Why can't trads get along?

[Michael Wilson]

tradical, to summarize your reply to my last on the dogmatic fact question:

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.

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:

Exactly, 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.

[tradical]

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

Apostolic
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. "

[voxxpopulisuxx]

quote author=Sbyvl36 link=topic=8028.msg178795#msg178795 date=1408762379]

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

Apostolic
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]

[tradical]

tradical, to summarize your reply to my last on the dogmatic fact question:

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.

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:

Exactly, 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.



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'. 

[Sbyvl36]

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

Apostolic
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:

A. 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

[tradical]

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

Apostolic
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:

A. 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

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

[tradical]

quote author=Sbyvl36 link=topic=8028.msg178795#msg178795 date=1408762379]

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

Apostolic
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

[Sbyvl36]

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.  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.

[Sbyvl36]

quote author=Sbyvl36 link=topic=8028.msg178795#msg178795 date=1408762379]

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

Apostolic
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.

[tradical]

quote author=Sbyvl36 link=topic=8028.msg178795#msg178795 date=1408762379]

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

Apostolic
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

[Kaesekopf]

Trim your quotes.

[Sbyvl36]

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.

[tradical]

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

[RobertJS]

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.

[tradical]

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:

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