Author Topic: Yep, trust TOFP!  (Read 449 times)

Offline Stonewall

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 460
  • Thanked: 116 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Yep, trust TOFP!
« on: March 08, 2017, 12:14:55 PM »
New video of Father Cekada.  Siscoe will love this one! :)

 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav, Vincentus Ioannes, Conclavist

Offline Nazianzen

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
  • Thanked: 257 times
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2017, 06:22:11 PM »
He should love it - it may well save his soul. 

He needs to retract this major error regarding Celestine's opinion being incorporated in the law of the Church, along with his crass theological error that follows from it, that the Roman Church cannot be trusted even in her universal laws.  If he doesn't retract these errors, he's gone.  His faith won't survive.  Faith won't survive mortal sins against it which are published, and remain un-retracted.  These are like mortal sins repeated every day, for as long as the errors remain un-retracted.  Think of it as a new mortal sin against faith (and charity) every time a new reader is misled by the article. 

Siscoe has reached a major crossroads.
 
The following users thanked this post: Vincentus Ioannes

Offline Conclavist

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 205
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2017, 06:34:18 PM »
That wily Fr. Cekada.

Stonewall: "Yep, Trust TOFP!"
I look forward to the day we can make this "trustless" when 100% proven. It would be like the innovation of bitcoin, creating "trustless money" ... "trustless theology", or something like that. At least we would all know which "camp" is correct as to which is Catholic, no more "Church Courtyard" discussions. Right now there's some solid proofs but a bunch of noise and fog to obscure things temporarily.

:30 "post-v2 popes cannot be popes because of public heresy"
Crucially there is still a lack of precision here about if this heresy was pre-election heresy. Our best pro-sede-side "enthusiasts" will work on this though.

3:30 "Mr. Siscoe has committed a flub here akin to a first-year seminarian"
8:30 "There are other errors in Mr. Siscoe's article: egregious, dishonest, and [couldnt hear?] reticent of protestantism"
bah I think these jabs are unnecessary, can we just dispassionately refute the errors (this goes for both sides)

Only other thing to note is the Pistrina blog has been hammering SGG's alleged errors in latin for a while now, though the video looks ok (I haven't looked in to all this to confirm).

Relevant youtube comments discussion:
Richard Ross1 day ago
I'm afraid you misinterpreted what Mr. Siscoe wrote.  He did not present the objection of Bellarmine as being Bellarmine's own opinion.  This is evident if you read the very next sentence where he explains how Bellarmine REFUTED the objection.  Here the sentence that follows:   "Bellarmine goes on to defend Pope Celestine from the accusation of heresy by essentially arguing that the matter had not yet been solemnly defined (“the whole matter was still being thought out”) and by noting that Celestine did not intend for his erroneous judgment to be an ex-cathedra definition (he “responded with what seemed more probable”).

Scott Richesson1 day ago (edited)
Richard Ross I don't think so.  Siscoe leads the quoted passage with, "Commenting on the case of Celestine and the above citations specifically, Bellarmine wrote:"

Rev. Anthony Cekada
Rev. Anthony Cekada21 hours ago
Thanks for your comment. Mr. Richesson is right, though: Mr. Siscoe's introductory sentence leaves a clear impression that what follows is Bellarmine talking. Another priestly colleague of mine arrived at the same conclusion independently. If Mr. Siscoe's fuzzy writing in controversies doesn't convey what he actually means, I can't be expected to get out a Rosetta Stone to decipher him.

Richard Ross
Richard Ross5 hours ago
If you read Siscoe's second article on the case of Celestin, in response to Father Kramer, it is clear that I was right.  He provided a long quote from Bellarmine refuting the accusations of heresy leveled against Celestine.  This leaves no doubt that he did not present the objection Bellarmine provided as if it was Bellarmine's one opinion.    http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3067-robert-siscoe-responds-to-fr-kramer-concerning-the-case-of-celestine-iii

Comment on this: Lack of precision is leading to pushing certain points and is exploited for plausible deniability. It's ambiguous or paradoxical phrases like "have you stopped beating your wife" or "this statement is false" etc. that are prolonging confusions. Establishment of clarity = clear analysis = end of objections. Hopefully we can keep moving things along.
 

