Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?

[Gerard]

"All Vatican II" is sheer hyperbole for one thing.  Second Vatican II did not officially bind the Church to anything new.  Paul VI explicitly stated that Vatican II was simply an exercise of the "authentic" Magisterium.

Except it's not.

Magisterium = protected by the Holy Spirit for Catholics. Repeat after me.

Except you're wrong.  Magisterium literally means "teaching authority"  The Pope when he speaks in his ordinary and personal voice giving opinions on faith and morals is exercising the "authentic" Magisterium.  When he is speaking on matters of faith and morals concerning already established doctrines and he is reaffirming and repeating them he is speaking in the "Ordinary infallible" Magisterium.  When he binds a teaching on the Universal Church on a matter of faith and states he is doing so as Peter he is utilizing the "Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium." 

Same thing with Francis' personal opinion on the death penalty.  Nowhere does it state or can it state that the Catholic faithful are bound under pain of mortal sin to oppose the death penalty.

A change to the Catechism is not just "lol my personal opinion."

And just because something doesn't anathematize someone doesn't mean it's not Church dogma. See Pope John Paul II's declaration on the ordination of women or the declaration on the Immaculate Conception.

Francis didn't bind the faithful to opposition to the death penalty.  Period. 

Just because something is an encyclical doesn't mean it's infallible or binding.  It's literally just an open letter. 

Lol, see Humani Generis.

LOL!  I did.  What I stated does not contradict Humani Generis. 

Literally.  The ONLY Post Vatican II thing that has been absolutely bound on the Catholic faithful as an exercise of the infallible Magisterium of the Church was Pope John Paul II's declaration that the Catholic Church does not have the power to ordain women. 

Except Vatican II.

You are free to quote Vatican II where it states that women can be ordained if you can find it. 

As for your "authentic Magisterium," Vatican II was still protected from error by the Holy Spirit, according to the one true Pope, Benedict

First, it's not "my" authentic Magisterium.  I didn't invent the term.  Second, I seriously doubt Benedict would declare an entire Council infallible.  Source? Context?

[Kreuzritter]

It's going to be a funny thing to watch what happens when the Jesuit Pope institutes ordinations of women into the diaconate. The Neocatholics and FSSP types will no doubt find some excuse as to why they aren't intended to be sacramental or turn to Frankie-Vacantism, but it will be interesting to see how the SSPX types scramble about trying to find a solution in their "this isn't infallible" and "we're not bound" so therefore indefectibility is intact. 

[Kreuzritter]

"All Vatican II" is sheer hyperbole for one thing.  Second Vatican II did not officially bind the Church to anything new.  Paul VI explicitly stated that Vatican II was simply an exercise of the "authentic" Magisterium.

Except it's not.

Magisterium = protected by the Holy Spirit for Catholics. Repeat after me.

Except you're wrong.  Magisterium literally means "teaching authority"  The Pope when he speaks in his ordinary and personal voice giving opinions on faith and morals is exercising the "authentic" Magisterium.  When he is speaking on matters of faith and morals concerning already established doctrines and he is reaffirming and repeating them he is speaking in the "Ordinary infallible" Magisterium.  When he binds a teaching on the Universal Church on a matter of faith and states he is doing so as Peter he is utilizing the "Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium." 

Who cares when the Pope and entire Ecclesia Docens defected. It's totally irrelevant whether any of this is intended as infallible and binding.

[Daniel]

.

[dellery]

You've stated that "the human mind's ability to collate information is limited" and that "our powers of observation are extremely limited." This is uncontroversial.

However, we are supposed to be certain about the identity of the true Church. Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia. This epistemological confidence occurs by being in communion with the Apostolic see, regardless of the natural limitations of our powers of observation and reasoning processes. Where is the Apostolic see? It is the organization headed by Jorge Bergoglio whose material continuity with the Church headed by Eugenio Pacelli, Angelo Roncalli or Giovanni Battista Montini is indisputable. This is how the Catholic model works. It is a model based on authority from which it cannot be divorced, unlike the Eastern Orthodox or the Protestant models that allow for individual churches and people to maintain the true faith vis-à-vis others.

