really doesn't help the whole situation when we can't even agree on what a trad IS. Commonly accepted definitions run the gamut from 1) a person who enthusiastically embraces all V2 teachings/papal claimants/disciplines and is basically a neocath BUT still promotes and has a preference for the TLM "because it's prettier" to 2) dogmatic sedevacantist home-aloners, with many many other "in-between" perspectives which are still no less adamant.
The reason some cannot see a clear definition of what defines a Traditional Catholic is mainly because many have lost the Idea of variety in unity. Many trads...and mostly SSPX..but more than a few NO Trads demand a monolithic consensus on the personal implimentation of faith and morals....they are intolerant of any who are not exactly like them or their group...intolerant of those not as holy as they should be....intolerant of those who do not have the same priorities or prayerlife as them....intolerant of even their grammer skills...or willingness to bother. St Paul points out that we are a BODY...with many different and unique jobs to do....Ive always considered my self a calloused heel at the bottom of the foot of the Body of Christ...I think for instance because some here at SD dont understand me in this light I have endured a couple bans and been out in iggy bins. Me personally....I try to be tolerant of fellow trads by seeing them as fitting into certain roles needed in the Body...we would all get along better I think if we remembered St.Pauls description of the Body of Christ.
I'm to the point I don't care what the definition of trad is. I just try to be orthodox. Trent through VI is my measuring stick.
Quote from: tradical on August 27, 2014, 11:07:38 AM
Last point, we must accept the teachings of the Church as the Church understands them.
So how does the Church understand the teachings of Vatican II on ecumenism? I assume that She understands them as Karol Wojtyla, ostensibly the supreme interpretive authority, understood them. And he considered Assisi to be, as it were, the incarnation of Vatican II. The Church has ostensibly confirmed that this is the case by canonizing Wojtyla. It follows, then, that one must understand ecumenism as Wojtyla understood and practiced it.
But Pius XI did not understand ecumenism as Wojtyla understood it. It follows that Pius XI did not understand the teaching of the Church as the Church understands it. Now, he was so emphatic on the issue that we can hardly suppose good will (see
Mortalium animos, throughout-- it's not a long document). It follows, then, that he and his predecessors (who apparently agreed with him) were in mortal sin against the faith. In fact, maybe they weren't even Catholic. After all, Wojtyla said that the Church must practice ecumenism as a policy that can neither be reversed nor ignored. But if Pius XI-- and
all his predecessors-- ignored it, and worse, fought against it, it seems like they were fighting against what the Church now teaches. It follows that they weren't Catholics. It follows from that that they weren't popes.
Oops.
You do see the problem, right? Can you
actually resolve it, or are you going to claim that accepting the 'dogmatic fact' that Francis is pope somehow resolves it, without in any way explaining how? I really don't see how you expect to convince anyone this way.
Look at St. Thomas' articles. Yes, he gives an answer, but he doesn't
just give an answer. He explains it,
and refutes the objections,
and explains the refutations. As an apologist, that's what you need to do, if you mean to convince anyone.
Would that I had the time and expertise to answer your own objections to sedevacantism-- although I don't see how it follows that Bergoglio must still be pope just because the bishops continue to recognize him as such, since that seems to be what you're arguing. But please, please, please, ignore this last paragraph and answer the rest of my post, if you answer at all.
Quote from: ResRev on July 31, 2014, 09:46:03 AM
Maybe it's because we are Trads that we fall into a few categories:
Some are just that passionate about the Faith and Our Lord. Traditionally speaking, a good bulk care enough to die for the Faith. Eh, what's a screaming match or two in the grand scheme of things?
Some are outcasts anyway, why not go whole hog, huh?
Some are a-holes, that just the way of things.
Some people mistype (maybe :shrug: )
Some people misunderstand
Some people are too sensitive
Some people come from different cultures than others and that's just how they roll
Any more?
Proverbs says it best.
Proverbs 13:10
Among the proud there are always contentions: but they that do all things with counsel, are ruled by wisdom.
Douay Rheims translation
It's about the deadly sin of pride and the idolatry of worshipping one's own opinion instead of acknowledging the fact that God gave every human Free Will which is the source of all freedom of religion.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 30, 2014, 08:48:24 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 27, 2014, 11:07:38 AM
Last point, we must accept the teachings of the Church as the Church understands them.
... I don't see how it follows that Bergoglio must still be pope just because the bishops continue to recognize him as such, since that seems to be what you're arguing. But please, please, please, ignore this last paragraph and answer the rest of my post, if you answer at all.
You have misunderstood the doctrine.
At the moment that he was elected and accepted by the Bishops of the Church the infallible dogmatic fact was established the he was Pope. This does not 'maintain' him in the Papacy as it does not confer impeccability.
So, if you accept the doctrine of the dogmatic facts as noted earlier, then Pope Francis was Pope at his election. In order to prove sedevacantism, it is necessary to prove that he lapsed into heresy thereafter.
I will look at your other assertion in a while (few days etc)
P^3
Quote from: MiriamB on August 30, 2014, 12:35:07 PMProverbs says it best.
Proverbs 13:10 Among the proud there are always contentions: but they that do all things with counsel, are ruled by wisdom.
The big question is, why do such a disproportionate number of those prideful happen to be trads?
I guess another part of it is that in the Novus Ordo, or pretty much any other religious group, there's just a lot more people and it's easier to simply filter out the small percentage of narcissists, attention whores, etc like they don't even exist while you hang around your own "clique" the vast majority of the time. In a group that's much much smaller, though, even minor differences in other people are much more "in your face" and when you can't find anyone else like yourself the way you could in a huge group like the NO it becomes a much bigger temptation to try and shove your own arbitrary preferences down other people's throats or to nitpick those of others.
Quote from: MiriamB on August 30, 2014, 12:35:07 PM
Proverbs says it best.
Proverbs 13:10 Among the proud there are always contentions: but they that do all things with counsel, are ruled by wisdom.
Douay Rheims translation
OK, so the bolded part, according to your interpretation, reads like a blanket condemnation of all trads-- is it safe to assume that you are yourself a trad and thus that you include yourself in that condemnation? If so, it would be nice to hear that explicitly-- otherwise it reads like you're just dropping into a discussion to condemn every one who's taking part in it.
As to the non-bolded part, assuming that the first part is applied to trads (and if it weren't, it's hard to see how it would be apropos), the second part would then seem to imply that the NO establishment does all things with counsel, and are ruled by wisdom-- presumably incarnated in the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
That's a pretty tough pill to swallow.
All in all, I'm going to say I really don't think this is the best Bible verse to apply to the situation. Personally, I prefer "I shall strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered."
Quote
It's about the deadly sin of pride and the idolatry of worshipping one's own opinion instead of acknowledging the fact that God gave every human Free Will which is the source of all freedom of religion.
I don't understand what the latter part of this sentence has to do with the rest of the post. How would acknowledging the fact that God gave every human Free Will do away with the deadly sin of pride and the idolatry of worshipping one's own opinion? If I'm free to choose whatever I like, won't I be tempted to pride and the worshipping of my own opinion even more? Especially if that freedom extends so far that I'm allowed to choose whatever religion I like?
And were the popes of the past, who condemned that idea that one was free to choose whatever religion one liked, all horrible, prideful sinners and idolators who worshipped their own opinions, then enshrined them in magisterial documents where they condemned the opposing opinions? And is it only since 1958 that we've had popes who are not such horrible, prideful sinners and idolators?
It seems to me that to ask the question is to answer it.
JC, both posts 202 and 206 of yours were excellent.
:)
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 30, 2014, 08:48:24 AM
Quote from: tradical on August 27, 2014, 11:07:38 AM
Last point, we must accept the teachings of the Church as the Church understands them.
So how does the Church understand the teachings of Vatican II on ecumenism? I assume that She understands them as Karol Wojtyla, ostensibly the supreme interpretive authority, understood them. And he considered Assisi to be, as it were, the incarnation of Vatican II. The Church has ostensibly confirmed that this is the case by canonizing Wojtyla. It follows, then, that one must understand ecumenism as Wojtyla understood and practiced it.
But Pius XI did not understand ecumenism as Wojtyla understood it. It follows that Pius XI did not understand the teaching of the Church as the Church understands it. Now, he was so emphatic on the issue that we can hardly suppose good will (see Mortalium animos, throughout-- it's not a long document). It follows, then, that he and his predecessors (who apparently agreed with him) were in mortal sin against the faith. In fact, maybe they weren't even Catholic. After all, Wojtyla said that the Church must practice ecumenism as a policy that can neither be reversed nor ignored. But if Pius XI-- and all his predecessors-- ignored it, and worse, fought against it, it seems like they were fighting against what the Church now teaches. It follows that they weren't Catholics. It follows from that that they weren't popes.
Oops.
You do see the problem, right? Can you actually resolve it, or are you going to claim that accepting the 'dogmatic fact' that Francis is pope somehow resolves it, without in any way explaining how? I really don't see how you expect to convince anyone this way.
Look at St. Thomas' articles. Yes, he gives an answer, but he doesn't just give an answer. He explains it, and refutes the objections, and explains the refutations. As an apologist, that's what you need to do, if you mean to convince anyone.
Would that I had the time and expertise to answer your own objections to sedevacantism-- although I don't see how it follows that Bergoglio must still be pope just because the bishops continue to recognize him as such, since that seems to be what you're arguing. But please, please, please, ignore this last paragraph and answer the rest of my post, if you answer at all.
Hi JuniorC,
I have started work on a 'reply' - you will find the current draft here: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/08/dealing-with-argumentative-attacks-sub.html
You have asked why I don't use St. Thomas' method for responding to Sedevacantists?
Because, the theories you put forth are simply ill founded upon wrong assumptions that you fail to bring forth.
I'm guessing that the 'assumption' is rooted in what understanding you have of the infallibility of the Church, Pope, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, Councils, disciplinary laws and dogmatic facts. However you did not put it forward in a cogent argument.
Instead you took your argument and inverted it.
For the point of the argument I have pulled it apart and reordered it as much as time would allow (way too much).
and all of this comes back to one thing:
1. There is a dogmatic fact that establishes that at his election Pope Francis and his post-conciliar predecessors were all validly elected.
2. Your objections stand in contradiction to this fact and the doctrine of the Church.
3.
You need to work through your objections and reconcile them with the fact that Pope Francis is the Pope.
4. The place to start is your assumptions. As noted, if you assumption leads you into a contradiction with Church teaching - re-evaluate your reasoning.
I have to go!
P^3
QuoteOK, so the bolded part, according to your interpretation, reads like a blanket condemnation of all trads-- is it safe to assume that you are yourself a trad and thus that you include yourself in that condemnation? If so, it would be nice to hear that explicitly-- otherwise it reads like you're just dropping into a discussion to condemn every one who's taking part in it.
As to the non-bolded part, assuming that the first part is applied to trads (and if it weren't, it's hard to see how it would be apropos), the second part would then seem to imply that the NO establishment does all things with counsel, and are ruled by wisdom-- presumably incarnated in the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
One can respond defensively or take a post within the context of the original query. You have chosen to be defensive which means, Junior, you consider your own pridefulness as a besetting sin and the idea that you worship your own opinion hit close to home.
All people suffer from pride as a consequence of the fall of Adam. Trads are no different.
Recovering NOer, you have hit the proverbial nail with your statement below. I can add to it that forums where anonymity reigns seem to harbor opinionators who think that theirs is the only valid viewpoint and will argue until they're dead.
QuoteI guess another part of it is that in the Novus Ordo, or pretty much any other religious group, there's just a lot more people and it's easier to simply filter out the small percentage of narcissists, attention whores, etc like they don't even exist while you hang around your own "clique" the vast majority of the time. In a group that's much much smaller, though, even minor differences in other people are much more "in your face" and when you can't find anyone else like yourself the way you could in a huge group like the NO it becomes a much bigger temptation to try and shove your own arbitrary preferences down other people's throats or to nitpick those of others.
Quote from: tradical on August 31, 2014, 05:14:02 PM
I have started work on a 'reply' - you will find the current draft here: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/08/dealing-with-argumentative-attacks-sub.html
*sigh* I knew I shouldn't have used a tongue-in-cheek argument, but I was so sick and tired of being ignored that I finally gave in.
I'm really, really sorry if you put a lot of work into this. The argument that I used is not one that I actually believed. It was intended to help you understand the problem, and possibly to finally provoke a response to my real argument. My real argument is best exemplified by one of my earlier posts-- I can't find the number right now.
If it's helpful to you at all, I don't exactly believe all of the arguments laid out in your original flowchart. In particular, I don't believe point 7, because it's clear that even if ecumenism is what the "Church" teaches now, it wasn't at the time, and therefore the popes of that time were clearly not heretics. Your argument that infallibility does not apply to XYZ statements may well be correct, as well.
The problem is that we have a considerable period of time over which the "Church" is apparently teaching the opposite of what it taught before. Then the "Church" goes further and "canonizes" the principal exponent of this new teaching. How is an ordinary Catholic ever supposed to realize that what the "Church" is teaching is actually an error that the pre-conciliar popes characterized as "madness"?
But if they can't tell, then it seems clear that the "Church" has led people into error, which the Church ought not, according to Christ's promises, to be able to do.
Quote
You have asked why I don't use St. Thomas' method for responding to Sedevacantists?
Because, the theories you put forth are simply ill founded upon wrong assumptions that you fail to bring forth.
I have brought forth my assumptions as best I know how, in good faith, repeatedly, hoping that you would answer my actual objection instead of just trying to win the argument. I admit that I finally gave in to a tongue-in-cheek argument that I didn't really believe out of sheer frustration that you wouldn't actually answer my argument or objection, but kept asserting, with no explanation whatsoever, that accepting the dogmatic fact that Bergoglio is pope actually somehow resolves the problem raised by the canonization of Wojtyla.
Basically, I feel like you're treating me with less regard than you would a Protestant. Please, since I know for many Catholics, it is a worse thing to be a sedevacantist than a Protestant, just treat me as you would a Protestant. You wouldn't tell a Protestant, "Your objections stand in contradiction to this fact and the doctrine of the Church," and "You need to work through your objections and reconcile them with the fact that Pope Francis is the Pope." You would help the poor pitiful Protestant work through his objections. At least, I hope you would.
My fear, however, is that you don't want to face my objection on its own terms, because you won't actually be able to answer it. Your article actually seems to take a first crack at it, but it makes three arguments I don't think it's possible to accept: first, that just because Wojtyla never taught anything claimed as "infallible", the "Church" can't possibly have actually led people into error in a way that would actually contradict its infallibility. I can't see how that's true, because in addition to the pope's extraordinary magisterium, there is the ordinary and universal magisterium, by which Wojtyla and the bishops in union with him consistently taught doctrine opposed to that of their predecessors
for a quarter of a century, which when I first became a Catholic, was longer than I had been alive.