Offline Nazianzen

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
  • Thanked: 257 times
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2017, 06:58:03 PM »
Oh Robert, Robert, Robert.

Cardinal Billot tells us that Gregory IX explicitly ordered the opinion of Celestine III to be excluded from the Decretals.  Bellarmine's reference to "the decretals" is not to the official collection, but only to the unofficial archive of materials that went by the same name.  In order to make this clear, Bellarmine refers to this text being formerly "among the epistles of the decretals."  Siscoe leaves out the "of the epistles of" and capitalizes "decretals" - which can only be a reference to the official collection, promulgated by Gregory IX.

He doesn't seem to be able even to get basic facts right.  He has now canonized Pope Celestine III, as well as accusing him of authoritatively decreeing error:
"St. Celestine then cited the testimony of more authorities..."

Robert needs to retract.
 
The following users thanked this post: Vincentus Ioannes, YeOldeFustilarians

Offline A Catholic Thinker

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 142
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2017, 09:42:00 PM »
It looks like Cekada made a big blunder himself by accusing Siscoe of claiming the objection of Bellarmine was Bellarmine’s own opinion.  Did he not read the very next sentence where Siscoe explained how Bellarmine refuted the objection and defending Celestine of heresy?  Here is that next sentence:

“Bellarmine goes on to defend Pope Celestine from the accusation of heresy by essentially arguing that the matter had not yet been solemnly defined (“the whole matter was still being thought out”) and by noting that Celestine did not intend for his erroneous judgment to be an ex-cathedra definition (he “responded with what seemed more probable”). While that may excuse Celestine from heresy properly so-called, and demonstrate that he did not violate Papal infallibility, what this historical case does show is that a Pope can commit a serious error in judgment concerning a moral issue (one that should have been clear) as long as he does not intend for his judgment to be a solemn definition.”

And if there was any doubt about Siscoe’s position, his second article was even more clear, since he quoted Bellarmine’s defense of Celestine at length to explain why the error did not violate infallibility and why Celestine himself was not a heretic.  Here is the pertinent section from the second article:

Quote from:
Regarding why the error of Celestine did not violate infallibility since it was incorporated into the Decretals that Pope Gregory promulgated for the universal Church, St. Bellarmine himself provided the answer. He explained that the teaching of Celestine was not an ex-cathedra statement, but was only what he believed to be more probable. He also stated that just because Celestine’s opinion was included in the Decretals did not render it de fide.

Before reading Bellarmine’s commentary, we should recall that Papal Infallibility is a negative charism that prevents the possibility of error when certain conditions are met. Celestine did not meet two of these conditions when he issued his erroneous ruling, and, consequently, error remained possible. The fact that it was included in canon law did not render the non-infallible judgment infallible, nor does infallibility necessarily prevent an erroneous particularjudgment from being included in the Decretals.

Commenting on the various Popes who have been accused of heresy, Bellarmine wrote:
The thirty-third is Celestine III, whom Alphonsus de Castro asserted could not be excused of heresy in any way because he taught that Matrimony could be dissolved by heresy, and that it would be lawful for one to enter into another marriage when his prior spouse had fallen into heresy. (…) Moreover …Innocent III taught the contrary on Divorce and the Council of Trent defined the same thing.

I respond that neither Celestine nor Innocent stated anything certain on the matter; but each responded with what seemed more probable to them. That is manifestly gathered from the words of Innocent when he says his predecessor [Celestine III] ‘thought otherwise’. This shows that in his opinion the whole matter was still being thought out. [N.B.: It also shows that the two Popes were addressing the samequestion.]

On the other hand, Alphonsus says the Epistle of Celestine was at one time among the Decretals. While certainly that is true, it cannot thence be gathered that a plainly apostolic decree was made by Celestine, or even one ex-cathedra, since it is certain that there are many Epistles in the Decretals which do not make any matter de fide, but only declare to us the opinion of the Pontiff on some affair.

Father Cekada should have read more carefully before he came out publicly with this false accusation.
 

