Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum

[Baylee]

Have you tried using the Ignore button?

I have.  It's wonderful.   

[Padraig]

Have you tried using the Ignore button?

It really is a wonderful thing

[TerrorDæmonum]

I have.  It's wonderful.

It really is a wonderful thing

What is it with Sedevacantists who heckle people on this forum and make a big deal about "ignoring" when they don't ignore, and just make snide commentary on others? Do you people have no interest in a discussion forum for traditional Catholics who accept the Pope? If not, why did you join?

In any other forum, this behaviour would be called trolling. It is very difficult to see this group as being Catholic when they present novel doctrine, attack the Church and Catholics, and display such poor discipline.

[Michael Wilson]

T.D.

This isn't strictly true; Calvin believed in a magisterium, he just rejected that this magisterium was infallible or that it was the magisterium of the "papists" (on the grounds that the latter contradicted scripture, the fathers, and the creeds; and on the grounds that "Popes and councils have contradicted themselves"). Sola Scriptura as understood by the magisterial reformers doesn't mean "Bible Alone/Me and my bible"; rather it means that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith which the fallible rules (confessions, creeds, synods, fathers) are conformed to. These fallible rules of faith are still used in traditional Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed circles to interpret scripture, they're just subservient rather than equal to scripture.

How then do the Reformed determine that the "Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith", Without an infallible magisterium to determine this? Or even before this, how without an infallible magisterium do they determine what the Canon of sacred scripture is; or even if Sacred Scripture is inspired?

[Justin Martyr]

T.D.

This isn't strictly true; Calvin believed in a magisterium, he just rejected that this magisterium was infallible or that it was the magisterium of the "papists" (on the grounds that the latter contradicted scripture, the fathers, and the creeds; and on the grounds that "Popes and councils have contradicted themselves"). Sola Scriptura as understood by the magisterial reformers doesn't mean "Bible Alone/Me and my bible"; rather it means that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith which the fallible rules (confessions, creeds, synods, fathers) are conformed to. These fallible rules of faith are still used in traditional Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed circles to interpret scripture, they're just subservient rather than equal to scripture.

How then do the Reformed determine that the "Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith", Without an infallible magisterium to determine this? Or even before this, how without an infallible magisterium do they determine what the Canon of sacred scripture is; or even if Sacred Scripture is inspired?

They believe that the bible and the fallible rules, (including the fathers) teach that the bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. Or they justify it presuppositionally. An astute observer will of course note that this is a matter of private judgement either way, and that in fact they are the final epistemic arbiter of what scripture teaches.

The inspiration of scripture and the canon they hold either as a) fallible tradition, b) a fallible, morally certain judgement on the basis of certain reasons (the late R.C. Sproul's position), c) infallible and self-evident knowledge which is possessed by the elect and infused by the Holy Ghost (Calvin's Doctrine of Perspicacity).

I don't think they're right of course, but no educated protestant holds to "me and my bible/bible alone/nuda scriptura(as they call it)". That was my main point.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment though, a protestant could very well throw your objection right back at you (and they do in debates with Catholics):

"How then do the Catholics determine that the Pope is the final, sole infallible proximate rule of faith, without privately judging this to be true, presuppposing it, or making a circular argument? Or even before this, how do they determine what is the "canon" of true Popes; or even when the Pope is teaching authoritatively?"

How do you, as a sedevacantist, explain to them the means by which you determine infallibly which Popes are true Popes? Or, if its only fallible knowledge, how would you explain to them that your "fallible canon of infallible popes" differs from their "fallible canon of infallible books"?

[TerrorDæmonum]

There is a board for the Sedevacantist debate and I wouldn't have written anything about this had it not been present outside of that board.

I have very little interest in seeking out debates, so if this debate is kept within the board dedicated to it, I wouldn't have any objections worth publishing.

[Michael Wilson]

T.D.

"How then do the Catholics determine that the Pope is the final, sole infallible proximate rule of faith, without privately judging this to be true, presupposing it, or making a circular argument? Or even before this, how do they determine what is the "canon" of true Popes; or even when the Pope is teaching authoritatively?"

The Catholic does not look on Sacred Scripture initially as an inspired book (s), but rather as a historically reliable source of information; gives the history of a man who claimed to be God and proved it by deeds that only could be done by divine power; Jesus, then according to these same historical records, established a Church to continue his teachings and administer the means of sanctification; and endowed it with His own authority and promised to protect and preserve said institution until the end of time. The leaders of said institution were also given the power to work signs and wonders in order to establish their divine mission. Said wonders were attested to by men of high virtue; and these same leaders and many of their disciples went to their death, rather than to deny this doctrine.
So one could say that a person would have the testimony of history and of the continued existence of the Church itself through the ages to give them moral certainty that the Catholic Church is the true Church and etc.