Secondly, your argument that the canonization of Wojtyla does not imply that he should be imitated in everything leaves my objection untouched, because he made it clear that ecumenism was something he considered to be very important and beneficial, and the "Church" has said nothing to the contrary for almost half a century at this point. How, I ask you, can an ordinary Catholic not conclude from all this that the Assisi prayer meetings were not, in fact, an outright GOOD thing? Would it not be totally unnatural and perverse to draw any other conclusion?
Thirdly, the argument that Wojtyla could be canonized for his personal life but not his pontificate would be fine,
if it were just a question of his pontificate having had disastrous results despite the fact that he hadn't done anything seriously problematic. As it is, his actions with respect to the First Commandment are
extremely problematic, and it's difficult, if not impossible, for anyone who has read the Old Testament, to imagine that God would allow that to just be glossed over-- which, as far as I can tell, is exactly what you want to do.
One last point. It seems clear to me that you don't consider all dogmatic facts to be equal, because while you attack the sedevacantists for failing to recognize Bergoglio as pope (dogmatic fact 1), you are silent on the question of the SSPX refusing to recognize Karol Wojtyla as a saint (dogmatic fact 2).
I hope I managed to make my assumptions as clear as possible this time. My training is in engineering and formal-type logic, not theology.
Quote from: Miriam_M on August 31, 2014, 02:34:53 PM
JC, both posts 202 and 206 of yours were excellent.
:)
You are most kind, although I fear that I gave in to a certain petulance in 202. In any case, thank you very much for the compliment! :)
Quote from: MiriamB on August 31, 2014, 07:36:38 PM
One can respond defensively or take a post within the context of the original query.
I think in this case one can legitimately do both.
QuoteYou have chosen to be defensive which means, Junior, you consider your own pridefulness as a besetting sin and the idea that you worship your own opinion hit close to home.
I'm actually pretty sure that's not the case. I'm pretty ridiculously open-minded, would much rather be told clearly what I ought to believe, and would much rather agree with others than disagree.
But being told what to believe is now considered bad-- that kind of doctrinal certainty is something that the claimant to the papal throne advises us should be avoided, or at least not sought.
Quote
All people suffer from pride as a consequence of the fall of Adam. Trads are no different.
With that much, at least, I can totally agree.
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 07:24:59 PM
If 'sedevacantism' is correct and the See of Peter has been vacant since V2, then ultimately I would logically arrive at the following conclusion:
Jesus Christ was not the Son of God because:
1. The dogmatic fact established by the acceptance of the Popes would be false, meaning that the Bishops in union with Rome were unable to determine who was the principle of unity as declared by Vatican I,
2. Without the principle of unity of faith and unity of government (as a result of #1) the Church loses the mark of unity.
3. Without all Four Marks the social organism known as the Catholic Church ceases to be the Church of Christ
4. Jesus' promise of indefectibility as well as the First Vatican Council declaration of the perpetual line of successors is broken.
If you still want to play, let's modify the game a little bit. First, suppose I grant you #1. However, let us suppose that shortly after each papal election, the pope-elect makes clear that he is in fact a heretic. Would you still arrive at the same conclusion (Jesus Christ was not the Son of God)?
I note, briefly, that in my book, that makes no sense. There are plenty of miracles to prove that Jesus Christ was God even if Catholics had misunderstood Him as promising things that He didn't promise. Among the Fathers of the Church, the greatest of these miracles was held to be the growth of the Church even in the face of persecution.
The bottom line: even if the Catholic Church could be written off (which I still believe is impossible), Jesus Christ couldn't. I think your conclusion is too dramatic. You'll note that mine didn't go that far: I would simply no longer be able to be a Catholic, but I would still have to find a Christian synthesis of some kind.
I'm really spending way too much time on this argument, so I may have to back off now myself. God bless.
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on August 31, 2014, 09:01:29 PM
Quote from: tradical on August 23, 2014, 07:24:59 PM
If 'sedevacantism' is correct and the See of Peter has been vacant since V2, then ultimately I would logically arrive at the following conclusion:
Jesus Christ was not the Son of God because:
1. The dogmatic fact established by the acceptance of the Popes would be false, meaning that the Bishops in union with Rome were unable to determine who was the principle of unity as declared by Vatican I,
2. Without the principle of unity of faith and unity of government (as a result of #1) the Church loses the mark of unity.
3. Without all Four Marks the social organism known as the Catholic Church ceases to be the Church of Christ
4. Jesus' promise of indefectibility as well as the First Vatican Council declaration of the perpetual line of successors is broken.
If you still want to play, let's modify the game a little bit. First, suppose I grant you #1. However, let us suppose that shortly after each papal election, the pope-elect makes clear that he is in fact a heretic. Would you still arrive at the same conclusion (Jesus Christ was not the Son of God)?
I note, briefly, that in my book, that makes no sense. There are plenty of miracles to prove that Jesus Christ was God even if Catholics had misunderstood Him as promising things that He didn't promise. Among the Fathers of the Church, the greatest of these miracles was held to be the growth of the Church even in the face of persecution.
The bottom line: even if the Catholic Church could be written off (which I still believe is impossible), Jesus Christ couldn't. I think your conclusion is too dramatic. You'll note that mine didn't go that far: I would simply no longer be able to be a Catholic, but I would still have to find a Christian synthesis of some kind.
I'm really spending way too much time on this argument, so I may have to back off now myself. God bless.
pm sent.
also my response was to the general sv thesis that P12 was the last valid Pope.
P^3
ps. My conclusion is based on the interlocking set of dogmas and understanding of what constitutes heresy. If one dogma falls, they all fall.
Something tells me we're not thinking of the same P12
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F6%2F69%2FBoeing_P-12E_USAF.jpg&hash=305031172d110854cb0ccc3cb4de06ca475549da)
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 01, 2014, 06:35:10 AM
Something tells me we're not thinking of the same P12
nope.
nice plane!
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 01, 2014, 06:35:10 AM
Something tells me we're not thinking of the same P12
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F6%2F69%2FBoeing_P-12E_USAF.jpg&hash=305031172d110854cb0ccc3cb4de06ca475549da)
This belongs in my 'oooo-I want one thread!
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8422.0 (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8422.0)
Where would you mount the machine-gun? The cowling is in the way.
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
During that time we knew who was pope and what was Catholic
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
It took the Pope to unite the princes and even then it was close.
Consider this time period as 'before' the Pope united those who were loyal to defend Christendom.
P^3
Quote from: tradical on September 01, 2014, 09:09:36 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
It took the Pope to unite the princes and even then it was close.
Consider this time period as 'before' the Pope united those who were loyal to defend Christendom.
P^3
Christendom doesn't exist anymore.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 01, 2014, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: tradical on September 01, 2014, 09:09:36 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
It took the Pope to unite the princes and even then it was close.
Consider this time period as 'before' the Pope united those who were loyal to defend Christendom.
P^3
Christendom doesn't exist anymore.
Nope, but the Caliphate does ;______;
Quote from: Cleves on September 01, 2014, 09:54:51 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 01, 2014, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: tradical on September 01, 2014, 09:09:36 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
It took the Pope to unite the princes and even then it was close.
Consider this time period as 'before' the Pope united those who were loyal to defend Christendom.
P^3
Christendom doesn't exist anymore.
Nope, but the Caliphate does ;______;
in the fevered dreams of the zionists and neocon warmongers
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 01, 2014, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: tradical on September 01, 2014, 09:09:36 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
It took the Pope to unite the princes and even then it was close.
Consider this time period as 'before' the Pope united those who were loyal to defend Christendom.
P^3
Christendom doesn't exist anymore.
It exists in our hearts and, if done right, in our homes. It can exist among our circles of Catholic friends, if we put in the effort. It's only a matter of time. Restoration is inevitable, and it has been prophesied by many, many saints.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 10:23:46 AMin the fevered dreams of the zionists and neocon warmongers
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fde%2FTerritorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg%2F314px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png&hash=d38d0d97edb2395969b200e31ebd171a22addddc)
Dark red - Area controlled by ISIS
Light red - Area claimed by ISIS
Cream colour - Rest of Syria and Iraq
Oh, if only it existed in their dreams. Sadly the evil of the Caliphate is out there and gaining ground.
Quote from: Cleves on September 01, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 10:23:46 AMin the fevered dreams of the zionists and neocon warmongers
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fde%2FTerritorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg%2F314px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png&hash=d38d0d97edb2395969b200e31ebd171a22addddc)
Dark red - Area controlled by ISIS
Light red - Area claimed by ISIS
Cream colour - Rest of Syria and Iraq
Oh, if only it existed in their dreams. Sadly the evil of the Caliphate is out there and gaining ground.
I unfortunately dont have a conveniently supplied graph showing you who controls ISIS
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Cleves on September 01, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 10:23:46 AMin the fevered dreams of the zionists and neocon warmongers
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fde%2FTerritorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg%2F314px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png&hash=d38d0d97edb2395969b200e31ebd171a22addddc)
Dark red - Area controlled by ISIS
Light red - Area claimed by ISIS
Cream colour - Rest of Syria and Iraq
Oh, if only it existed in their dreams. Sadly the evil of the Caliphate is out there and gaining ground.
I unfortunately dont have a conveniently supplied graph showing you who controls ISIS
You'd have to demonstrate that ISIS is not following Quranic/Hadith Islam, per both foundational texts and historical examples. Unfortunately, they are following both foundational texts and historical trends, so you'd have to actually prove the Jews literally created Islam (which is impossible, since it's syncretistic), and have continued to control it.
No, what we see is Islam qua Islam.
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 11:55:09 AM
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fde%2FTerritorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg%2F314px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png&hash=d38d0d97edb2395969b200e31ebd171a22addddc)
Dark red - Area controlled by ISIS
Light red - Area claimed by ISIS
Cream colour - Rest of Syria and Iraq
what we see is Islam qua Islam.
Yep.
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Cleves on September 01, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 10:23:46 AMin the fevered dreams of the zionists and neocon warmongers
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fde%2FTerritorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg%2F314px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png&hash=d38d0d97edb2395969b200e31ebd171a22addddc)
Dark red - Area controlled by ISIS
Light red - Area claimed by ISIS
Cream colour - Rest of Syria and Iraq
Oh, if only it existed in their dreams. Sadly the evil of the Caliphate is out there and gaining ground.
I unfortunately dont have a conveniently supplied graph showing you who controls ISIS
You'd have to demonstrate that ISIS is not following Quranic/Hadith Islam, per both foundational texts and historical examples. Unfortunately, they are following both foundational texts and historical trends, so you'd have to actually prove the Jews literally created Islam (which is impossible, since it's syncretistic), and have continued to control it.
No, what we see is Islam qua Islam.
No I only have to demonstrate that ISIS was and possibly is funded by the west...it matters not that they are authentically Islamists....the west has the strings on these maddogs....they serve a purpose mainly scaring you folks into supporting the New world order. And also in order to have a caliphate you need a Central agreed up leader....do the saudies support ISIS.....I think not
How did Middle East politics get in this thread? I wonder if the inability to stay on topic is one reason that trads don't get along. :)
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 12:06:58 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Cleves on September 01, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 10:23:46 AMin the fevered dreams of the zionists and neocon warmongers
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fde%2FTerritorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg%2F314px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png&hash=d38d0d97edb2395969b200e31ebd171a22addddc)
Dark red - Area controlled by ISIS
Light red - Area claimed by ISIS
Cream colour - Rest of Syria and Iraq
Oh, if only it existed in their dreams. Sadly the evil of the Caliphate is out there and gaining ground.
I unfortunately dont have a conveniently supplied graph showing you who controls ISIS
You'd have to demonstrate that ISIS is not following Quranic/Hadith Islam, per both foundational texts and historical examples. Unfortunately, they are following both foundational texts and historical trends, so you'd have to actually prove the Jews literally created Islam (which is impossible, since it's syncretistic), and have continued to control it.
No, what we see is Islam qua Islam.
No I only have to demonstrate that ISIS was and possibly is funded by the west...it matters not that they are authentically Islamists....the west has the strings on these maddogs....they serve a purpose mainly scaring you folks into supporting the New world order. And also in order to have a caliphate you need a Central agreed up leader....do the saudies support ISIS.....I think not
That is because many Muslims believe that only a descendant of Muhammed (cursed be his memory) can be the Caliph, and so they do not accept al-Baghdadi (leader of ISIS) as the caliph. ISIS supporters believe that all who do not accept the ISIS caliphate are heretics.
As it stands, there is no proof (except from the anti-Christ modernist Alex Jones) that ISIS is being funded or controlled by non-Muslim forces.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 12:06:58 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Cleves on September 01, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 10:23:46 AMin the fevered dreams of the zionists and neocon warmongers
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fde%2FTerritorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg%2F314px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png&hash=d38d0d97edb2395969b200e31ebd171a22addddc)
Dark red - Area controlled by ISIS
Light red - Area claimed by ISIS
Cream colour - Rest of Syria and Iraq
Oh, if only it existed in their dreams. Sadly the evil of the Caliphate is out there and gaining ground.
I unfortunately dont have a conveniently supplied graph showing you who controls ISIS
You'd have to demonstrate that ISIS is not following Quranic/Hadith Islam, per both foundational texts and historical examples. Unfortunately, they are following both foundational texts and historical trends, so you'd have to actually prove the Jews literally created Islam (which is impossible, since it's syncretistic), and have continued to control it.
No, what we see is Islam qua Islam.
No I only have to demostrate that ISIS was and possibly is funded by the west...it matters not that they are authentically Islamists....the west has the strings on these maddogs....they serve a purposemmmainly scaring you folks into supporting the New world order.
Well, I don't support the NWO and do believe they are being encouraged, but that doesn't change the fact that they do what they do as millions of muslims before them have done what they did.
One thing I believe we need to accept is whether or not Frankenstein is a creation, once he is created, or exists and is encouraged, he is not controlled.
You've maintained before that Islam is a creation of the Jews, and ISIS is a CIA/Mossad creation. Is that no longer your current position?
ISIS didn't really spring out of nowhere, though news reports would have us believe such a thing. They are a longsuffering group of individuals and one common ideology which has morphed over time under different names and capability: Islamic domination is the continuous theme. What must be understood is that groups of men can and do get together under a common banner and eventually rise up.
Let's roll for a moment with the idea that ISIS ends up dominating all of the Middle East. OK. So what then? A massive war on the part of the West and Israel... well, that would only be efficiently executed with nuclear arms. Just controlling one single town in Iraq, through conventional means, is a job for AT MINIMUM a Battalion level unit. There are thousands of towns. Iraq taught us a lesson we taught the British long ago: one need not face a larger force on their terms; guerrilla warfare is the way to go. Afghanistan continues the teaching trend.
The Middle East is not controllable once Frankenstein takes over. Particularly when his takeover appeals to Islamic teaching. Any aggression can be, will be, and has been cast as aggression against Islam. The only ones not buying that line are the pseudo-Islamic politicians in power in the Middle East.