Am I correct in surmising that you are here appealing to the possibility of unknown explanations to the present scenario because we can't humanly know all possible variables? If that is the case, it is essentially an appeal to unfalsifiability or untestability. It is an inconsequential appeal since it constitutes an abandonment of the realm of rational discourse. If the model is unfalsifiable because there can always be something out there that we don't know, then it is essentially worthless.

Now, in all fairness, is the Catholic model falsifiable? It is. If it can be demonstrated that Rome contradicted herself on a point of official doctrine, the model collapses. Rome is the unfailing oracle of truth, she can never defect until the Parousia. The question is whether we have enough information to reach such a conclusion. I leave that to the personal judgement of each one.

That's exactly what I'm saying.
The Church has all the appearances of having defected. So?
Christ had all the appearances of being permanently dead in the aftermath of His crucifixion. The Good Thief made his act of faith to a bloody, suffering, dying man, hanging on a cross. Contemporary man has 2000 years of Church history to inform his faith. Your argument is an updated and enhanced version of the same old narcissistic dross coming from protestants. You're claiming God has lead, not just individual people, but generations, into damnation for the last 2000 years by baiting them into an institution He made to look immortal.

You're judging  supernatural matters by reason alone. You cant read God's mind, you dont know His will, and you dont know what Satan is up to either. I'm also going to assume that you, like most of us, have little to no interaction with decision makers in Rome, so you dont know what's going on there either. Reason is complimented by faith. Christ is Truth and you can not find him on your own with only the use of reason and intellect.
It's impossible to understand what's going on in the Church without complimenting reason with faith.

But in so far as science, wisdom and understanding are intellectual virtues, they are based upon the natural light of reason, which falls short of the certitude of God's word, on which faith is founded.

--St. Thomas Aquinas

[Kreuzritter]

That's exactly what I'm saying.
The Church has all the appearances of having defected. So?
Christ had all the appearances of being permanently dead in the aftermath of His crucifixion.

Jesus, as man, was in fact dead. The appearance was entirely true. As for being "permanently dead", that's not an appearance but an inference from the assumption that men cannot come back to life.

The Good Thief made his act of faith to a bloody, suffering, dying man, hanging on a cross.

If the proclaimed Messiah next to him had been spewing blasphemies and crying to Baal on the cross, the Good Thief would have been right not to make an act of faith in him.

Contemporary man has 2000 years of Church history to inform his faith. Your argument is an updated and enhanced version of the same old narcissistic dross coming from protestants. You're claiming God has lead, not just individual people, but generations, into damnation for the last 2000 years by baiting them into an institution He made to look immortal.

Nobody is making that claim, that God lead or baited anyone or propped up Rome to deceive. And the same could be said of the Eastern Orthodox church: how does that look any less "immortal" than the Roman one, but it's supposedly a false church.

You're judging  supernatural matters by reason alone.

I don't know that it's a supernatural matter. Everythign you're saying is based on the premise that the Roman church is Christ's church as she claims.

You cant read God's mind, you dont know His will, and you dont know what Satan is up to either. I'm also going to assume that you, like most of us, have little to no interaction with decision makers in Rome, so you dont know what's going on there either. Reason is complimented by faith. Christ is Truth and you can not find him on your own with only the use of reason and intellect.
It's impossible to understand what's going on in the Church without complimenting reason with faith.

As I was saying ...

[dellery]

Kreuzritter, you didn't have the courage to respond to my question, and now try to snipe at my reply to somebody who did. Your opinions here are worthless.

[Kreuzritter]

Kreuzritter, you didn't have the courage to respond to my question, and now try to snipe at my reply to somebody who did. Your opinions here are worthless.

Lol. Are you for real? 

[Kreuzritter]

Kreuzritter, you didn't have the courage to respond to my question, and now try to snipe at my reply to somebody who did. Your opinions here are worthless.