How do you, as a sedevacantist, explain to them the means by which you determine infallibly which Popes are true Popes? Or, if its only fallible knowledge, how would you explain to them that your "fallible canon of infallible popes" differs from their "fallible canon of infallible books"?

A Catholic has no reason to suspect the identity of the man elected to the office by normal canonical means; however how does a Catholic know or identify another person as a Catholic? Is it not the public profession and practice of the Catholic faith?  Is this impossible to determine? Did not St. Paul tells us to "avoid the heretic"? How can we determine the difference between a Catholic and a non-Catholic? Is it impossible.

[TerrorDæmonum]

T.D.

If this is a reference to me, I think you have mistaken attribution, as you are responding to Justin Martyr.

[Michael Wilson]

T.D.

If this is a reference to me, I think you have mistaken attribution, as you are responding to Justin Martyr.

My age is showing.

[Justin Martyr]

T.D.

"How then do the Catholics determine that the Pope is the final, sole infallible proximate rule of faith, without privately judging this to be true, presupposing it, or making a circular argument? Or even before this, how do they determine what is the "canon" of true Popes; or even when the Pope is teaching authoritatively?"

The Catholic does not look on Sacred Scripture initially as an inspired book (s), but rather as a historically reliable source of information; gives the history of a man who claimed to be God and proved it by deeds that only could be done by divine power; Jesus, then according to these same historical records, established a Church to continue his teachings and administer the means of sanctification; and endowed it with His own authority and promised to protect and preserve said institution until the end of time. The leaders of said institution were also given the power to work signs and wonders in order to establish their divine mission. Said wonders were attested to by men of high virtue; and these same leaders and many of their disciples went to their death, rather than to deny this doctrine.
So one could say that a person would have the testimony of history and of the continued existence of the Church itself through the ages to give them moral certainty that the Catholic Church is the true Church and etc.

[If I may clarify up front; I in no wise tend to support protestantism. The following post is meant as an opportunity for us both to hone our apologetic wits]

The standard Neo-Scholastic answer, and certainly the answer I agree with. However, there is one crucial aspect missing that a clever protestant who is knowledgable of Catholic Theology would notice missing; namely, that the Catholic Church does not demand mere moral certainty (which excludes all reasonable doubt) from the faithful in regard to her doctrine, but the certainty of faith which excludes all doubts absolutely on the basis that God has revealed X. "After all", they would say, "we have moral certainty based on the testimony of the fathers, ecclesiastical history, and the inward working of the Holy Ghost in our lives that Sola Scriptura is true and that the reformers were godly men saving the visible body of the Church catholic from the bondage of popery. We believe with moral certainty all our doctrines to be revealed by God and to be those of the Apostles."

How would you respond to such a charge?

How do you, as a sedevacantist, explain to them the means by which you determine infallibly which Popes are true Popes? Or, if its only fallible knowledge, how would you explain to them that your "fallible canon of infallible popes" differs from their "fallible canon of infallible books"?

A Catholic has no reason to suspect the identity of the man elected to the office by normal canonical means;

To which the protestant responds "And we have no reason to doubt the 66 book canon. We have fallible moral certainty in this fact. And, unless the normal canonical means are infallible, that's the same degree of fallible certainty romanists have upon which they base their knowledge of the infallible decrees of their infallible popes."

however how does a Catholic know or identify another person as a Catholic?

St. Titus 3:10  A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:

Is it not the public profession and practice of the Catholic faith?

This is an acceptable definition, as long as we understand public profession of faith to mean public adherence to the Church as one's proximate rule of faith.Otherwise catholics who are accidentally hold to a material heresy would be non-catholics. Of course, to be considered a member of the Church it is also necessary to share the same sacraments and be under the same governance.

That said, even if one publically professes the Church as their proximate rule of faith, one is considered publically as "condemned by their own judgement" if they are rebuked twice by a superior (or possibly an equal, I'd have to check) and refuse to recant. This is what is canonically considered a manifest heretic, and this is the method by which objective pertinacity is determined such that formal heresy is externally established.

Without these ecessary distinctions, a protestant could retort, "And how well did Pope Alexander VI practice and profess his faith, a man of debauchery who was publicly rumored to be an atheist and never said mass a day while in office? Or Julius II, who was closer to Caesar than St. Peter?"

Indeed, Calvin mocked in his letters the idea that one can hold the faith in spite of material heresy if they are in submission to the Church. To him, the elect were infallibly brought to necessary knowledge of all de fide truths.

Is this impossible to determine?

No, it's possible to determine. But, the proper method to determine it would have to be established in clear and explicit terms. A traditional protestant judges this by a different method than a Catholic does, and leads them to conclude that every Pope since St. Gregory the Great has been a heretic (Calvin's opinion).