As long as Islam remains, particularly in the Middle East, Islam will be at the whims of barbaric savages who have very clear instructions on what is and isn't acceptable to Islam. Ultimately, that is the Caliphate.
Do I believe Islam therefore presents a threat to the West, or the world over, on its own terms? i.e., do I think Islam will take over the world? No; they're idiots and couldn't organize a proper Jonestown if they ere given cyanide/Kool-Aid IVs. But they will be great useful idiots in the take over. In the mean time, they will continue to do what they do: be muslim. And that has never really served the Jews well. They thrive on chaos. When they have Islamic order, they induce chaos elsewhere.
Israel simply doesn't have the military ability, nor does the US, and Europe is a military joke, to control the Middle East. At least conventionally. It would have to go nuclear, and that doesn't serve Israel's supposed ME takeover plan as the land would be radiated.
Mark my words: the Muslim is no friend and as long as he remains, whether on his own term or as a tool, there will be problems.
In short, "having strings" on the mad dog is a good way to get your fingers pulled off. If Israel really is encouraging ISIS et al., it's to their own detriment.
---
Aquila - what you are describing is the rift between Sunni and Shi'a. Muhammad had no descendants as none of his male sons survived into adulthood. Ergo, based on your claim, there can be no Caliphate at all, which is untrue. Rather, there has been, can be, and apparently will be a Caliphate.
The Shi'a are a very insignificant segment of Islam (less than 20% according to Pew), the Sunni being the strong majority.
Only Iraq and Iran are majority Shia in the ME, at least of the countries which matter.
Further, Al-Baghdadi does claim to be descended from Muhammad, so there's that.
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 12:06:58 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Cleves on September 01, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 10:23:46 AMin the fevered dreams of the zionists and neocon warmongers
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fde%2FTerritorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg%2F314px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png&hash=d38d0d97edb2395969b200e31ebd171a22addddc)
Dark red - Area controlled by ISIS
Light red - Area claimed by ISIS
Cream colour - Rest of Syria and Iraq
Oh, if only it existed in their dreams. Sadly the evil of the Caliphate is out there and gaining ground.
I unfortunately dont have a conveniently supplied graph showing you who controls ISIS
You'd have to demonstrate that ISIS is not following Quranic/Hadith Islam, per both foundational texts and historical examples. Unfortunately, they are following both foundational texts and historical trends, so you'd have to actually prove the Jews literally created Islam (which is impossible, since it's syncretistic), and have continued to control it.
No, what we see is Islam qua Islam.
No I only have to demonstrate that ISIS was and possibly is funded by the west...it matters not that they are authentically Islamists....the west has the strings on these maddogs....they serve a purpose mainly scaring you folks into supporting the New world order. And also in order to have a caliphate you need a Central agreed up leader....do the saudies support ISIS.....I think not
That is because many Muslims believe that only a descendant of Muhammed (cursed be his memory) can be the Caliph, and so they do not accept al-Baghdadi (leader of ISIS) as the caliph. ISIS supporters believe that all who do not accept the ISIS caliphate are heretics.
As it stands, there is no proof (except from the anti-Christ modernist Alex Jones) that ISIS is being funded or controlled by non-Muslim forces.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-how-millions-of-pounds-of-western-aid-destined-for-the-needy-is-falling-into-hands-of-isis-9610491.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-how-millions-of-pounds-of-western-aid-destined-for-the-needy-is-falling-into-hands-of-isis-9610491.html) UK independant
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isis-threat-western-leaders-fear-monger-to-mobilize-support-for-air-strikes-on-syria/5397860 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isis-threat-western-leaders-fear-monger-to-mobilize-support-for-air-strikes-on-syria/5397860)
Global Research CANADA-Independent news source- (so far...no Alex Jones)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html) (nope not alex jones either)
Here we have the belfast telegraph---I doubt they even know who alex jones is!
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/how-the-west-bankrolls-isis-millions-from-governments-and-ngos-funding-radical-islamic-terror-group-30438217.html (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/how-the-west-bankrolls-isis-millions-from-governments-and-ngos-funding-radical-islamic-terror-group-30438217.html)
Oh MY! :o THE WALL STREET JOURNAL...say it it aint so!
http://online.wsj.com/articles/rand-paul-how-u-s-interventionists-abetted-the-rise-of-isis-1409178958 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/rand-paul-how-u-s-interventionists-abetted-the-rise-of-isis-1409178958)
I could go on.....now if you dispute the veracity of these stories and even their sources thats fine...but dont give me this ad hominum shite its only alex jones...
Thread went from topic, to sedevacantism, now to Middle East politics. I wonder if this divergence in thread topic and the continued length of the thread (with no end in sight) is in itself an answer to the OP. I guess we'll never know.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 12:06:58 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Cleves on September 01, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 10:23:46 AMin the fevered dreams of the zionists and neocon warmongers
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fde%2FTerritorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg%2F314px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png&hash=d38d0d97edb2395969b200e31ebd171a22addddc)
Dark red - Area controlled by ISIS
Light red - Area claimed by ISIS
Cream colour - Rest of Syria and Iraq
Oh, if only it existed in their dreams. Sadly the evil of the Caliphate is out there and gaining ground.
I unfortunately dont have a conveniently supplied graph showing you who controls ISIS
You'd have to demonstrate that ISIS is not following Quranic/Hadith Islam, per both foundational texts and historical examples. Unfortunately, they are following both foundational texts and historical trends, so you'd have to actually prove the Jews literally created Islam (which is impossible, since it's syncretistic), and have continued to control it.
No, what we see is Islam qua Islam.
No I only have to demonstrate that ISIS was and possibly is funded by the west...it matters not that they are authentically Islamists....the west has the strings on these maddogs....they serve a purpose mainly scaring you folks into supporting the New world order. And also in order to have a caliphate you need a Central agreed up leader....do the saudies support ISIS.....I think not
That is because many Muslims believe that only a descendant of Muhammed (cursed be his memory) can be the Caliph, and so they do not accept al-Baghdadi (leader of ISIS) as the caliph. ISIS supporters believe that all who do not accept the ISIS caliphate are heretics.
As it stands, there is no proof (except from the anti-Christ modernist Alex Jones) that ISIS is being funded or controlled by non-Muslim forces.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-how-millions-of-pounds-of-western-aid-destined-for-the-needy-is-falling-into-hands-of-isis-9610491.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-how-millions-of-pounds-of-western-aid-destined-for-the-needy-is-falling-into-hands-of-isis-9610491.html) UK independant
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isis-threat-western-leaders-fear-monger-to-mobilize-support-for-air-strikes-on-syria/5397860 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isis-threat-western-leaders-fear-monger-to-mobilize-support-for-air-strikes-on-syria/5397860)
Global Research CANADA-Independent news source- (so far...no Alex Jones)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html) (nope not alex jones either)
Here we have the belfast telegraph---I doubt they even know who alex jones is!
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/how-the-west-bankrolls-isis-millions-from-governments-and-ngos-funding-radical-islamic-terror-group-30438217.html (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/how-the-west-bankrolls-isis-millions-from-governments-and-ngos-funding-radical-islamic-terror-group-30438217.html)
Oh MY! :o THE WALL STREET JOURNAL...say it it aint so!
http://online.wsj.com/articles/rand-paul-how-u-s-interventionists-abetted-the-rise-of-isis-1409178958 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/rand-paul-how-u-s-interventionists-abetted-the-rise-of-isis-1409178958)
I could go on.....now if you dispute the veracity of these stories and even their sources thats fine...but dont give me this ad hominum shite its only alex jones...
Did you actually read that articles? NONE of them state that Western or Israeli governments started or funded ISIS. NONE OF THEM. Unless you think that aid kits for starving refugees somehow evolved into AK-47s and RPGs when they were stolen by ISIS.
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
Thread went from topic, to sedevacantism, now to Middle East politics. I wonder if this divergence in thread topic and the continued length of the thread (with no end in sight) is in itself an answer to the OP. I guess we'll never know.
Because not-dogma-is-Dogma...
I wish I could find that Bonaventure quote about people turning non-doctrine into doctrine.
Gardener...yes I believe we can agree on the premis that Frankenstein could or has gotten loose...but that does not change the fact that the monster is not a natural offshoot of resurgent Islam...in other words the THEOLOGY isnt running amok...the global politics of antichrist centered in TelAviv and Washington DC is running amok...to continue your apt metaphor...TelAviv is Dr Frankenstein...and the USA Igor. And no this will not end well....however if we could simply cool down and not go all shrieking into the darkness... we might see who the real enemy is...and stop this cycle of madness at the roots instead of pulling up these poison weeds all the time and everywhere.
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:41:29 PM
Did you actually read that articles? NONE of them state that Western or Israeli governments started or funded ISIS. NONE OF THEM. Unless you think that aid kits for starving refugees somehow evolved into AK-47s and RPGs when they were stolen by ISIS.
I have found that Voxx is great at supplying headlines, but his evidence is almost always against his argument when read in context of the whole. One time he gave evidence of the Jews creating Islam, but the actual article merely argued against Judaism as well, but moreover, from the perspective of the OT being FALSE. Meaning... Christianity is false. If I recall correctly ( I may not), it was argued that Christianity was a Jewish Operation against the Roman Empire and it spun out of control.
Nonetheless, I lolled.
Voxx - you cannot stop it. It is prophecy, if you are correct on the rise of Israel as homebase of Antichrist. The best, and only thing, you can do is evangelize.
Open the light of Christ in others and they will see ugliness elsewhere. Simply frothing about ugliness will get you nowhere.
And, I never argued the monster is a natural offshoot, I argue that it is Islam. An offshoot implies something moving away from the source though fed. In fact, the source is endemic to ISIS and if anything they are moving back to a consistent Islamic narrative of action.
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
Thread went from topic, to sedevacantism, now to Middle East politics. I wonder if this divergence in thread topic and the continued length of the thread (with no end in sight) is in itself an answer to the OP. I guess we'll never know.
I was looking for the right thread to make my historic Hauptmann-creating post and I realized that this was just the right place.
Yay me!
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 12:41:41 PMBecause not-dogma-is-Dogma...
I wish I could find that Bonaventure quote about people turning non-doctrine into doctrine.
I think you're talking about the very same one I quoted on the first page of this thread lol... it just seems so far removed from this thread now because of all the derailments since then (this time I'm quoting the
entire post - click on the "quote from" link on top if you want to see the original thread he posted it in):
Quote from: Bonaventure on December 31, 2012, 01:27:42 AM
Thought this would be the best fit for this. Here goes.
All of us belong to the divinely instituted Church that Christ founded. We are all united with one another in Faith and Charity. Our Lord paid for the sacraments by His passion, death, and resurrection.
Unfortunately, too many Catholics try to attach their own baggage onto what being Catholic means. Political, social, and cultural norms are attached. For some, it's a Leave it to Beaver, 1950s life. For others, it's bunkering up with grain, gold, and silver. The examples go on and on. Through the internet, I've met some intelligent, faithful, and charitable Catholics from all over the world. At the same time, I've encountered real Jew haters, real women haters, real racists, absolutely obsessed conspiracy theorists, and so on. Anyone who disagrees is a liberal or "not a trad," and not one iota of these things have to deal with doctrine or spirituality.
We know that God made us to know, love, and serve Him in this life so that we will be with Him forever in the next. We have a duty to share the great joys of our Faith and our Church with others, being the light of the world. Yet such behavior does not attract others to the Church, and serves as obstacles to conversion.
Quote from: Recovering NOer on September 01, 2014, 12:56:48 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 12:41:41 PMBecause not-dogma-is-Dogma...
I wish I could find that Bonaventure quote about people turning non-doctrine into doctrine.
I think you're talking about the very same one I quoted on the first page of this thread lol... it just seems so far removed from this thread now because of all the derailments since then (this time I'm quoting the entire post - click on the "quote from" link on top if you want to see the original thread he posted it in):
Quote from: Bonaventure on December 31, 2012, 01:27:42 AM
Thought this would be the best fit for this. Here goes.
All of us belong to the divinely instituted Church that Christ founded. We are all united with one another in Faith and Charity. Our Lord paid for the sacraments by His passion, death, and resurrection.
Unfortunately, too many Catholics try to attach their own baggage onto what being Catholic means. Political, social, and cultural norms are attached. For some, it's a Leave it to Beaver, 1950s life. For others, it's bunkering up with grain, gold, and silver. The examples go on and on. Through the internet, I've met some intelligent, faithful, and charitable Catholics from all over the world. At the same time, I've encountered real Jew haters, real women haters, real racists, absolutely obsessed conspiracy theorists, and so on. Anyone who disagrees is a liberal or "not a trad," and not one iota of these things have to deal with doctrine or spirituality.
We know that God made us to know, love, and serve Him in this life so that we will be with Him forever in the next. We have a duty to share the great joys of our Faith and our Church with others, being the light of the world. Yet such behavior does not attract others to the Church, and serves as obstacles to conversion.
Thank you! I should (just did) save this in my files.
Quote from: Jayne on September 01, 2014, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
Thread went from topic, to sedevacantism, now to Middle East politics. I wonder if this divergence in thread topic and the continued length of the thread (with no end in sight) is in itself an answer to the OP. I guess we'll never know.
I was looking for the right thread to make my historic Hauptmann-creating post and I realized that this was just the right place.
Yay me!
5000 posts. Congratulations.
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:41:29 PM
Did you actually read that articles? NONE of them state that Western or Israeli governments started or funded ISIS. NONE OF THEM. Unless you think that aid kits for starving refugees somehow evolved into AK-47s and RPGs when they were stolen by ISIS.
I have found that Voxx is great at supplying headlines, but his evidence is almost always against his argument when read in context of the whole. One time he gave evidence of the Jews creating Islam, but the actual article merely argued against Judaism as well, but moreover, from the perspective of the OT being FALSE. Meaning... Christianity is false. If I recall correctly ( I may not), it was argued that Christianity was a Jewish Operation against the Roman Empire and it spun out of control.
Nonetheless, I lolled.
Voxx - you cannot stop it. It is prophecy, if you are correct on the rise of Israel as homebase of Antichrist. The best, and only thing, you can do is evangelize.
Open the light of Christ in others and they will see ugliness elsewhere. Simply frothing about ugliness will get you nowhere.
And, I never argued the monster is a natural offshoot, I argue that it is Islam. An offshoot implies something moving away from the source though fed. In fact, the source is endemic to ISIS and if anything they are moving back to a consistent Islamic narrative of action.
Hey gardener dont speak for me OK....you have no business doing it...I can defend myself...if you wish to play poison the well then your not a straight shooter are you.
Also I was merely pointing out that ALex Jones wasnt the only source of this stuff...and yes I did read it and its a matter of perception and bias on your parts that make the evidence against my position. It is Clear the west funded ISIS.....against ASSAD.