Your question is worthless. What do you even mean by "hidden variables" in a Pope "appearing" to defect from the faith, teach a new religion, and worship idols, and the entire hierarchy of bishops signing on to Vatican II: the appearance is reality. The Roman church has, in act, contradicted her dogma and done something that should have been impossible according to her.

[Gerard]

"All Vatican II" is sheer hyperbole for one thing.  Second Vatican II did not officially bind the Church to anything new.  Paul VI explicitly stated that Vatican II was simply an exercise of the "authentic" Magisterium.

Except it's not.

Magisterium = protected by the Holy Spirit for Catholics. Repeat after me.

Except you're wrong.  Magisterium literally means "teaching authority"  The Pope when he speaks in his ordinary and personal voice giving opinions on faith and morals is exercising the "authentic" Magisterium.  When he is speaking on matters of faith and morals concerning already established doctrines and he is reaffirming and repeating them he is speaking in the "Ordinary infallible" Magisterium.  When he binds a teaching on the Universal Church on a matter of faith and states he is doing so as Peter he is utilizing the "Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium." 

Who cares when the Pope and entire Ecclesia Docens defected. It's totally irrelevant whether any of this is intended as infallible and binding.

If it's not infallible and it's not binding, the Church hasn't defected. Policies, opinions and whether the Pope is an ignoramus or even a material heretic or material apostate doesn't matter.   People lived Catholic lives for centuries without knowing the Popes' names whether they were good or bad.

[Gerard]

Kreuzritter, you didn't have the courage to respond to my question, and now try to snipe at my reply to somebody who did. Your opinions here are worthless.

Your question is worthless. What do you even mean by "hidden variables" in a Pope "appearing" to defect from the faith, teach a new religion, and worship idols, and the entire hierarchy of bishops signing on to Vatican II: the appearance is reality. The Roman church has, in act, contradicted her dogma and done something that should have been impossible according to her.

This is a kind of vague characterization that I've seen too many times.  I'm reminded of people that hear something or are incorrectly instructed by one priest, or a nun and suddenly "the Church" has told them so.  They have the permission of "the Church."  Catholics walk around thinking the Church has told them it's okay to contracept if you have a good reason.  If you've already had kids you've "fulfilled your obligation to the Church" and you can now contracept.  You don't need to go to Mass if you are over a certain age even though you are physically fit.  It can go the other way too.  "It's a sin to eat eggs and cheese on Fridays or Fridays in Lent."  You're a heretic if you don't believe in an approved apparition.

All of that is prevalent.  None of that is "the Church" doing anything to contradict the Faith.  It's faithlessness, laziness, ignorance, malice and / or stupidity on the part of individuals both laity and clergy. 

Plenty of "acts" of individuals undermine the faith, but I haven't found any official "act" of the Church that contradicts any particular dogma. 

[Kreuzritter]

Who cares when the Pope and entire Ecclesia Docens defected. It's totally irrelevant whether any of this is intended as infallible and binding.

If it's not infallible and it's not binding, the Church hasn't defected. Policies, opinions and whether the Pope is an ignoramus or even a material heretic or material apostate doesn't matter.   People lived Catholic lives for centuries without knowing the Popes' names whether they were good or bad.

If the Ecclesia Docens were never to pronounce another infallible and binding doctrine until the end of the world, but was nevertheless occupied entirely by apostates and heretics who taught a false religion in councils,synods and on a day-to-day basis, the "Church", that is the visible Roman church, will have defected.

One could say, sure, but the dogmas are all intact, and the Faith is still preserved here and there amogn the people and some priests ... but so what? Of what relevance then is Rome, the Pope, and the Ordninaries in union with him? The "Church" that has in such an instance not defected doesn't in any way resemble the "visible church" of Roman Catholicism.

So it doesn't matter. The Ecclesia Docens lost the purported Faith of Trent and taught another, infallibly or not, to the Roman church at Vatican II. That is defection.

