can layman decide or have opinion that somone left the Church

[JeffP]

JeffP

Great, thanks for answering.  Now, would you agree that, since it is an article of faith that the Church is one in government, anyone who would hold the opinion that the SSPX, Resistance, or Sede chapels - all of which are separated from each other and from the Catholic Church in government - are part of the Catholic Church, would at least be in material heresy?  And, according to your understanding of the phrase "profession of the true faith," that those who affirmed this heresy would not be members of the Church for that reason alone?   (Needless to say, they would also not be members of the Church because they belong to sects that are separated from the Church in government.) 

Thanks for the best wishes on the B.P. By disengaging, and getting away from this thread (and not thinking about it), it went back down.
No, on the contrary, all those who adhere to a false rule of faith, whether in good faith or not, are public heretics and therefore do not belong to the Church. The Vatican II church, is a false Church, which teaches a false rule of faith, therefore those who adhere to the Council and the conciliar Church are public heretics.

Here is Msgr. Lefebvre, (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

"We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analysing the texts and studying the Council's ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council."

This is what I am used to seeing from members of the false Church of Tradition.   Absurd accusations, backed up by nothing but other absurd accusations.   In this case, you claim that the (undefined) "Vatican II Church," which is the exact same institution as the pre-Vatican II Church, is accused of being a false Church that teaches a false rule of faith; and those who adhere to it are therefore accused of being public heretics. And what proof do you give for these absurd accusations?  A quotation (another false accusation) from Archbishop Lefebvre, who signed everyone of the Vatican II documents.

That form of argumentation might work with the mentally challenged (e.g. all those who have or will fall into Sedevacantism), but it's not going to work with a Catholic who knows the Faith and knows how to think.

Define your terms. What do you mean by the Vatican II Church or the Conciliar Church, and how does it differ from the Roman Catholic Church, which consists of the local Church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it? 

And if the "Vatican II Church/Conciliar Church" (however you define it) is a false Church, where is true Church with four marks - that is, the visible Church that is ruled by the body of bishops who form one moral body throughout the centuries, and one juridical person with the Apostolic college?  Where is that true Church? And don't forget that the true Church is one in government, with a unity that is both diachronic and synchronic (i.e., one in space and one in time), which necessarily excludes all three sects where you attend Mass - and it excludes them all twice, since they lack unity of government both diachronically and synchronically.

Also please explain what you mean by the rule of faith?  Vatican II did not propose anything new as de fide, which means nothing new in the Vatican II documents constitutes part of the rule of faith. 

Let's see if you can define your terms and make an actual case for your position, instead of simply making accusations backed up by nothing but another accusation.

[Michael Wilson]

JeffP,
thanks for your response.
1. Conciliar Church: Those who embrace and profess the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council, as for example: Religious Liberty as the right of any man to not be impeded in the practice of any religion he thinks is the true one.
2. Differs from the Catholic Church in professing beliefs contrary to the Catholic faith; and practicing false worship, such as the N.O.M. And lately of the Pachamama idol in St. Peters.
3. They are two separate Churches whose members are mixed together as the "wheat and the cockle"; until a true Pope will separate the two completely.
4. "Rule of Faith" that which a person holds as their reference to believing or professing. For Protestants, it is the bible; for Orthodox it is Tradition as limited to the first 7 or * Ecumenical Councils. For a Catholic it is the magisterium, which includes the Pope and the bishops in union with him.
5. Vatican II did not propose any doctrines "de fide", but it did propose doctrines by her ordinary magisterium, to which all Catholics are obliged to submit. The false Popes of Vatican II have made this clear on numerous occasions, the last time by Pope Francis.
Here is Paul VI, https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-

Paul VI in a general audience of 12th January 1966:  "Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it has nevertheless furnished its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary and so obviously authentic magisterium must be received docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and purposes of the individual documents.