And Im not the one frothing ugliness...you Islamaphobes with your kill them all and let God sort it out mentality is the true ugliness.
Further it was not ISLAMIST foreign policy that created the current situation was it...it was clearly Zionist (ergo Jewish) foreign policy that has lit this fire...there is no way around it...none.
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 01:00:35 PM
Quote from: Jayne on September 01, 2014, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
Thread went from topic, to sedevacantism, now to Middle East politics. I wonder if this divergence in thread topic and the continued length of the thread (with no end in sight) is in itself an answer to the OP. I guess we'll never know.
I was looking for the right thread to make my historic Hauptmann-creating post and I realized that this was just the right place.
Yay me!
5000 posts. Congratulations.
big deal..what took so long...half of them were because of our contentious relationship...you should probably thank me.
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 01:00:35 PM
Quote from: Jayne on September 01, 2014, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
Thread went from topic, to sedevacantism, now to Middle East politics. I wonder if this divergence in thread topic and the continued length of the thread (with no end in sight) is in itself an answer to the OP. I guess we'll never know.
I was looking for the right thread to make my historic Hauptmann-creating post and I realized that this was just the right place.
Yay me!
5000 posts. Congratulations.
Thank you. Somehow this thread seems to be heading back on topic so I better stop derailing the derailment of the derailment.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 01:02:44 PM
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 01:00:35 PM
Quote from: Jayne on September 01, 2014, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
Thread went from topic, to sedevacantism, now to Middle East politics. I wonder if this divergence in thread topic and the continued length of the thread (with no end in sight) is in itself an answer to the OP. I guess we'll never know.
I was looking for the right thread to make my historic Hauptmann-creating post and I realized that this was just the right place.
Yay me!
5000 posts. Congratulations.
big deal..what took so long...half of them were because of our contentious relationship...you should probably thank me.
I bow to you.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 01:01:21 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:41:29 PM
Did you actually read that articles? NONE of them state that Western or Israeli governments started or funded ISIS. NONE OF THEM. Unless you think that aid kits for starving refugees somehow evolved into AK-47s and RPGs when they were stolen by ISIS.
I have found that Voxx is great at supplying headlines, but his evidence is almost always against his argument when read in context of the whole. One time he gave evidence of the Jews creating Islam, but the actual article merely argued against Judaism as well, but moreover, from the perspective of the OT being FALSE. Meaning... Christianity is false. If I recall correctly ( I may not), it was argued that Christianity was a Jewish Operation against the Roman Empire and it spun out of control.
Nonetheless, I lolled.
Voxx - you cannot stop it. It is prophecy, if you are correct on the rise of Israel as homebase of Antichrist. The best, and only thing, you can do is evangelize.
Open the light of Christ in others and they will see ugliness elsewhere. Simply frothing about ugliness will get you nowhere.
And, I never argued the monster is a natural offshoot, I argue that it is Islam. An offshoot implies something moving away from the source though fed. In fact, the source is endemic to ISIS and if anything they are moving back to a consistent Islamic narrative of action.
Hey gardener dont speak for me OK....you have no business doing it...I can defend myself...if you wish to play poison the well then your not a straight shooter are you.
Also I was merely pointing out that ALex Jones wasnt the only source of this stuff...and yes I did read it and its a matter of perception and bias on your parts that make the evidence against my position. It is Clear the west funded ISIS.....against ASSAD.
And Im not the one frothing ugliness...you Islamaphobes with your kill them all and let God sort it out mentality is the true ugliness.
Further it was not ISLAMIST foreign policy that created the current situation was it...it was clearly Zionist (ergo Jewish) foreign policy that has lit this fire...there is no way around it...none.
I'd prefer if you'd actually read the articles. It would help you build a better case. I wasn't speaking for you, I was speaking for me, as someone who has experienced this issue before.
I need not poison any well, as your seemingly innate ability to cut your own position's knees is woefully apparent.
FWIW, the WSJ article is log-in only, so I can't read that.
Daily Beast article doesn't accuse non-Muslim sources, but Saudi, Qatar, and Kuwait. Hardly the "West" or Israel.
Belfast Tele merely says all civilians are receiving aid, regardless of affiliation. Not ISIS receiving aid.
Global Research article merely concurs with Daily Beast
And the Independent article is nothing more than a mirror of the Belfast Tele.
What you've done is inject an interpretation not present in the articles, but contained in the headlines (which are misleading).
I and Aquila are merely reading what is there, rather than interpreting contra what is there. A literal reading of the articles does not suggest Western impetus for the rise of ISIS.
As for the frothing... take it up with St. Bernard, St. Raymond Nonnatus, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. Nothing has changed in Islam since the days of those men. This lovey-dovey let's love the muslims to spite the Jews mentality, or whatever it is you're espousing, is entirely novel in Christendom.
Islamist foreign policy, frankly, is certainly to blame, as otherwise there would be no Islamic onus to do the things they are doing with the exhortations of the Quran and Hadith as a guide!
It was there when Saddam was our ally, and was there before the Baathists ever were a twinkle in their daddies' eyes.
Quote from: Jayne on September 01, 2014, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
Thread went from topic, to sedevacantism, now to Middle East politics. I wonder if this divergence in thread topic and the continued length of the thread (with no end in sight) is in itself an answer to the OP. I guess we'll never know.
I was looking for the right thread to make my historic Hauptmann-creating post and I realized that this was just the right place.
Yay me!
Woo hoo!
:D
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: Recovering NOer on September 01, 2014, 12:56:48 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 12:41:41 PMBecause not-dogma-is-Dogma...
I wish I could find that Bonaventure quote about people turning non-doctrine into doctrine.
I think you're talking about the very same one I quoted on the first page of this thread lol... it just seems so far removed from this thread now because of all the derailments since then (this time I'm quoting the entire post - click on the "quote from" link on top if you want to see the original thread he posted it in):
Quote from: Bonaventure on December 31, 2012, 01:27:42 AM
Thought this would be the best fit for this. Here goes.
All of us belong to the divinely instituted Church that Christ founded. We are all united with one another in Faith and Charity. Our Lord paid for the sacraments by His passion, death, and resurrection.
Unfortunately, too many Catholics try to attach their own baggage onto what being Catholic means. Political, social, and cultural norms are attached. For some, it's a Leave it to Beaver, 1950s life. For others, it's bunkering up with grain, gold, and silver. The examples go on and on. Through the internet, I've met some intelligent, faithful, and charitable Catholics from all over the world. At the same time, I've encountered real Jew haters, real women haters, real racists, absolutely obsessed conspiracy theorists, and so on. Anyone who disagrees is a liberal or "not a trad," and not one iota of these things have to deal with doctrine or spirituality.
We know that God made us to know, love, and serve Him in this life so that we will be with Him forever in the next. We have a duty to share the great joys of our Faith and our Church with others, being the light of the world. Yet such behavior does not attract others to the Church, and serves as obstacles to conversion.
Thank you! I should (just did) save this in my files.
I did too, thanks!
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 01:14:48 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 01:01:21 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 01, 2014, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:41:29 PM
Did you actually read that articles? NONE of them state that Western or Israeli governments started or funded ISIS. NONE OF THEM. Unless you think that aid kits for starving refugees somehow evolved into AK-47s and RPGs when they were stolen by ISIS.
I have found that Voxx is great at supplying headlines, but his evidence is almost always against his argument when read in context of the whole. One time he gave evidence of the Jews creating Islam, but the actual article merely argued against Judaism as well, but moreover, from the perspective of the OT being FALSE. Meaning... Christianity is false. If I recall correctly ( I may not), it was argued that Christianity was a Jewish Operation against the Roman Empire and it spun out of control.
Nonetheless, I lolled.
Voxx - you cannot stop it. It is prophecy, if you are correct on the rise of Israel as homebase of Antichrist. The best, and only thing, you can do is evangelize.
Open the light of Christ in others and they will see ugliness elsewhere. Simply frothing about ugliness will get you nowhere.
And, I never argued the monster is a natural offshoot, I argue that it is Islam. An offshoot implies something moving away from the source though fed. In fact, the source is endemic to ISIS and if anything they are moving back to a consistent Islamic narrative of action.
Hey gardener dont speak for me OK....you have no business doing it...I can defend myself...if you wish to play poison the well then your not a straight shooter are you.
Also I was merely pointing out that ALex Jones wasnt the only source of this stuff...and yes I did read it and its a matter of perception and bias on your parts that make the evidence against my position. It is Clear the west funded ISIS.....against ASSAD.
And Im not the one frothing ugliness...you Islamaphobes with your kill them all and let God sort it out mentality is the true ugliness.
Further it was not ISLAMIST foreign policy that created the current situation was it...it was clearly Zionist (ergo Jewish) foreign policy that has lit this fire...there is no way around it...none.
I'd prefer if you'd actually read the articles. It would help you build a better case. I wasn't speaking for you, I was speaking for me, as someone who has experienced this issue before.
I need not poison any well, as your seemingly innate ability to cut your own position's knees is woefully apparent.
FWIW, the WSJ article is log-in only, so I can't read that.
Daily Beast article doesn't accuse non-Muslim sources, but Saudi, Qatar, and Kuwait. Hardly the "West" or Israel.
Belfast Tele merely says all civilians are receiving aid, regardless of affiliation. Not ISIS receiving aid.
Global Research article merely concurs with Daily Beast
And the Independent article is nothing more than a mirror of the Belfast Tele.
What you've done is inject an interpretation not present in the articles, but contained in the headlines (which are misleading).
I and Aquila are merely reading what is there, rather than interpreting contra what is there. A literal reading of the articles does not suggest Western impetus for the rise of ISIS.
As for the frothing... take it up with St. Bernard, St. Raymond Nonnatus, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. Nothing has changed in Islam since the days of those men. This lovey-dovey let's love the muslims to spite the Jews mentality, or whatever it is you're espousing, is entirely novel in Christendom.
Islamist foreign policy, frankly, is certainly to blame, as otherwise there would be no Islamic onus to do the things they are doing with the exhortations of the Quran and Hadith as a guide!
It was there when Saddam was our ally, and was there before the Baathists ever were a twinkle in their daddies' eyes.
lovey dovey? oy vey ::)
you guys are scared shittless by toyota landcrusers and wife abusers...esposousing a dead fanatics cult.....thousands of miles away...in complete disuntity with its fellow cultists...meanwhile the totally unified userers, globalists, and jewish templeites who own all of our capitals go ignored as irrelevant. Whatevs
Quote from: Jayne on September 01, 2014, 01:05:26 PM
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 01:00:35 PM
Quote from: Jayne on September 01, 2014, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: Basilios on September 01, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
Thread went from topic, to sedevacantism, now to Middle East politics. I wonder if this divergence in thread topic and the continued length of the thread (with no end in sight) is in itself an answer to the OP. I guess we'll never know.
I was looking for the right thread to make my historic Hauptmann-creating post and I realized that this was just the right place.
Yay me!
5000 posts. Congratulations.
Thank you. Somehow this thread seems to be heading back on topic so I better stop derailing the derailment of the derailment.
Hey, you forgot to thank me. After all, it was my competition with PdR that motivated you to post like crazy.
This is a friendly reminder to trim your quotations. The thread becomes an eyesore when the "Quote" button is hit repeatedly. In your post, you should keep only the quotations which are directly relevant to your point.
Thank you
Quote from: LouisIX on September 01, 2014, 03:15:19 PM
This is a friendly reminder to trim your quotations. The thread becomes an eyesore when the "Quote" button is hit repeatedly. In your post, you should keep only the quotations which are directly relevant to your point.
Thank you
Good point. It's difficult to follow even for the mods. OTOH trying to extract specific quotes on a phone is difficult as well so I can see how that happens.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
During that time we knew who was pope and what was Catholic
The same as we do now.
Francis and the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
Most all trads know this.
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
During that time we knew who was pope and what was Catholic
The same as we do now.
Francis and the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
Most all trads know this.
:rofl:
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
During that time we knew who was pope and what was Catholic
The same as we do now.
Francis and the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
Most all trads know this.
:rofl:
Why is this truth funny to you?
Most Traditional Catholics basically know our Pope is Francis.
Most Traditional Catholics know the Teaching of the Church well.
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
During that time we knew who was pope and what was Catholic
The same as we do now.
Francis and the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
Most all trads know this.
:rofl:
Why is this truth funny to you?
Most Traditional Catholics basically know our Pope is Francis.
Most Traditional Catholics know the Teaching of the Church well.
Because it's not the truth. The unanimous teaching of the Fathers is that a manifest heretic automatically office. In fact, this is the law of the Church. To deny it is ridiculous.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 02:12:39 PM
Because it's not the truth. The unanimous teaching of the Fathers is that a manifest heretic automatically office. In fact, this is the law of the Church. To deny it is ridiculous.
For a second I thought Robert was back.
I'm assuming that this should read:
QuoteThe unanimous teaching of the Fathers is that a manifest heretic automatically loses office. In fact, this is the law of the Church. To deny it is ridiculous.
Ok - so prove it ... and I don't mean just quote Cum Ex and say "So there ..."
Demonstrate that each if the Popes since Pius XII has defected from the faith by explicitly denying a de fide teaching of the Church.
Key words: De Fide and Explicit
Here's a handy list of the de fide teachings of Catholic Church: http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2013/04/de-fide-teachings-of-catholic-church.html
Pick one and demonstrate
QuotePertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith (ie de fide) clearly defined by the Church
P^3
Quote from: tradical on September 02, 2014, 02:35:31 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 02:12:39 PM
Because it's not the truth. The unanimous teaching of the Fathers is that a manifest heretic automatically office. In fact, this is the law of the Church. To deny it is ridiculous.
For a second I thought Robert was back.
I'm assuming that this should read:
QuoteThe unanimous teaching of the Fathers is that a manifest heretic automatically loses office. In fact, this is the law of the Church. To deny it is ridiculous.
Ok - so prove it ... and I don't mean just quote Cum Ex and say "So there ..."
Demonstrate that each if the Popes since Pius XII has defected from the faith by explicitly denying a de fide teaching of the Church.
Key words: De Fide and Explicit
Here's a handy list of the de fide teachings of Catholic Church: http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2013/04/de-fide-teachings-of-catholic-church.html
Pick one and demonstrate
QuotePertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith (ie de fide) clearly defined by the Church
P^3
No problem. Let's start a new thread though, instead of continuing to derail this one.
+JMJ+
So why can't Trads get along?
I mentioned earlier about the 'assumptions and beliefs' that are held strongly. RobertJS and now Sbyvl provide an example of a strongly held belief that the See of Peter is vacant and can't possibly have been occupied by the succession of Popes since the death of Pope Pius XII.
QuoteBecause it's not the truth. The unanimous teaching of the Fathers is that a manifest heretic automatically office. In fact, this is the law of the Church. To deny it is ridiculous.