Offline A Catholic Thinker

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 142
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2017, 09:48:35 PM »
Here's a testament to the wacky world of sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada has been spreading for years (decades) the preposterous teaching that the sin of heresy causes loss of ecclesiastical office, butchering quote upon quote (dishonestly, as True Or False Pope demonstrates quite clearly).

Yet, in this very space, Mr. N. had the amazing temerity to suggest that sedevacantists, generally, never held such an error.

And now here is Fr. Cekada being help up as a sedevacantist authority.
 

Offline A Catholic Thinker

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 142
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2017, 09:55:35 PM »
True Or False Pope:

Quote
Fr. Cekada says the following:

       “Like many who have written against Sedevacantism, one fundamental flaw runs through Mr. Sparks’ article: he seems utterly unaware of the distinction between human ecclesiastical (canon) law and divine law, and how this distinction applies to the case of a heretical pope.”
“Heresy is both a crime (delictum) against canon law and a sin (peccatum) against divine law. The material Mr. Sparks quotes deals with heresy as a delictum and with the ecclesiastical censure (excommunication) that the heretic incurs.”
“This is mostly irrelevant to the case of a heretical pope. Because he is the supreme legislator and therefore not subject to canon law, a pope cannot commit a true delictum of heresy or incur an excommunication. He is subject only to the divine law.”
“It is by violating the divine law through the sin (peccatum) of heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority – ‘having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis],’ as Cardinal Billot says, ‘he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.’” 

       Using his own words, Fr. Cekada “seems utterly unaware” that the sin of heresy does not, by itself, cause a Pope to “lose his authority.” Notice also that Fr. Cekada ended by quoting Cardinal Billot as an authority in defense of his theory. What Cekada failed to mention (or even indicate by an ellipsis) is that he only provided his readers with half of the sentence. If one takes the time to look up the complete sentence, it becomes clear that the Cardinal is not speaking merely of the internal sin of heresy, but of public and notorious heresy, which is the canonical crime of heresy in the external forum. Here is the full sentence from Cardinal Billot: 

       “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.”

       What the half sentence giveth, the complete sentence taketh away. Because “notorious heresy” is a “crime” under canon law (see canons 2197, 2º and 2197, 3º of the 1917 Code) means that Cardinal Billot, like his predecessor theologians, held that the crime of heresy (not the sin of heresy) causes the loss of ecclesiastical office. And, as we will see later, the person must be a public and notorious heretic by the Church’s judgment, not simply by the private judgment of individual priests or Catholics in the pew. 
       For now, it is crucial to realize that, contrary to what Fr. Cekada and those Sedevacantists who follow him believe, the sin of heresy alone neither prevents a man from being elected Pope, nor does it cause a Pope to fall from the pontificate, since the internal sin does not sever the external bonds of unity, which themselves suffice for a Pope to retain his office. If the sin of heresy alone caused a Pope to lose his office, a Pope who fell into occult (secret) heresy would also cease to be Pope which, as we saw earlier, is not only contrary to the teaching of Bellarmime (the Sedevacantists’ favorite theologian), but, as Bellarmine himself said, also contrary to “all the theologians” he cited in his book De Ecclesia.

There is much more in the book.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 09:58:44 PM by A Catholic Thinker »
 

Offline Conclavist

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 205
  • Thanked: 10 times
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4612
  • Thanked: 1559 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2017, 10:03:45 PM »
From the original article in the Remnant:
Quote
Bellarmine goes on to defend Pope Celestine from the accusation of heresy by essentially arguing that the matter had not yet been solemnly defined (“the whole matter was still being thought out”) and by noting that Celestine did not intend for his erroneous judgment to be an ex-cathedra definition (he “responded with what seemed more probable”). While that may excuse Celestine from heresy properly so-called, and demonstrate that he did not violate Papal infallibility, what this historical case does show is that a Pope can commit a serious error in judgment concerning a moral issue (one that should have been clear) as long as he does not intend for his judgment to be a solemn definition. This case also shows that a very serious papal error, contrary to divine law, can be incorporated into Canon Law and promulgated by a Pope, with the force of law, [11] for the universal Church.