Pope Francis;  Pope Francis, Address to Members of Italy's National Catechetical Office, Vatican.va, Jan. 30, 2021; 

    This is magisterium: the Council is the magisterium of the Church. Either you are with the Church and therefore you follow the Council, and if you do not follow the Council or you interpret it in your own way, as you wish, you are not with the Church. In this respect we have to be demanding, severe. No, the Council is not subject to negotiation in order to have more of these.... No, this is how it is with the council. And this problem that we are experiencing, the selectivity of the Council, has been repeated throughout history with other Councils. It gives me so much to think about a group of bishops that after Vatican I left, a group of lay people, other groups, to continue the "true doctrine" that was not that of Vatican I. "We are the true Catholics".... Today they ordain women. The most severe attitude, to guard the faith without the magisterium of the Church, leads you to ruin. Please, no concessions to those who try to present a catechesis that is not in accordance with the Magisterium of the Church.

According to your Popes, the Council is not optional, either you accept the Council and are with the (Conciliar) Church or you are not.

   

[Miriam_M]

Tradition that can be declared "false" by the ramblings of faithless clerics and ignorant laymen is incompatible with the Roman Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Tradition is what sustains the Church and separates it from every Protestant sect. 

Those who arbitrarily "cancel" Tradition are by definition heretics.

[Michael Wilson]

The term "Conciliar Church" was not invented by some crazed sed, but is a term used many times by officials in the Vatican; for example this letter from Msgr. Benelli, Paul VI's secretary of state, to Msgr. Lefebvre, demanding that he accept the "Conciliar Church"
https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_10.htm
25 June 1976
Letter from Mgr. Benelli to Mgr. Lefebvre

The Holy Father charges me this very day to confirm the measure of which you have been informed in his name, de mandata speciali: you are to abstain, now, from conferring any order. Do not use as a pretext the confused state of the seminarians who were to be ordained: this is just the opportunity to explain to them and to their families that you cannot ordain them to the service of the Church against the will of the supreme Pastor of the Church. There is nothing desperate in their case: if they have good will and are seriously prepared for a presbyteral ministry in genuine fidelity to the Conciliar Church.

So Msgr. Lefebvre was not asked to submit to the Catholic Church, but to a new entity born in 1965; What did Msgr. Benelli mean by "Conciliar Church"?
Official letter from the Vatican Secretariat of State,
Registered under the number 307,554,
and addressed to Mgr. Ambrogio Marchioni,
Nuncio at Berne.

3° In the discourse to the Consistory on 24 May 1976, the Holy Father was at pains to recall, himself, the fraternal approaches he had several times tried to make to Mgr. Lefebvre. He has said repeatedly, and now says again, that he is ready to receive him as soon as he has given public testimony of his obedience to the present successor of Saint Peter and of his acceptance of Vatican Council II.The conditions are well known to Mgr. Lefebvre: they are still those which I specified to him, in the name of His Holiness, when we met on 19 March, and of which I reminded him in my letter of 21 April last.

Unlike what some non-official sources claim, acceptance of Vatican II is a condition for submission and obedience to the Pope and union with the (Conciliar) Church. 

[andy]

That form of argumentation might work with the mentally challenged (e.g. all those who have or will fall into Sedevacantism), but it's not going to work with a Catholic who knows the Faith and knows how to think.

How charitable. There is no point to offend the mentally challenged. Please stop doing that.

[Goldfinch]

That form of argumentation might work with the mentally challenged (e.g. all those who have or will fall into Sedevacantism), but it's not going to work with a Catholic who knows the Faith and knows how to think.

How charitable. There is no point to offend the mentally challenged. Please stop doing that.

He won't, that's why he has been reported as the anti-trad troll that he is.

[Kaesekopf]

JeffP earned a 7 day ban for name calling (mentally challenged) and his claims that sedevacantists are somehow "nonCatholic".  This Forum considers the sedevacantist a Catholic. 

[AlNg]

There is still a question which has not been answered which is where is the Roman Catholic Church, or where is the Church? It could not be the SSPX which is the Church because the SSPX is "una cum" Pope Francis. The FSSP is also "una cum" Pope Francis. The four marks of the Catholic Church have been mentioned, and one of the four marks is ONE. But those in the Traditional movement are not ONE, but they are divided on various issues: the Thuc bishops, SV, the pre-1962 missal, the treatment of post VII marriage annulments and you have the SSPX resistance, etc. And there is the question of should Traditional Catholics follow the rules of the false Counterfeit Church on fasting or should they follow the rules of the true pre-Vatican II Catholic Church and abstain from all meat on Fridays and abstain from all food from midnight before receiving Holy Communion?