This belief appears to be so strongly held that they can't tolerate it when someone:
1. Disagrees with them directly
-or-
2. Voices an opinion that is based on the assumption that the See of Peter is not vacant.
The same will be said for anyone who holds a belief so strongly that it migrates to the level of assumption. If the belief was valid, then there is no problem. If the belief is invalid, this is a major problem.
Why?
Because when anyone challenges the 'assumption' the response will probably be reflexive an borderline irrational.
I've encountered it in discussions with modern Catholics. Just touch the issue of the actions of Pope St. John Paul II - for that matter even stating the phrase 'Pope St. John Paul II' probably caused a number of you to have a reaction.
That's why can't we all "get along".
That said can some of us "get along".
Yep, the cultural differences between the SSPX, FSSP, ICK, IBP etc are not that huge. The only barrier is a canonical recognition. If that happens without a compromise then the majority of the barriers will fall like a house of cards.
P^3
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 02:12:39 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
During that time we knew who was pope and what was Catholic
The same as we do now.
Francis and the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
Most all trads know this.
:rofl:
Why is this truth funny to you?
Most Traditional Catholics basically know our Pope is Francis.
Most Traditional Catholics know the Teaching of the Church well.
Because it's not the truth. The unanimous teaching of the Fathers is that a manifest heretic automatically office. In fact, this is the law of the Church. To deny it is ridiculous.
Pope Francis is not a manifest heretic.
To declare so is ridiculous.
That's why trads do not get along, to address the OP.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 02:39:30 PM
No problem. Let's start a new thread though, instead of continuing to derail this one.
Wish granted http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8490.msg182454#msg182454
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 02:59:10 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 02:12:39 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
During that time we knew who was pope and what was Catholic
The same as we do now.
Francis and the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
Most all trads know this.
:rofl:
Why is this truth funny to you?
Most Traditional Catholics basically know our Pope is Francis.
Most Traditional Catholics know the Teaching of the Church well.
Because it's not the truth. The unanimous teaching of the Fathers is that a manifest heretic automatically office. In fact, this is the law of the Church. To deny it is ridiculous.
Pope Francis is not a manifest heretic.
To declare so is ridiculous.
That's why trads do not get along, to address the OP.
Wrong.
http://novusordowatch.org/pope-francis.htm (http://novusordowatch.org/pope-francis.htm)
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 03:04:17 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 02:59:10 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 02:12:39 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
During that time we knew who was pope and what was Catholic
The same as we do now.
Francis and the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
Most all trads know this.
:rofl:
Why is this truth funny to you?
Most Traditional Catholics basically know our Pope is Francis.
Most Traditional Catholics know the Teaching of the Church well.
Because it's not the truth. The unanimous teaching of the Fathers is that a manifest heretic automatically office. In fact, this is the law of the Church. To deny it is ridiculous.
Pope Francis is not a manifest heretic.
To declare so is ridiculous.
That's why trads do not get along, to address the OP.
Wrong.
http://novusordowatch.org/pope-francis.htm (http://novusordowatch.org/pope-francis.htm)
Wow - never saw someone contradict so many doctrines of the Church with one swipe of a mouse.
P^3
Quote from: tradical on September 02, 2014, 07:16:58 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 03:04:17 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 02:59:10 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 02:12:39 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
During that time we knew who was pope and what was Catholic
The same as we do now.
Francis and the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
Most all trads know this.
:rofl:
Why is this truth funny to you?
Most Traditional Catholics basically know our Pope is Francis.
Most Traditional Catholics know the Teaching of the Church well.
Because it's not the truth. The unanimous teaching of the Fathers is that a manifest heretic automatically office. In fact, this is the law of the Church. To deny it is ridiculous.
Pope Francis is not a manifest heretic.
To declare so is ridiculous.
That's why trads do not get along, to address the OP.
Wrong.
http://novusordowatch.org/pope-francis.htm (http://novusordowatch.org/pope-francis.htm)
Wow - never saw someone contradict so many doctrines of the Church with one swipe of a mouse.
P^3
I trust you are referring to Francis?
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 07:17:52 PM
Quote from: tradical on September 02, 2014, 07:16:58 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 03:04:17 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 02:59:10 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 02:12:39 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 02, 2014, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 01, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 01, 2014, 08:25:53 AM
Trads are very disunified.
The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.
During that time we knew who was pope and what was Catholic
The same as we do now.
Francis and the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
Most all trads know this.
:rofl:
Why is this truth funny to you?
Most Traditional Catholics basically know our Pope is Francis.
Most Traditional Catholics know the Teaching of the Church well.
Because it's not the truth. The unanimous teaching of the Fathers is that a manifest heretic automatically office. In fact, this is the law of the Church. To deny it is ridiculous.
Pope Francis is not a manifest heretic.
To declare so is ridiculous.
That's why trads do not get along, to address the OP.
Wrong.
http://novusordowatch.org/pope-francis.htm (http://novusordowatch.org/pope-francis.htm)
Wow - never saw someone contradict so many doctrines of the Church with one swipe of a mouse.
P^3
I trust you are referring to Francis?
Nope - Novus Ordo Watch.
I hope you don't reference them - it would hardly be sporting.
P^3
Novus Ordo watch is a good site--lots of valuable information on there.
Francis' mouth is the prime source for the world's modernism
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 07:22:36 PM
Novus Ordo watch is a good site--lots of valuable information on there.
Francis' mouth is the prime source for the world's modernism
That would be your opinion. But I don't think I'll rely upon it since ... well they screwed up in the first couple of lines and then dug their hole deeper by citing Fr. Cekada.
P^3
Quote from: tradical on September 02, 2014, 07:29:15 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 07:22:36 PM
Novus Ordo watch is a good site--lots of valuable information on there.
Francis' mouth is the prime source for the world's modernism
That would be your opinion. But I don't think I'll rely upon it since ... well they screwed up in the first couple of lines and then dug their hole deeper by citing Fr. Cekada.
P^3
What is wrong with Fr. Cekada?
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 07:31:14 PM
Quote from: tradical on September 02, 2014, 07:29:15 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 07:22:36 PM
Novus Ordo watch is a good site--lots of valuable information on there.
Francis' mouth is the prime source for the world's modernism
That would be your opinion. But I don't think I'll rely upon it since ... well they screwed up in the first couple of lines and then dug their hole deeper by citing Fr. Cekada.
P^3
What is wrong with Fr. Cekada?
That would take too long and distract you from the other thread.
Let's finish one topic first - then we can examine Fr. Cekada's other works.
P^3
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 07:22:36 PM
Novus Ordo watch is a good site--lots of valuable information on there.
Francis' mouth is the prime source for the world's modernism
:lol:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 07:22:36 PM
Novus Ordo watch is a good site--lots of valuable information on there.
Francis' mouth is the prime source for the world's modernism
NO Watch is an absolute joke, and worse, that consistently contradicts the Doctrines of the Church.
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 08:52:58 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 07:22:36 PM
Novus Ordo watch is a good site--lots of valuable information on there.
Francis' mouth is the prime source for the world's modernism
NO Watch is an absolute joke, and worse, that consistently contradicts the Doctrines of the Church.
I take Novus Ordo Watch about as seriously as Spirit Daily. Which is to say, not so much...
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 08:52:58 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 07:22:36 PM
Novus Ordo watch is a good site--lots of valuable information on there.
Francis' mouth is the prime source for the world's modernism
NO Watch is an absolute joke, and worse, that consistently contradicts the Doctrines of the Church.
Can you provide an example of your claim that what they say "consistently contradicts the Doctrines of the Church", or are you going to continue making baseless assertions?
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 03, 2014, 11:31:50 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 08:52:58 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 07:22:36 PM
Novus Ordo watch is a good site--lots of valuable information on there.
Francis' mouth is the prime source for the world's modernism
NO Watch is an absolute joke, and worse, that consistently contradicts the Doctrines of the Church.
Can you provide an example of your claim that what they say "consistently contradicts the Doctrines of the Church", or are you going to continue making baseless assertions?
Do you mean like they do?
Nope not now - we don't want you to be distracted from your thesis.
P^3
PS. Oops - I thought he was referring to my comments above: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8028.msg182531#msg182531
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 03, 2014, 11:31:50 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 08:52:58 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 02, 2014, 07:22:36 PM
Novus Ordo watch is a good site--lots of valuable information on there.
Francis' mouth is the prime source for the world's modernism
NO Watch is an absolute joke, and worse, that consistently contradicts the Doctrines of the Church.
Can you provide an example of your claim that what they say "consistently contradicts the Doctrines of the Church", or are you going to continue making baseless assertions?
I have given a logical, concise basis for all mine statements.
I will do so soon on the web site in question.
This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm
and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm
and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.
You are not providing specifics. What in that article contradicts Catholicism?
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 03, 2014, 02:29:01 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm
and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.
You are not providing specifics. What in that article contradicts Catholicism?
For one, calling an ordained Catholic priest a "Mr"
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 02:49:28 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 03, 2014, 02:29:01 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm
and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.
You are not providing specifics. What in that article contradicts Catholicism?
For one, calling an ordained Catholic priest a "Mr"
The New Rite of Ordination is invalid, so "Fr." Z is a layman.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 03, 2014, 02:52:12 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 02:49:28 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 03, 2014, 02:29:01 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm
and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.
You are not providing specifics. What in that article contradicts Catholicism?
For one, calling an ordained Catholic priest a "Mr"
The New Rite of Ordination is invalid, so "Fr." Z is a layman.
You haven't thought this through very well ... Have you?
P^3
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm
and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.
I visited the page you linked. On it I found a lengthy criticism of Fr. Z, random criticisms of other priests (as if guilty by association), and some loaded language in general. While I agree that it's yellow journalism (my term), which in itself tends to undermine the credibility of any such material, can you enumerate which "doctrinal errors" N.O.Watch has engaged in here or in previous content?
(Not matters of opinion, naturally, but assertions which are doctrinally at odds with Sacred Tradition?)
P.S. I do not subscribe or otherwise contribute to this website. I don't have a particular side to promote. I'm just looking for precision as to the doctrinal matters.
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 03, 2014, 03:28:06 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm
and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.
I visited the page you linked. On it I found a lengthy criticism of Fr. Z, random criticisms of other priests (as if guilty by association), and some loaded language in general. While I agree that it's yellow journalism (my term), which in itself tends to undermine the credibility of any such material, can you enumerate which "doctrinal errors" N.O.Watch has engaged in here or in previous content?
(Not matters of opinion, naturally, but assertions which are doctrinally at odds with Sacred Tradition?)
P.S. I do not subscribe or otherwise contribute to this website. I don't have a particular side to promote. I'm just looking for precision as to the doctrinal matters.
Keep looking, because I can't find any.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 03, 2014, 02:52:12 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 02:49:28 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 03, 2014, 02:29:01 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm
and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.
You are not providing specifics. What in that article contradicts Catholicism?
For one, calling an ordained Catholic priest a "Mr"
The New Rite of Ordination is invalid, so "Fr." Z is a layman.
Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt as you must to make such an absurd statement.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 03, 2014, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 03, 2014, 03:28:06 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm
and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.
I visited the page you linked. On it I found a lengthy criticism of Fr. Z, random criticisms of other priests (as if guilty by association), and some loaded language in general. While I agree that it's yellow journalism (my term), which in itself tends to undermine the credibility of any such material, can you enumerate which "doctrinal errors" N.O.Watch has engaged in here or in previous content?
(Not matters of opinion, naturally, but assertions which are doctrinally at odds with Sacred Tradition?)
P.S. I do not subscribe or otherwise contribute to this website. I don't have a particular side to promote. I'm just looking for precision as to the doctrinal matters.
Keep looking, because I can't find any.
It is full of them if you eyes to see and a well formed conscience.
Quote from: Older Salt on September 04, 2014, 08:28:11 AM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on September 03, 2014, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 03, 2014, 03:28:06 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 03, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm
and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.
I visited the page you linked. On it I found a lengthy criticism of Fr. Z, random criticisms of other priests (as if guilty by association), and some loaded language in general. While I agree that it's yellow journalism (my term), which in itself tends to undermine the credibility of any such material, can you enumerate which "doctrinal errors" N.O.Watch has engaged in here or in previous content?
(Not matters of opinion, naturally, but assertions which are doctrinally at odds with Sacred Tradition?)
P.S. I do not subscribe or otherwise contribute to this website. I don't have a particular side to promote. I'm just looking for precision as to the doctrinal matters.
Keep looking, because I can't find any.
It is full of them if you eyes to see and a well formed conscience.
Are you suggesting that I do not have a well-formed conscience? On what grounds do you say that? Or are you addressing Sbyvl?
Again, I visited the page, and was put off by the hyperbolic and
ad hominem tone of it, so I skimmed it until I got to the list of other priests being marginalized. If someone asked me to summarize, I would say that the author(s) condemn current mainstream Catholicism and the entire adulation of personalities, including the so-called "conservative" Catholics whose vocations have so far (allegedly) focused mostly on themselves. Although I agree with the implication that much of mainstream Catholicism today is shallow and focused on cult of personalities, the page is not light but heat: not, per se, an argument about specific doctrines. When asked to provide specifics, you haven't given us more than this page. I'm always happy to read about and discuss fallacious doctrine.
Is the surrounding of clerical titles in quotation marks the doctrinal matter you're objecting to?
Separately and O/T, regarding pages to visit, I find this perhaps more salient for exposing the profit motive and the 'personal glory' impulse in today's mainstream Catholicism:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/right-on-the-money.htm
No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.
Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.
This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.
It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.
Quote from: Older Salt on September 04, 2014, 09:32:56 AM
No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.
Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.
This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.
It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.
But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.
The question really hinges on what is meant by
spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.
So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?
But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on September 04, 2014, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 04, 2014, 09:32:56 AM
No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.
Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.
This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.
It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.
But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.
The question really hinges on what is meant by spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.
So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?
But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."
Yes sir.
You do make a good point.
It well past my "paygrade" to decide this matter as the Church decides it.
Quote from: Older Salt on September 04, 2014, 10:17:15 AM
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on September 04, 2014, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 04, 2014, 09:32:56 AM
No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.
Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.
This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.
It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.
But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.
The question really hinges on what is meant by spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.
So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?
But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."
Yes sir.
You do make a good point.
It well past my "paygrade" to decide this matter as the Church decides it.
You and I both. My point was simply to show that it is a matter that has been discussed, and not for insignificant reasons.
Quote from: Older Salt on September 04, 2014, 09:32:56 AM
No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.
Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.
This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.
It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.
OS, with all due respect, you are missing the point. Novus Ordo Watch, and sedes generally, do not dispute that doctrine one whit. They dispute that the "Supreme earthly Legislator" made those changes. There is a significant difference between those two positions.
Quote from: Older Salt on September 04, 2014, 09:32:56 AM
No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.