Now, for those Sedevacantists who say it is “impossible” for errors to come from the Church (“the Church cannot give evil”), I ask: Do you deny that the error of Pope Celestine is evil, or do you deny that the evil teaching, which originated from one Pope and was promulgated into Canon Law by another, came from the Church? And if it didn’t come from the Church, from whence did it come?

This historical case serves as important precedent for our day by showing us several things:

    1. The Church’s infallibility is limited to dogmatic definitions, or to revealed truths that have been definitively proposed by the force of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, with the latter requiring both a synchronic universality (universality in space) and also diachronic universality (universality in time).[12]
    2. If a doctrine has not been solemnly defined, or if the teaching in question is novel (not consistent with what the Church has always taught), there is no divine guarantee that it will be free from serious error.
    3. It is possible for a Pope to render an erroneous judgment, based on a misinterpretation of Scripture, which confirms a person in the state of objective mortal sin.
    4. Not all judgments of the Pope concerning Faith or morals are infallibly true, nor are they always infallibly safe - unless one’s definition of “infallibly safe” covers teachings that are contrary to divine law and lead to objective mortal sinThis historical case also shows us that it is within the realm of possibility for a serious error to be incorporated into Canon Law and promulgated for the universal Church by a true Pope.

All four of these points are important to keep in mind during our day, lest we err in our own judgment by believing that certain things which God, in His Wisdom, has chosen to permit (for a greater good) are “impossible” and end by losing the Faith in the Church Herself.
Mr. Siscoe does claim that the Church can promulgate harmful disciplinary laws (contrary to what the Popes teach and what is the common teaching of the Church).
So the sed reply (which is what the Church teaches) is: We deny that the Church can promulgate evil and harmful doctrine or discipline; That if the Church would teach error or promulgate evil discipline, she would not be "Holy". that Pope Celestine did err in his judgement, but that his error was not incorporated into her universal laws or teachings.
re. Above #1. "time and space": No, all that is necessary is for the bishops of the world at the same time to teach that a doctrine is true (universality in space); here is Fr. Sylvester Berry, in "The Church of Christ" pg. 267:
Quote
"Since bishops are infallible in their corporate capacity only, individual bishops may err at any time in regard to faith and morals, but all cannot fall into the same error at the same time. The further question now arises: Can a majority of the bishops fall into error at one and the same time regarding a matter of faith or morals?  Or to state the opposite side of the question: Is the agreement of a majority of the bishops of the world sufficient to establish the infallible truth of a doctrine, or must there be a practically unanimous agreement? It seems most probable that the agreement of a majority is sufficient to insure the truth of any doctrine, for it would certainly be a great evil for the Church if the greater part of her teaching body would fall into error at any time, It is true that the in such a crisis, the infallible authority of the Roman Pontiff would be sufficient to preserve the faith, but the Catholicity of the Church would be seriously affected, if not destroyed....
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP
 

Offline Oatmeal

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 92
  • Thanked: 49 times
  • Ad astra per aspera.
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2017, 10:57:50 PM »
"Since bishops are infallible in their corporate capacity only, individual bishops may err at any time in regard to faith and morals, but all cannot fall into the same error at the same time. The further question now arises: Can a majority of the bishops fall into error at one and the same time regarding a matter of faith or morals?  Or to state the opposite side of the question: Is the agreement of a majority of the bishops of the world sufficient to establish the infallible truth of a doctrine, or must there be a practically unanimous agreement? It seems most probable that the agreement of a majority is sufficient to insure the truth of any doctrine, for it would certainly be a great evil for the Church if the greater part of her teaching body would fall into error at any time, It is true that the in such a crisis, the infallible authority of the Roman Pontiff would be sufficient to preserve the faith, but the Catholicity of the Church would be seriously affected, if not destroyed....

Didn't a majority of the bishops embrace the error of Arius? How can that crisis be reconciled with what Berry is saying here?
 

Offline St.Justin

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 873
  • Thanked: 271 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2017, 10:58:55 PM »
The below article is very clear. It should be read by those who think they know what is infallible under the heading of Ordinary Universal Magisterium. What the Sedes keep claiming is incorrect on multiple levels.