[Michael Wilson]

The true Church is a visible society composed of those who profess and practice the Catholic faith, and are subject to their legitimate pastors, the bishops and especially the Roman Pontiff.
There are those who want to insist that the visibility of the Church is somehow maintained by those who occupy official posts in the Church, yet who do not either publicly profess or practice the Catholic faith, such as Pope Francis and most of those bishops who claim to accept the false teachings of Vatican II, involved themselves in a hopeless contradiction.
If one does accept the Conciliar Popes as true Popes, then one is by the consequent logic forced to accept the false teachings of Vatican II; and if one accepts these teachings, then it doesn't matter if one belongs to the Catholic Church or not, because as Vatican II declared, the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these false religions as means of salvation:
U.R. #3:   

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

So if God also uses these other false religions as means of salvation, what does it matter to a true believer in the Council, if sedes, Lefebvrist, E.D's and others, who reject the Council are in the Church or not?
JeffP, attempts to argue for acceptance of the Conciliar Church, using the logic and arguments of the Catholic Church up to Vatican II. But one or the other must logically give: Or one adheres to the Catholic faith, and rejects the errors of Vatican II and its doctrine of universal salvation; or one adheres to the Conciliar Church, and cannot come here and threaten Traditionalist with Hell and damnation, for not being a member of the Conciliar Church, if the Conciliar Church basically holds that all men are saved.

[Michael Wilson]

There is still a question which has not been answered which is where is the Roman Catholic Church, or where is the Church? It could not be the SSPX which is the Church because the SSPX is "una cum" Pope Francis. The FSSP is also "una cum" Pope Francis. The four marks of the Catholic Church have been mentioned, and one of the four marks is ONE. But those in the Traditional movement are not ONE, but they are divided on various issues: the Thuc bishops, SV, the pre-1962 missal, the treatment of post VII marriage annulments and you have the SSPX resistance, etc. And there is the question of should Traditional Catholics follow the rules of the false Counterfeit Church on fasting or should they follow the rules of the true pre-Vatican II Catholic Church and abstain from all meat on Fridays and abstain from all food from midnight before receiving Holy Communion?

Those who claim to be "una cum" with Pope Francis, yet reject his magisterium especially Vatican II, are not in Communion with him.
The rest of the issues that you bring up, have to do with how to deal with the present crisis in the Church in view of the lack of any official and authoritative guidance settling these issues; but eventually they will all be settled with the election of  Catholic to the See of Peter.

[AlNg]

The true Church is a visible society composed of those who profess and practice the Catholic faith, and are subject to their legitimate pastors, the bishops and especially the Roman Pontiff.

Is unity still a mark of the true Church? I see a lot of disunity today.

[Michael Wilson]

The true Church is a visible society composed of those who profess and practice the Catholic faith, and are subject to their legitimate pastors, the bishops and especially the Roman Pontiff.

Is unity still a mark of the true Church? I see a lot of disunity today.

Right, there was a monolithic unity in the Church up to the 1960's and that famous Council; draw the obvious conclusion.

[AlNg]

eventually they will all be settled with the election of  Catholic to the See of Peter.

The problem is that Traditional Catholics need to know now whether they should follow the rule of the false Counterfeit Church or whether they should follow the rule of the true pre Vatican II Church on abstaining from eating meat on Friday. According to the pre-Vatican II Church it is a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. According to the false counterfeit Church headed by an imposter Pope it is not a sin to eat meat on Friday.

[diaduit]

The true Church is a visible society composed of those who profess and practice the Catholic faith, and are subject to their legitimate pastors, the bishops and especially the Roman Pontiff.

Is unity still a mark of the true Church? I see a lot of disunity today.

Traditional Catholic priests and society are in perfect union with Church doctrine, the mass of all ages and persevere in truth.

[Goldfinch]

eventually they will all be settled with the election of  Catholic to the See of Peter.

The problem is that Traditional Catholics need to know now whether they should follow the rule of the false Counterfeit Church or whether they should follow the rule of the true pre Vatican II Church on abstaining from eating meat on Friday. According to the pre-Vatican II Church it is a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. According to the false counterfeit Church headed by an imposter Pope it is not a sin to eat meat on Friday.

Don't you get tired of trolling?