I think (I hope) that you forgot the second "not." ;)
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 04, 2014, 11:12:05 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 04, 2014, 09:32:56 AM
No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.
I think (I hope) that you forgot the second "not." ;)
Yes.
Sorry about the mistake.
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on September 04, 2014, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 04, 2014, 09:32:56 AM
No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.
Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.
This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.
It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.
But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.
The question really hinges on what is meant by spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.
So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?
But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."
The problem is worse than this: According to P. Pius XII, the form must mention the conferring of two distinct things: 1. The Power of Orders 2. The Holy Ghost. The new form only mentions the giving of the "spiritus principalis"; this could mean either the one or the other (take your pick); but it cannot mean both. One of the main elements of the form is therefore lacking.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 04, 2014, 03:49:26 PM
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on September 04, 2014, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 04, 2014, 09:32:56 AM
No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.
Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.
This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.
It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.
But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.
The question really hinges on what is meant by spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.
So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?
But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."
The problem is worse than this: According to P. Pius XII, the form must mention the conferring of two distinct things: 1. The Power of Orders 2. The Holy Ghost. The new form only mentions the giving of the "spiritus principalis"; this could mean either the one or the other (take your pick); but it cannot mean both. One of the main elements of the form is therefore lacking.
Are these the (translated) words of the form in the old rite and new rite: (This is from some old notes I have)
Episcopal Consecration Ordination
OLD RITE:
"Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing."
NEW RITE:
"So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name" (Ordination Prayer).
How is the conferring of the Holy Ghost signified in the old form? "The heavenly anointing"?
Aren't both the Holy Ghost and the Power of Orders mentioned in the new form: The Holy Ghost: "the governing Spirit, whom you gave" and the Power of Orders: "that power which is from you". There are two separate things referred to: the power and the One who gave it (who is Himself also given).
Hmm, after reading more carefully, I think that: "that power which is from you" and "the governing Spirit"are talking about the
same thing. The Father gives the power/Holy Spirit to the priest, the same power/Holy Spirit whom He gave to Christ and to the Apostles. But it is not explicitly said that the power (the Holy Spirit) is given for the fullness of priestly ministry.
I read an article from Fr. Cekada on this matter but don't remember much and wasn't entirely convinced.
This argument doesn't end with an isolated consideration of the two forms - it goes on to the question as to whether the new form is in fact so close to (or derived from) other old valid (Eastern) forms that it too must be valid.
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 04, 2014, 06:20:11 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 04, 2014, 03:49:26 PM
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on September 04, 2014, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on September 04, 2014, 09:32:56 AM
No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.
Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.
This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.
It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.
But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.
The question really hinges on what is meant by spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.
So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?
But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."
The problem is worse than this: According to P. Pius XII, the form must mention the conferring of two distinct things: 1. The Power of Orders 2. The Holy Ghost. The new form only mentions the giving of the "spiritus principalis"; this could mean either the one or the other (take your pick); but it cannot mean both. One of the main elements of the form is therefore lacking.
Are these the (translated) words of the form in the old rite and new rite: (This is from some old notes I have)
Episcopal Consecration Ordination
OLD RITE:
"Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing."
NEW RITE:
"So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name" (Ordination Prayer).
How is the conferring of the Holy Ghost signified in the old form? "The heavenly anointing"?
Aren't both the Holy Ghost and the Power of Orders mentioned in the new form: The Holy Ghost: "the governing Spirit, whom you gave" and the Power of Orders: "that power which is from you". There are two separate things referred to: the power and the One who gave it (who is Himself also given).
Hmm, after reading more carefully, I think that: "that power which is from you" and "the governing Spirit"are talking about the same thing. The Father gives the power/Holy Spirit to the priest, the same power/Holy Spirit whom He gave to Christ and to the Apostles. But it is not explicitly said that the power (the Holy Spirit) is given for the fullness of priestly ministry.
I read an article from Fr. Cekada on this matter but don't remember much and wasn't entirely convinced.
This argument doesn't end with an isolated consideration of the two forms - it goes on to the question as to whether the new form is in fact so close to (or derived from) other old valid (Eastern) forms that it too must be valid.
Two issues:
1) The "Governing spirit"
may be the Holy Ghost or it may not. It is not explicit what is being asked for here.
2) The new form mentions the "Governing" spirit which speaks of jurisdiction but nowhere mentions the Sacramental power of the order being conferred. Whereas the old rite explicitly mentions that the grace being received "perfects" or completes that which has already been conferred through the sacerdotal order.
Non Nobis stated:
QuoteThis argument doesn't end with an isolated consideration of the two forms - it goes on to the question as to whether the new form is in fact so close to (or derived from) other old valid (Eastern) forms that it too must be valid.
That would have been a very strong argument; but the problem is that the new form is an almost exact duplicate of the Maronite form for the enthronement of an Archbishop. It is not used to Consecrate bishops. The Dominican's of Avrille in their original article, tasked Dr. Cooramaswami for having made a blunder in publishing an erroneous version of the Maronite Consecratory form. But it was the Dominicans that were mistaken. The members of Rore Scientifica interviewed a Maronite doctor of Canon law and asked him if the form cited by the Dominicans had ever been used to Consecrated bishops, and he responded in the negative.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 05, 2014, 06:32:53 AM
Non Nobis stated: QuoteThis argument doesn't end with an isolated consideration of the two forms - it goes on to the question as to whether the new form is in fact so close to (or derived from) other old valid (Eastern) forms that it too must be valid.
That would have been a very strong argument; but the problem is that the new form is an almost exact duplicate of the Maronite form for the enthronement of an Archbishop. It is not used to Consecrate bishops. The Dominican's of Avrille in their original article, tasked Dr. Cooramaswami for having made a blunder in publishing an erroneous version of the Maronite Consecratory form. But it was the Dominicans that were mistaken. The members of Rore Scientifica interviewed a Maronite doctor of Canon law and asked him if the form cited by the Dominicans had ever been used to Consecrated bishops, and he responded in the negative.
This leads to a question: does validity of a form have respect to its Rite?
Gardener stated:
QuoteThis leads to a question: does validity of a form have respect to its Rite?
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, but I will respond to what I think you are asking:
If a Latin Rite priest offers the Mass in the Byzantine Rite, or a Byzantine Priest offers Mass in the Latin Rite, both are valid; the same is true, if a Byzantine rite of ordination is used to ordain priests that will offer the Latin Mass and again vice versa is also considered valid. There are many historic rites in the Church that are considered valid. Some of the schismatics have tampered with their rites and rendered them invalid, as is the case with the Nestorians using the Anaphora of Addai and Mari; as it lacks the form of the sacrament.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 06, 2014, 10:12:41 AM
Gardener stated: QuoteThis leads to a question: does validity of a form have respect to its Rite?
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, but I will respond to what I think you are asking:
If a Latin Rite priest offers the Mass in the Byzantine Rite, or a Byzantine Priest offers Mass in the Latin Rite, both are valid; the same is true, if a Byzantine rite of ordination is used to ordain priests that will offer the Latin Mass and again vice versa is also considered valid. There are many historic rites in the Church that are considered valid. Some of the schismatics have tampered with their rites and rendered them invalid, as is the case with the Nestorians using the Anaphora of Addai and Mari; as it lacks the form of the sacrament.
What about a Latin Rite priest using the X (any
other valid Rite) Form
in the Latin Rite?
Quote from: Gardener on September 07, 2014, 09:39:05 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 06, 2014, 10:12:41 AM
Gardener stated: QuoteThis leads to a question: does validity of a form have respect to its Rite?
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, but I will respond to what I think you are asking:
If a Latin Rite priest offers the Mass in the Byzantine Rite, or a Byzantine Priest offers Mass in the Latin Rite, both are valid; the same is true, if a Byzantine rite of ordination is used to ordain priests that will offer the Latin Mass and again vice versa is also considered valid. There are many historic rites in the Church that are considered valid. Some of the schismatics have tampered with their rites and rendered them invalid, as is the case with the Nestorians using the Anaphora of Addai and Mari; as it lacks the form of the sacrament.
What about a Latin Rite priest using the X (any other valid Rite) Form in the Latin Rite?
Now
that is a fascinating question. I wonder if any canonists or theologians have touched upon it.
Quote from: Gardener on September 07, 2014, 09:39:05 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 06, 2014, 10:12:41 AM
Gardener stated: QuoteThis leads to a question: does validity of a form have respect to its Rite?
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, but I will respond to what I think you are asking:
If a Latin Rite priest offers the Mass in the Byzantine Rite, or a Byzantine Priest offers Mass in the Latin Rite, both are valid; the same is true, if a Byzantine rite of ordination is used to ordain priests that will offer the Latin Mass and again vice versa is also considered valid. There are many historic rites in the Church that are considered valid. Some of the schismatics have tampered with their rites and rendered them invalid, as is the case with the Nestorians using the Anaphora of Addai and Mari; as it lacks the form of the sacrament.
What about a Latin Rite priest using the X (any other valid Rite) Form in the Latin Rite?
I'll take a guess and say that it would probably be valid but illicit; comparable to a Latin rite priest consecrating leavened bread. I also would ask, why was the change made? For example, the deliberate suppression of the "Mysterium Fidei" in the Latin Rite form of the consecration of the wine, certainly raises a question as to the intentions which motivated this suppression; especially with the addition of the public acclamation of "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again" right after the consecration; it appears to negate or at least obscure the fact that after the consecration, Christ is truly present on the altar. Pope Leo in Apostolicae Curae made the following observation about the changes in the Anglican rite of orders:
Quote..if the rite [in this case, of the Mass and Holy Eucharist] be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament."
Fr. Cekada in his book: "The Work of Human Hands" does a very thorough job of documenting the unorthodox ideas of the authors of the N.O.M. And the substantial changes introduced into the new rite that reveal its anti-Catholic spirit.
Quote from: tradical on August 27, 2014, 11:07:38 AM
Quote from: Stranger on August 23, 2014, 06:57:37 PM
Tradical quotes Hunter as proof of the doctrine that the unanimous acceptance of a Pope Elect by the Bishops creates a dogmatic fact, i.e. makes the legitimacy of his election infallibly true. For this he only quotes Hunter, as Billot and others merely speak of the universal and pacifical acceptance of the whole Universal Church, not merely the bishops.
So let's take a closer look at what Hunter is saying:
QuoteFirst, 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.
1. "if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope",
- Far from impossible, this situation already happened during the Western Schism, and the uncertainty lasted for 40 years. Therefore, it is entirely possible that it could be happening now.
2. "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"
- this presupposes that there is a Pope, but what happened during every period of sede vacante, or, what happened during the four decades of the Western Schism? Did the bishops of the world (the Teaching Church) temporarily lose the ability to teach? To say such a thing would not only be ridiculous but also at least an error because it would mean that the Constitution of the Church has changed from the one divinely instituted by Christ, which is impossible.
3. "if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise would be falsified, which is impossible"
- But during the Western Schism the uncertainty was not resolved for 40 years, and yet obviously the Teaching Church still exercised the power of teaching, and Christ's promise did not fail. So a similar situation is possible today as well. What is certain is that one day it will be resolved.
Quote
...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.
This presupposes the existence of a true Pope, who is the head mentioned above, so that if the entire body of bishops were to adhere to an antipope while a true pope was alive they would be separated from their head. But if we are in a period of vacancy then there is no pope and no head of the body of bishops, so if the body of bishops were to unknowingly recognize an antipope they would merely make an error of fact and would not be separated from their head, since they would not have a head during that period.
If we consider all of this, then we can see that the doctrine expressed in Cum ex Apostolatus - that the election of a heretic would be invalid even if accepted by every single cardinal, agrees perfectly with the dogmatic fact that the pacific and universal adherence of the whole Church (not merely the bishops) to a Pontiff makes his election infallibly legitimate, because the adherence of merely the cardinals or the bishops is not the same as the universal adherence of the whole Church.
Therefore, Tradical's basis for disproving sedevacantism is not correct.
Sorry Stranger, but your reasoning is flawed at the root as you have committed the same logical error at John Daly and John Lane.
QuoteFirst, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope
This is what establishes the dogmatic fact. The secondary portion are reasons why it is so.
It is important to note that it is not just Hunter but Billot, Ott St. Alphone de Ligouri who are all in complete agreement on the doctrine. The difference is in the rational for supporting the existence of the dogmatic fact.
That you believe there is no uncertainty does not logically invalidate the principle as noted.
Recourse to the Western Schism is also mistaken because of this statement
Quote]if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up,
This demonstrates that there must be a way to ascertain who is the valid Vicar of Christ. This demonstrates that the unanimous recognition by the Bishops establishes this fact removing any doubt.
It is important to read the whole and not discard elements that do not coincide with one's beliefs.
Last point, we must accept the teaching of the Church as the Church understands them.
Your assertions are counter to the explicit sense of the text, and the referenced theological texts.
P^3
I have demonstrated my case. On the other hand, you have obviously decided to limit yourself to little more than assertions.
The dogmatic fact which many theologians teach is that
the whole Church cannot accept a false pope. As far as I know (and you have not proven otherwise), only Hunter argues that the universal adherence of the bishops also creates another dogmatic fact. However, I was not disputing him
per se, I simply demonstrated that this particular teaching of his can only be applied if a true pope exists, and not if there is a
sede vacante. You have not successfully disproved this, nor can you, because it would mean that the Teaching Church can not teach during a
sede vacante and that it did not teach throughout the 40 years of the Western Schism, during which the uncertainty of who the real pope was remained unresolved.
Finally, the teaching of one theologian is not the teaching of the Church, nor is it binding. I know you like it because it fits with your theory, but if you build a theory without a solid foundation that theory is like a house of cards.
You would need to find
many other eminent theologians who argue the same as Hunter, and who disprove the qualifications I made (which I believe Hunter would probably accept because they are corroborated by historical examples), in order to make it a
sententia communis.
Unless you can prove, theologically, why the universal acceptance of the bishops (while at the same time the condition of the universal acceptance of the whole Church is not fulfilled) must create a dogmatic fact, such a doctrine affirmed by a single theologian, as far as I know, would seem to remain but an opinion -
sententia probabilis.
@stranger,
The doctrine is not merely the opinion of one theologian as it is published in a theological textbook with a reliable imprimatur. In other words, your assertion is a red herring.
Even so, whether the acceptance is by the bishops (Church Teaching) or the combined Bishops and the Church Learning is irrelevant as both groups have accepted that each successive Pope.
If you were to ask the moral majority of Catholics after each election who was the reigning Vicar of Christ, you would find the following after each election:
John 23
Paul 6
John Paul 1
John Paul 2
Benedict 16
Francis
It is that simple.
Quote from: tradical on September 10, 2014, 08:47:53 PM
@stranger,
The doctrine is not merely the opinion of one theologian as it is published in a theological textbook with a reliable imprimatur. In other words, your assertion is a red herring.