[Kreuzritter]

This is a kind of vague characterization that I've seen too many times.  I'm reminded of people that hear something or are incorrectly instructed by one priest, or a nun and suddenly "the Church" has told them so.  They have the permission of "the Church." 

The Pope and all bishops in union with him is not "one priest, or a nun", but you misunderstand the sense of "the Roman church has, in act, contradicted her dogma". I didn't say she has taught contrary to her dogma. Her dogma is simply contradicted by her reality.

[Gerard]

This is a kind of vague characterization that I've seen too many times.  I'm reminded of people that hear something or are incorrectly instructed by one priest, or a nun and suddenly "the Church" has told them so.  They have the permission of "the Church." 

The Pope and all bishops in union with him is not "one priest, or a nun", but you misunderstand the sense of "the Roman church has, in act, contradicted her dogma". I didn't say she has taught contrary to her dogma. Her dogma is simply contradicted by her reality.

But that "reality" is a mish mash.  The fact is, you can find,  and we know that there still are and always have been, many priests including some bishops, nuns and laity that are holding to and living Catholic lives in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

[Gerard]

Who cares when the Pope and entire Ecclesia Docens defected. It's totally irrelevant whether any of this is intended as infallible and binding.

If it's not infallible and it's not binding, the Church hasn't defected. Policies, opinions and whether the Pope is an ignoramus or even a material heretic or material apostate doesn't matter.   People lived Catholic lives for centuries without knowing the Popes' names whether they were good or bad.

If the Ecclesia Docens were never to pronounce another infallible and binding doctrine until the end of the world, but was nevertheless occupied entirely by apostates and heretics who taught a false religion in councils,synods and on a day-to-day basis, the "Church", that is the visible Roman church, will have defected.

I disagree even in that unlikely and extreme scenario. The visible Roman Church is manifested all over the world.  No one would doubt in my area where we have 5 different public TLM locations within an hour's drive that those liturgies and the people attending are Roman Catholics living out the faith (given the fact that any individual is at a different place in their pilgrimage and they may vary in practice). 

One could say, sure, but the dogmas are all intact, and the Faith is still preserved here and there amogn the people and some priests ... but so what?

It is the way souls are saved.  It's not a "so what?" to the people that are living it out. 

Of what relevance then is Rome, the Pope, and the Ordninaries in union with him?

Rome is still the focal point of that binding unity.  You are in communion not just with the current occupant who may do virtually nothing to help the faith, but you are also in communion with all of the great Popes who solidified and defined what belongs to the faith and what doesn't whenever a crisis emerged. 

So what if the current Pope is virtually useless as a priest?  If he can't officially alter the faith itself, there is only so much damage he can do.  And a later Pope will have to undo it. 

The "Church" that has in such an instance not defected doesn't in any way resemble the "visible church" of Roman Catholicism.

What's the exact criteria for "resemblance?" Does it resemble the Church of what year? Of what century? Over how long a time and to what extent? The "visible church" has numerous iterations which reflect both it's Divine Institution and the corruption that is constantly creeping into it. 

So it doesn't matter. The Ecclesia Docens lost the purported Faith of Trent and taught another, infallibly or not, to the Roman church at Vatican II. That is defection.

But that's again hyperbole.  When Malachi Martin discussed the Catechism of the Catholic Church when it was first promulgated he said something along the lines of, "I took a red pen and went through the whole thing; underlining everything that was Catholic about it.  It's all there.  The same faith of Innocent III, Pius IX, Pius X etc.  But that lead me to ask, what's the rest of this stuff? The answer is...dizzying....attempts to explain away...to confuse..." etc. 

The fact that someone expresses a lot of superfluous opinions designed to confuse or undermine doesn't change the fact that the substance of the faith is there. 

If I want to bake a cake, it's the same recipe and it doesn't matter if you want it plain, with powdered sugar or a panoply of decorative options and fondant options.  The cake is still the cake.  You may get sick if you focus on the icing or the fondant and take too much.  But, the cake is still the same cake.  You scrape it off as best you can and eat the cake if you want the cake.