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm


What teaching is infallible?

A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision."
 

Offline Nazianzen

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
  • Thanked: 257 times
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2017, 01:51:43 AM »

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs...

I see, so the infallibility of the Church (this has never been solemnly defined) is not something we can be sure about?  If so, all of Catholic doctrine is gone, including all solemn definitions.

Likewise the anti-sede favorite, the infallible status of the living pope...

Hmmm. 

:)

Anyway, this is all a side issue.  The question of fact is prior - did the vast majority of the bishops fall into Arianism?  Answer:  No, they didn't.

Those who claim that they did should produce their proofs.  TOFP (of course) asserts that they did, but then TOFP only produces Newman writing as an Anglican, and Jurgens, writing after Vatican II, as authorities.  Jurgens is not even saying what they think he is anyway, but it doesn't matter.  If the vast majority of the bishops became Arians, some decent Catholic sources will say so.  Darras, Constant, Hughes, Hergenrother, Baronius, somebody.  Even unsound historians like Duchesne or Hefele?  No, apparently not. 

St. Justin, off you go, do some work.  Let us know what you find.
 

Offline St.Justin

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 873
  • Thanked: 271 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2017, 11:17:46 AM »

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs...

I see, so the infallibility of the Church (this has never been solemnly defined) is not something we can be sure about?  If so, all of Catholic doctrine is gone, including all solemn definitions.

Likewise the anti-sede favorite, the infallible status of the living pope...

Hmmm. 

:)

Anyway, this is all a side issue.  The question of fact is prior - did the vast majority of the bishops fall into Arianism?  Answer:  No, they didn't.

Those who claim that they did should produce their proofs.  TOFP (of course) asserts that they did, but then TOFP only produces Newman writing as an Anglican, and Jurgens, writing after Vatican II, as authorities.  Jurgens is not even saying what they think he is anyway, but it doesn't matter.  If the vast majority of the bishops became Arians, some decent Catholic sources will say so.  Darras, Constant, Hughes, Hergenrother, Baronius, somebody.  Even unsound historians like Duchesne or Hefele?  No, apparently not. 

St. Justin, off you go, do some work.  Let us know what you find.

This response is so typical of you....My post was from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm  and plainly is  (which was bolded just for you), and you twist it so as to denigrate me and my response ( which was quote from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

St. Athanasius' reaction tells a lot. "They have the buildings; we have the Faith." This well known comment at the least implies a very large number of Arians were in control of a lot of churches.
 

Offline Nazianzen

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
  • Thanked: 257 times
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2017, 11:33:28 AM »
This response is so typical of you....

Ad hominem, which would be merely weak if it weren't complaining about alleged ad hominem argumentation...

My post was from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm  and plainly is  (which was bolded just for you), and you twist it

No, I pointed out that it's a problem for you as much as for us.

so as to denigrate me

Ah, Siscoe and Salza's favorite word of all.  Any disagreement with them is "denigrating" them.  One cannot argue with them, or one is "denigrating" them, or better, somebody they have quoted or claimed to have supporting them, especially a priest.  One cannot complain about their personal, repeated, unjust, abuse, or you're calumniating them, engaging in "denigration"; one cannot point out that their source is a famous eighteenth century pirate and not a Catholic historian because otherwise you're engaged in "denigrating" their sources instead of answering their wonderful arguments.  Anyway, you've learned their drill well.  Which means, you no longer need arguments.  "Denigration" is a swear word that saves you from arguing rationally.


St. Athanasius' reaction tells a lot. "They have the buildings; we have the Faith." This well known comment at the least implies a very large number of Arians were in control of a lot of churches.

That's not even a shadow of a proof that most of the bishops became Arians, and everybody else will see that at a glance.  Go do some work.  Don't bother with TOFP, they didn't do any work either.  Somebody will need to do it, so why not you?  Have you better things to do?
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav

Offline BumphreyHogart

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Yep, trust TOFP!
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2017, 07:06:44 PM »
TOFP was last active here in October of 2016. Why are we worried about him? Is there something new since then that really needs addressing?