Even so, whether the acceptance is by the bishops (Church Teaching) or the combined Bishops and the Church Learning is irrelevant as both groups have accepted that each successive Pope.
If you were to ask the moral majority of Catholics after each election who was the reigning Vicar of Christ, you would find the following after each election:
John 23
Paul 6
John Paul 1
John Paul 2
Benedict 16
Francis
It is that simple.
Many theological textbooks receive an imprimatur, that doesn't make them infallible. For example, I personally know of a theological textbook with an imprimatur from the late 19th century which contains at least one doctrine contrary to Catholic teaching.
As I said, without proof your theory is just an opinion. Quoting a short passage from a single theologian, who does not explore the matter in depth, is not a solution.
The dogmatic fact is created when the papal claimant receives "universal and pacific acceptance" from the
whole Church. Now, most Traditional Catholics refuse pacific acceptance to the Conciliar pontiffs (their acceptance is in name only, while in substance they reject their authority, they reject them as the rule of Faith, many even openly call them heretics), and Sedevacantists refuse them any acceptance at all.
So, the Conciliar pontiffs obviously do not have universal and pacific acceptance, even if we count only the SVs as rejecting their authority, but there is also a strong case for counting other Traditionalists since they share with Francis
neither unity of faith (he does not profess the Catholic Faith, but the modernist religion, and they refuse and condemn his religion),
nor unity of sacraments or communion (he does not use Catholic but modernist rites, and they condemn those rites), and there is no real
unity of government because Traditional Catholics do not submit to Francis, nor is it possible for them to be truly subject to him without endangering their Faith.
I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century. What is the book and what is the error?
Quote from: Stranger on September 13, 2014, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: tradical on September 10, 2014, 08:47:53 PM
@stranger,
The doctrine is not merely the opinion of one theologian as it is published in a theological textbook with a reliable imprimatur. In other words, your assertion is a red herring.
Even so, whether the acceptance is by the bishops (Church Teaching) or the combined Bishops and the Church Learning is irrelevant as both groups have accepted that each successive Pope.
If you were to ask the moral majority of Catholics after each election who was the reigning Vicar of Christ, you would find the following after each election:
John 23
Paul 6
John Paul 1
John Paul 2
Benedict 16
Francis
It is that simple.
Many theological textbooks receive an imprimatur, that doesn't make them infallible. For example, I personally know of a theological textbook with an imprimatur from the late 19th century which contains at least one doctrine contrary to Catholic teaching.
As I said, without proof your theory is just an opinion. Quoting a short passage from a single theologian, who does not explore the matter in depth, is not a solution.
The dogmatic fact is created when the papal claimant receives "universal and pacific acceptance" from the whole Church. Now, most Traditional Catholics refuse pacific acceptance to the Conciliar pontiffs (their acceptance is in name only, while in substance they reject their authority, they reject them as the rule of Faith, many even openly call them heretics), and Sedevacantists refuse them any acceptance at all.
So, the Conciliar pontiffs obviously do not have universal and pacific acceptance, even if we count only the SVs as rejecting their authority, but there is also a strong case for counting other Traditionalists since they share with Francis neither unity of faith (he does not profess the Catholic Faith, but the modernist religion, and they refuse and condemn his religion), nor unity of sacraments or communion (he does not use Catholic but modernist rites, and they condemn those rites), and there is no real unity of government because Traditional Catholics do not submit to Francis, nor is it possible for them to be truly subject to him without endangering their Faith.
As one noted fallen away, but managed to have a priest present at his death once said: Fuddle Duddle.
The imprimatur puts its authority against yours. Sorry, I take its authority vs yours any day. Especially since it is consistent with: Ott, Billot, Noort.
As far as the rest of your opinion - sorry what you have stated is inconsistent with the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I started a discussion on this topic here ( http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8506.msg182721#msg182721 ).
Now if I hold your opinion up against the opinion contained within the Catechism of the Council of Trent - I again select the latter as a trustworthy source of Catholic Doctrine.
Final thought for today: It is necessary for sedevacantists to stop imitating the modernists by re-imagining Church Doctrine. Vital Immanence is a heresy, so the 'religious sentiments' that well up in the hearts of the sedevacantists that go against Church Teaching are likewise heretical.
We now return to our original programming ...
Pope Pius X once said that an imprimatur is no longer a guarantee that there are no errors. I'll look to see if I can find the exact quote.
Found it:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html)
51. To give you some more general directions, Venerable Brethren, in a
matter of such moment, We bid you do everything in your power to drive
out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any pernicious books
that may be in circulation there. The Holy See neglects no means to
put down writings of this kind, but the number of them has now grown
to such an extent that it is impossible to censure them all. Hence it
happens that the medicine sometimes arrives too late, for the disease
has taken root during the delay. We will, therefore, that the Bishops,
putting aside all fear and the prudence of the flesh, despising the
outcries of the wicked, gently by all means but constantly, do each
his own share of this work...Let no Bishop think that he fulfils this
duty by denouncing to us one or two books, while a great many others
of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be
deterred by the fact that a book has obtained the Imprimatur
elsewhere, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it
may have been granted through carelessness or easiness or excessive
confidence in the author as may sometimes happen in religious Orders.
Besides, just as the same food does not agree equally with everybody,
it may happen that a book harmless in one may, on account of the
different circumstances, be hurtful in another. Should a Bishop,
therefore, after having taken the advice of prudent persons, deem it
right to condemn any of such books in his diocese, We not only give
him ample faculty to do so but We impose it upon him as a duty to do
so. Of course, it is Our wish that in such action proper regard be
used, and sometimes it will suffice to restrict the prohibition to the
clergy; but even in such cases it will be obligatory on Catholic
booksellers not to put on sale books condemned by the Bishop. And
while We are on this subject of booksellers, We wish the Bishops to
see to it that they do not, through desire for gain, put on sale
unsound books. It is certain that in the catalogues of some of them
the books of the Modernists are not unfrequently announced with no
small praise. If they refuse obedience let the Bishops have no
hesitation in depriving them of the title of Catholic booksellers; so
too, and with more reason, if they have the title of Episcopal
booksellers, and if they have that of Pontifical, let them be
denounced to the Apostolic See.
Quote from: Lynne on September 14, 2014, 03:40:28 PM
Pope Pius X once said that an imprimatur is no longer a guarantee that there are no errors. I'll look to see if I can find the exact quote.
Found it:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html)
51. To give you some more general directions, Venerable Brethren, in a
matter of such moment, We bid you do everything in your power to drive
out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any pernicious books
that may be in circulation there. The Holy See neglects no means to
put down writings of this kind, but the number of them has now grown
to such an extent that it is impossible to censure them all. Hence it
happens that the medicine sometimes arrives too late, for the disease
has taken root during the delay. We will, therefore, that the Bishops,
putting aside all fear and the prudence of the flesh, despising the
outcries of the wicked, gently by all means but constantly, do each
his own share of this work...Let no Bishop think that he fulfils this
duty by denouncing to us one or two books, while a great many others
of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be
deterred by the fact that a book has obtained the Imprimatur
elsewhere, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it
may have been granted through carelessness or easiness or excessive
confidence in the author as may sometimes happen in religious Orders.
Besides, just as the same food does not agree equally with everybody,
it may happen that a book harmless in one may, on account of the
different circumstances, be hurtful in another. Should a Bishop,
therefore, after having taken the advice of prudent persons, deem it
right to condemn any of such books in his diocese, We not only give
him ample faculty to do so but We impose it upon him as a duty to do
so. Of course, it is Our wish that in such action proper regard be
used, and sometimes it will suffice to restrict the prohibition to the
clergy; but even in such cases it will be obligatory on Catholic
booksellers not to put on sale books condemned by the Bishop. And
while We are on this subject of booksellers, We wish the Bishops to
see to it that they do not, through desire for gain, put on sale
unsound books. It is certain that in the catalogues of some of them
the books of the Modernists are not unfrequently announced with no
small praise. If they refuse obedience let the Bishops have no
hesitation in depriving them of the title of Catholic booksellers; so
too, and with more reason, if they have the title of Episcopal
booksellers, and if they have that of Pontifical, let them be
denounced to the Apostolic See.
The instruction is for Bishops examining texts.
Unless one can find something wrong with the text itself and not just base it on a feeling that emanates from within oneself, these texts that have been cited can be considered reliable.
i.e. the application of a generalized statement to a specific case is not warranted until the generalized case has been proved applicable.
Quote from: LouisIX on September 14, 2014, 01:28:31 PM
I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century. What is the book and what is the error?
I KNOW!!!
Quote from: LouisIX on September 14, 2014, 01:28:31 PM
I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century. What is the book and what is the error?
contain error or contain something which is in disagreement with Dominican manualists? ;D
Quote from: Gardener on September 15, 2014, 11:07:14 AM
Quote from: LouisIX on September 14, 2014, 01:28:31 PM
I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century. What is the book and what is the error?
contain error or contain something which is in disagreement with Dominican manualists? ;D
The good Dominican fathers are unimpressed with your redundant distinction.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgarrigou-lagrange.weebly.com%2Fuploads%2F5%2F3%2F5%2F7%2F5357718%2F2257474_orig.jpg&hash=fe8fd3fe20a2b0ac26ab521e2c8304a25bef43e9)
Quote from: LouisIX on September 15, 2014, 11:43:38 AM
Quote from: Gardener on September 15, 2014, 11:07:14 AM
Quote from: LouisIX on September 14, 2014, 01:28:31 PM
I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century. What is the book and what is the error?
contain error or contain something which is in disagreement with Dominican manualists? ;D
The good Dominican fathers are unimpressed with your redundant distinction.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgarrigou-lagrange.weebly.com%2Fuploads%2F5%2F3%2F5%2F7%2F5357718%2F2257474_orig.jpg&hash=fe8fd3fe20a2b0ac26ab521e2c8304a25bef43e9)
"Contains error" is a rather grave charge for something which contains an imprimatur...
If by contains error you mean something which is defined by the Church, sure.
If you mean it conflicts with the Dominican manualists but is permissible by the Church, I'd rephrase to "doesn't agree with the Dominican manualists".
I was just being lighthearted.
Quote from: tradical on September 14, 2014, 02:44:59 PM
Quote from: Stranger on September 13, 2014, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: tradical on September 10, 2014, 08:47:53 PM
@stranger,
The doctrine is not merely the opinion of one theologian as it is published in a theological textbook with a reliable imprimatur. In other words, your assertion is a red herring.
Even so, whether the acceptance is by the bishops (Church Teaching) or the combined Bishops and the Church Learning is irrelevant as both groups have accepted that each successive Pope.
If you were to ask the moral majority of Catholics after each election who was the reigning Vicar of Christ, you would find the following after each election:
John 23
Paul 6
John Paul 1
John Paul 2
Benedict 16
Francis
It is that simple.
Many theological textbooks receive an imprimatur, that doesn't make them infallible. For example, I personally know of a theological textbook with an imprimatur from the late 19th century which contains at least one doctrine contrary to Catholic teaching.
As I said, without proof your theory is just an opinion. Quoting a short passage from a single theologian, who does not explore the matter in depth, is not a solution.
The dogmatic fact is created when the papal claimant receives "universal and pacific acceptance" from the whole Church. Now, most Traditional Catholics refuse pacific acceptance to the Conciliar pontiffs (their acceptance is in name only, while in substance they reject their authority, they reject them as the rule of Faith, many even openly call them heretics), and Sedevacantists refuse them any acceptance at all.
So, the Conciliar pontiffs obviously do not have universal and pacific acceptance, even if we count only the SVs as rejecting their authority, but there is also a strong case for counting other Traditionalists since they share with Francis neither unity of faith (he does not profess the Catholic Faith, but the modernist religion, and they refuse and condemn his religion), nor unity of sacraments or communion (he does not use Catholic but modernist rites, and they condemn those rites), and there is no real unity of government because Traditional Catholics do not submit to Francis, nor is it possible for them to be truly subject to him without endangering their Faith.
As one noted fallen away, but managed to have a priest present at his death once said: Fuddle Duddle.
The imprimatur puts its authority against yours. Sorry, I take its authority vs yours any day. Especially since it is consistent with: Ott, Billot, Noort.
As far as the rest of your opinion - sorry what you have stated is inconsistent with the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I started a discussion on this topic here ( http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8506.msg182721#msg182721 ).
Now if I hold your opinion up against the opinion contained within the Catechism of the Council of Trent - I again select the latter as a trustworthy source of Catholic Doctrine.
Final thought for today: It is necessary for sedevacantists to stop imitating the modernists by re-imagining Church Doctrine. Vital Immanence is a heresy, so the 'religious sentiments' that well up in the hearts of the sedevacantists that go against Church Teaching are likewise heretical.
We now return to our original programming ...
In other words, you have no response other than denial and new uncorroborated accusations.
If I have said something "inconsistent with the Catechism of the Council of Trent", then tell me what that is and in what way is it inconsistent with the Catechism. The thread you quoted doesn't answer this question, because a long interregnum is not inconsistent with Catholic doctrine, and just because someone calls himself the Pope and wears a white cassock, even if he is recognized by most, that still doesn't necessarily make his claim true. If the person is a public heretic, then he is invalid matter for the Papacy, by Divine Law.
BTW, I am not a SV. I simply believe that there is a well founded doubt regarding Francis' person and election, because of his words and actions contrary to the Faith, both before and after his election.
Quote from: LouisIX on September 14, 2014, 01:28:31 PM
I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century. What is the book and what is the error?
The book is a local catechism and has an imprimatur from the local bishop. The error is found in a part which says that the Catholic Church does not condemn poeople who belong to other religions and that the Church does not teach who will be saved, only what saves men.
This is contrary to the infallible statement of the Council of Florence:
Quote[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Stranger on September 18, 2014, 12:47:02 AM
Quote from: LouisIX on September 14, 2014, 01:28:31 PM
I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century. What is the book and what is the error?
The book is a local catechism and has an imprimatur from the local bishop. The error is found in a part which says that the Catholic Church does not condemn poeople who belong to other religions and that the Church does not teach who will be saved, only what saves men.
This is contrary to the infallible statement of the Council of Florence:
Quote[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
If I understand you correctly, you then have to condemn Pius IX since he's the one who reiterated the 'invincible ignorance' doctrine.
P3
Quote from: Stranger on September 18, 2014, 12:08:46 AM
Quote from: tradical on September 14, 2014, 02:44:59 PM
Quote from: Stranger on September 13, 2014, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: tradical on September 10, 2014, 08:47:53 PM
@stranger,
The doctrine is not merely the opinion of one theologian as it is published in a theological textbook with a reliable imprimatur. In other words, your assertion is a red herring.
...
BTW, I am not a SV. I simply believe that there is a well founded doubt regarding Francis' person and election, because of his words and actions contrary to the Faith, both before and after his election.
There is no 'well founded doubt' at all if you accept the doctrine of dogmatic facts. By all means, if you ascribe a heretical meaning to his words, do not internalize and accept them, but the link between your doubt and his actions is non-existent.
As far as the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
Quote
For a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity.
...
But although the Catholic faith uniformly and truly teaches that the good and the bad belong to the Church, yet the same faith declares that the condition of both is very different. The wicked are contained in the Church, as the chaff is mingled with the grain on the threshing floor, or as dead members sometimes remain attached to a living body.
...
But with regard to the rest {infidels, heretics, schismatics}, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.
(((Cue the sedevacantist opinions on 'pertinacity'.)))
P^3
Quote from: Stranger on September 18, 2014, 12:47:02 AM
Quote from: LouisIX on September 14, 2014, 01:28:31 PM
I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century. What is the book and what is the error?
The book is a local catechism and has an imprimatur from the local bishop. The error is found in a part which says that the Catholic Church does not condemn poeople who belong to other religions and that the Church does not teach who will be saved, only what saves men.
This is contrary to the infallible statement of the Council of Florence:
Quote[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
I'd be interested in what the book/catechism says *exactly*, along with whatever it references in that section.
Quote from: Stranger on September 18, 2014, 12:47:02 AM
Quote from: LouisIX on September 14, 2014, 01:28:31 PM
I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century. What is the book and what is the error?
The book is a local catechism and has an imprimatur from the local bishop. The error is found in a part which says that the Catholic Church does not condemn poeople who belong to other religions and that the Church does not teach who will be saved, only what saves men.
The first part of that statement may not be heretical depending upon the actual wording, and the second part is certainly not heretical.
Tradical:
Quote"If I understand you correctly, you then have to condemn Pius IX since he's the one who reiterated the 'invincible ignorance' doctrine."
Not at all, but the
non-infallible doctrine of "invincible ignorance" (properly called implicit Baptism of Desire, since invincible ignorance on its own does not save) has to be reconciled with
infallible Catholic teaching, such as the statements of the Council of Florence, one of which I quoted above, which says that
all who die as Jews, pagans, heretics or schismatics will be damned, and another from the same document, which says that
the Catholic Faith is absolutely necessary for salvation:
Quote[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that never was anyone, conceived by a man and a woman, liberated from the devil's dominion except by faith in our lord Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and humanity, who was conceived without sin, was born and died.
This means that no Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Animist, or other pagan can be saved, unless they convert before death, because they can never have the Catholic Faith as members of those religions, not even implicitly, because no one can implicitly believe what he explicitly denies (the Jews and Muslims deny Christ and the Holy Trinity, the pagans deny everything, incl. that there is only One God). They cannot have implicit Baptism of Desire, which is actually an act of love, because no one can love what he does not know, and they both do not know and reject the True God.
Quote"Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also"
1 John 2:22-23
Tradical:
Quote"There is no 'well founded doubt' at all if you accept the doctrine of dogmatic facts."
What you should have said is: if I accept your interpretation of Hunter and the doctrine. It is presumptuous to think that not a single sedevacantist has thought of the Catholic doctrine that once a pope is accepted by the
whole Church, his election is infallibly true. It is also presumptuous to think that no sedevacantist accepts this doctrine - AFAIK, they all do.
As far as your quote from the Council of Trent, no pertinacity has to be assumed, nor even proven (though the SV argument that Francis cannot be ignorant of the Faith because he went through the traditional pre-NO formation, is very compelling). If there is a permanent and well-founded doubt in the election or the person of a pope, then that makes him a doubtful pope and renders null any obligation of obedience and submission to him - "papa dubius, papa nullus".
Gardener:
QuoteI'd be interested in what the book/catechism says *exactly*, along with whatever it references in that section.
The quoted part does not reference anything. The reference for the entire section is undecipherable and it does not appear in the List of references. It is a textbook for highschool children (which makes the error that much worse). I should also not that the region where this textbook was printed and where it got its imprimatur was even at that time theologically a very liberal region.
This is the exact wording (a literal translation to English):
QuoteWhen the Roman Catholic Church calls itself the "only one which saves", by that she does not condemn people who belong to other denominations. The Church only teaches what it is which saves men, and not at all who will be saved.
Then follows a description of the doctrine of "invincible ignorance", with no mention at all of the need for at least an implicit desire of Baptism nor of the necessity of the Catholic Faith, explicitly saying that anyone who is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church and follows his conscience will be saved.
This would mean that a Jew or a Buddhist who is in invincible ignorance of the Church and lives according to his conscience (naturally, a conscience ill-formed by his false religion, e.g. the Talmud says that it is okay to rob or kill a gentile) will be saved. This is, of course, contrary to the infallible teaching of the Council of Florence.
LouisIX:
QuoteThe first part of that statement may not be heretical depending upon the actual wording, and the second part is certainly not heretical.
The first part is explicitly contrary to the previously quoted infallible teaching of the Council of Florence, more precisely to the first part of the infallible statement of Florence, which says that all those who are members of those false religions will be damned.
The second part is explicitly contrary to the second part of the infallible statement of Florence, which says that only those who are Catholic will be saved.
Quote from: Stranger on September 20, 2014, 06:42:11 AM
...
reply here: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8490.msg187940#msg187940
Quote from: tradical on September 20, 2014, 09:22:36 AM
Quote from: Stranger on September 20, 2014, 06:42:11 AM
...
reply here: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8490.msg187940#msg187940
I would appreciate posting your replies to my comments in the same thread, and not in a thread I haven't participated in or read at all.
Concerning your reply, the Church has not exactly defined the minimum supernatural Catholic Faith necessary, however, the Church did infallibly state in the Council of Florence that faith in Christ in absolutely necessary, as I quoted. Therefore, the bare minimum that you presented is obviously not enough. Also, there is the teaching of the great St. Thomas, who says that faith in Christ and in the Holy Trinity is the 'bare minimum'.
But even if what you said were true, Muslims and Jews still wouldn't qualify because a Jew or a Muslim cannot have even an implicit Catholic Faith, let alone an explicit one, since he explicitly denies and rejects Christ.
It is madness to say that deniers and blasphemers of Christ (read the quote from the Holy Gospel) can be 'invisible' Christians. It is the death of missionary work, it is the death of "Outside the Church there is no salvation", it is a blatant and explicit denial of the Council of Florence. Such a twisted belief could only exist in these crazy times because in the times of Catholic sanity someone who said such a thing would have either been ridiculed or severely punished, or both.
As for the "pope" question, I never mentioned John XXIII or Paul VI (but it is possible for a person to be a true pope and then lose the pontificate). The person who dresses in white today is Francis, not either of those two. Since you doubt the accusations of heresy against him, you must not be following his constant barrage against infallible Catholic doctrine, especially strong in the area of denying EENS, whether it is regarding the Jews, Muslims or Protestants, or just promoting deadly relativism. And with just a little bit of research you would see that he did similar things before his election. All of that is enough for a well founded doubt in his person or election.
Or do you honestly think that someone can be the Pope of the Catholic Church without having the Catholic Faith?No true traditionalist submits to Francis, neither the SSPX nor the "independents" nor the SV (without submission there is no pacific acceptance and no dogmatic fact). And this is because to do so would be to endanger one's faith, since his doctrines are poison, and the result of his teachings to those poor souls who submit to them - death.
I hope you will be honest to yourself and others and stop grouping Hunter's doctrine with the others you quoted, since they all speak of the whole Church and he alone speaks of the bishops without the priests and the faithful.
jews buddhists and muzzies do not qualify as invincabley ignorent because they acknowledge the existence Of Jesus
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 21, 2014, 10:37:59 AM
jews buddhists and muzzies do not qualify as invincabley ignorent because they acknowledge the existence Of Jesus
Knowing Christ and knowing about Christ are two completely different things
Quote from: Chestertonian on September 21, 2014, 01:15:20 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 21, 2014, 10:37:59 AM
jews buddhists and muzzies do not qualify as invincabley ignorent because they acknowledge the existence Of Jesus
Knowing Christ and knowing about Christ are two completely different things
If you go this route you go full-blown Bogus Ordo doctrine.
If people
reallyknew Christ they'd be Christians so they definitely don't know the
realChrist and thus be invincibly ignorant ----> out of the mouths of many an NO apologist!
I would say that Voxx is actually wrong though; he understates what Muslims and Jews do, they don't acknowledge Christ at all. In fact, they blaspheme Him purposefully rejecting Who He Is as Christ. It's not even a simple matter of "Oh there was someone name Jesus few thousand years ago?" it's an explicit rejection of Jesus Christ and His claims.
And can we please remember that invincible ignorance only excuses someone of a sin against faith. That's it. It isn't license to do whatever Pagans/Muslims/Jews do in other moral areas. It only excuses sins against
faith.
I know that before I became Christian I realized what I knew of Christ and the catholic faith and the reality of Christ and the catholic faith were two differethings
Quote from: Chestertonian on September 21, 2014, 01:42:36 PM
I know that before I became Christian I realized what I knew of Christ and the catholic faith and the reality of Christ and the catholic faith were two differethings
That made you ignorant not invincibly ignorant.
The uselessness of the discussion of "invincible ignorance" is that it applies to so few people, imho.
Quote from: Basilios on September 21, 2014, 01:25:12 PM
I would say that Voxx is actually wrong though; he understates what Muslims and Jews do, they don't acknowledge Christ at all. In fact, they blaspheme Him purposefully rejecting Who He Is as Christ. It's not even a simple matter of "Oh there was someone name Jesus few thousand years ago?" it's an explicit rejection of Jesus Christ and His claims.
Yes, both the Koran and the Talmud engage in blasphemy against Christ. And St John is very explicit in the way he calls those who do so.
Quote from: Basilios on September 21, 2014, 01:25:12 PMAnd can we please remember that invincible ignorance only excuses someone of a sin against faith. That's it. It isn't license to do whatever Pagans/Muslims/Jews do in other moral areas. It only excuses sins against faith.
Yes, many forget this, and they also forget that it is infallible doctrine that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation and for the forgiveness of sins, so a Muslim, who does not have the True Faith, cannot receive forgiveness of sins, cannot be in a state of grace and cannot be saved, whether he is invincibly ignorant or not. He cannot love that which he does not know, or especially that which he rejects. As you said, the only thing invincible ignorance does for him is to excuse him of the sin against faith.
If a person truly seeks God, then God will show the truth to him. But if he dies a pagan, Muslim, Jew, heretic or schismatic, he will be lost. It is not me saying it. It is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
Having had much time to ponder this thought-provoking question, I have finally hit upon the answer.
The answer is simple in that one single picture can explain what the cause of contention is, though it cannot provide the answers.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fak1.ostkcdn.com%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2F5230777%2FReco-Jeans-Womens-Dudleya-Parva-Skinny-Flare-Stretch-Jeans-P13055406.jpg&hash=0be2c3488594153e22763cda49b2a329aefc349d)
Quote from: Basilios on September 21, 2014, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian on September 21, 2014, 01:15:20 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 21, 2014, 10:37:59 AM
jews buddhists and muzzies do not qualify as invincabley ignorent because they acknowledge the existence Of Jesus
Knowing Christ and knowing about Christ are two completely different things
If you go this route you go full-blown Bogus Ordo doctrine.
If people reallyknew Christ they'd be Christians so they definitely don't know the realChrist and thus be invincibly ignorant ----> out of the mouths of many an NO apologist!
I would say that Voxx is actually wrong though; he understates what Muslims and Jews do, they don't acknowledge Christ at all. In fact, they blaspheme Him purposefully rejecting Who He Is as Christ. It's not even a simple matter of "Oh there was someone name Jesus few thousand years ago?" it's an explicit rejection of Jesus Christ and His claims.
And can we please remember that invincible ignorance only excuses someone of a sin against faith. That's it. It isn't license to do whatever Pagans/Muslims/Jews do in other moral areas. It only excuses sins against faith.
I am not wrong....if you know the salvivic name of Jesus Christ...except him or not...you can no longer claim invincable Ignorence...His name in an of itself is holy....a holiness that does not require the hearers assent to remain so. To be invincibly ignorant is not about being misinformed...it is about never hearing or seeing or experiencing Christ throught the church,,,but still acting as Christ would from within your conscience...even though you never saw or heard a thing..not even his name...about Christ.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on September 22, 2014, 11:24:18 AM
Having had much time to ponder this thought-provoking question, I have finally hit upon the answer.
The answer is simple in that one single picture can explain what the cause of contention is, though it cannot provide the answers.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fak1.ostkcdn.com%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2F5230777%2FReco-Jeans-Womens-Dudleya-Parva-Skinny-Flare-Stretch-Jeans-P13055406.jpg&hash=0be2c3488594153e22763cda49b2a329aefc349d)
:laugh:
Quote from: The Curt Jester on September 22, 2014, 11:24:18 AM
Having had much time to ponder this thought-provoking question, I have finally hit upon the answer.
The answer is simple in that one single picture can explain what the cause of contention is, though it cannot provide the answers.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fak1.ostkcdn.com%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2F5230777%2FReco-Jeans-Womens-Dudleya-Parva-Skinny-Flare-Stretch-Jeans-P13055406.jpg&hash=0be2c3488594153e22763cda49b2a329aefc349d)
Hahahahahahaha :)
Those are too flared. I prefer boot cut. Although dresses are better for hiding postpartum paunch.
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 22, 2014, 09:23:48 PM
Quote from: Basilios on September 21, 2014, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian on September 21, 2014, 01:15:20 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on September 21, 2014, 10:37:59 AM
jews buddhists and muzzies do not qualify as invincabley ignorent because they acknowledge the existence Of Jesus
Knowing Christ and knowing about Christ are two completely different things
If you go this route you go full-blown Bogus Ordo doctrine.
If people reallyknew Christ they'd be Christians so they definitely don't know the realChrist and thus be invincibly ignorant ----> out of the mouths of many an NO apologist!
I would say that Voxx is actually wrong though; he understates what Muslims and Jews do, they don't acknowledge Christ at all. In fact, they blaspheme Him purposefully rejecting Who He Is as Christ. It's not even a simple matter of "Oh there was someone name Jesus few thousand years ago?" it's an explicit rejection of Jesus Christ and His claims.
And can we please remember that invincible ignorance only excuses someone of a sin against faith. That's it. It isn't license to do whatever Pagans/Muslims/Jews do in other moral areas. It only excuses sins against faith.
I am not wrong....if you know the salvivic name of Jesus Christ...except him or not...you can no longer claim invincable Ignorence...His name in an of itself is holy....a holiness that does not require the hearers assent to remain so. To be invincibly ignorant is not about being misinformed...it is about never hearing or seeing or experiencing Christ throught the church,,,but still acting as Christ would from within your conscience...even though you never saw or heard a thing..not even his name...about Christ.
It is impossible to say to what extent a person is laboring under "invincible ignorance" or not. That is in the realm of the conscience, a realm that only God can truly enter into.
Jeanetic differences.