Did not St. Paul tells us to "avoid the heretic"? How can we determine the difference between a Catholic and a non-Catholic? Is it impossible?

See above.

[Justin Martyr]

There is a board for the Sedevacantist debate and I wouldn't have written anything about this had it not been present outside of that board.

I have very little interest in seeking out debates, so if this debate is kept within the board dedicated to it, I wouldn't have any objections worth publishing.

Doh! I thought this was the sede forum. Unfortunately, I am not old enough to say my age is showing; I was just careless lol

[TerrorDæmonum]

Another clarification is needed: are Sedevacantist focused topics appropriate in The Sacred Sciences?

Discussions which start or involve the issue are Sedevacantist debates, and transferring Sedevacantist Thesis topics to the Philosophical and Sacred Sciences board seems to violate the rules as expressed and clarified so far.

Sedevacantist debates should not be framed as regular theological and philosophical discussions.

[Justin Martyr]

Another clarification is needed: are Sedevacantist focused topics appropriate in The Sacred Sciences?

Discussions which start or involve the issue are Sedevacantist debates, and transferring Sedevacantist Thesis topics to the Philosophical and Sacred Sciences board seems to violate the rules as expressed and clarified so far.

Sedevacantist debates should not be framed as regular theological and philosophical discussions.

I'm not aware of any sede discussions at present in the Sacred Sciences. There are two discussions on possible magisterial contradictions, but I haven't seen sedevacantism promoted yet. The topic Michael started is important as it touches on some quite frankly gallican misconceptions alot of trads have about the pre-conciliar teaching on religious coercion. My topic on slavery is important as it (hopefully) will cause others to re-evaluate how they approach apparent magisterial contradictions. Namely, with a mind toward reconciliation over suspicion.

I also would like to know how to reconcile the apparent flip flop on slavery for my own personal benefit. I have a vague idea but I'm not too sure of it yet.

[Michael Wilson]

J.M.
The Catholic Church does demand the "certainty of Faith" from its converts; but here we are speaking of the "preambles of faith" i.e. How does one arrive at the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that Christ has founded. Once one arrives at this point through rational and objective criteria, one needs the assistance of Divine Grace to turn that moral certainty into the supernatural act of faith. Catholics hold that the Holy Ghost will lead all those that sincerely seek the truth, to the Catholic faith.
Protestant objection:

"we have moral certainty based on the testimony of the fathers, ecclesiastical history, and the inward working of the Holy Ghost in our lives that Sola Scriptura is true and that the reformers were godly men saving the visible body of the Church catholic from the bondage of popery. We believe with moral certainty all our doctrines to be revealed by God and to be those of the Apostles."

The testimony of the Fathers etc. Do not point to a rule of faith based on Sola Scriptura, but rather a rule of faith on a Church with Christ's very authority to teach and determine infallibly what are the books of Sacred Scripture and how to interpret them correctly. Also the same sources tell us that all of revelation is not contained in Sacred Scripture,  but also in Tradition; in fact S. S. Tells us explicitly that it  does not contain all of revelation.

To which the protestant responds "And we have no reason to doubt the 66 book canon. We have fallible moral certainty in this fact. And, unless the normal canonical means are infallible, that's the same degree of fallible certainty romanists have upon which they base their knowledge of the infallible decrees of their infallible popes."

The Protestant has no infallible way of determining the canon of Sacred Scripture; in fact the famous Reformed pastor, R.C. Sproul is quoted as saying that the "Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books". Which is false on two counts; The Bible is not only infallible, but inspired. A book on Algebra is infallible, but not inspired by the Holy Ghost. The fact that a Protestant admits that they cannot know if their collection of infallible books is the right one, leads necessarily to the conclusion that they could have books that are not inspired and the whole basis of their religious epistemology fails.
Secondly, their "rule of faith" fails, because there is no way to maintain "unity of faith" based on Sacred Scriptures, without an infallible and authoritative interpreter of such scriptures. The history of Protestantism is a clear example of this. Willy-nilly, without that infallible authority, it comes down to each man deciding what Sacred Scripture means. 

[Justin Martyr]

J.M.
The Catholic Church does demand the "certainty of Faith" from its converts; but here we are speaking of the "preambles of faith" i.e. How does one arrive at the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that Christ has founded. Once one arrives at this point through rational and objective criteria, one needs the assistance of Divine Grace to turn that moral certainty into the supernatural act of faith. Catholics hold that the Holy Ghost will lead all those that sincerely seek the truth, to the Catholic faith.
Protestant objection:

"we have moral certainty based on the testimony of the fathers, ecclesiastical history, and the inward working of the Holy Ghost in our lives that Sola Scriptura is true and that the reformers were godly men saving the visible body of the Church catholic from the bondage of popery. We believe with moral certainty all our doctrines to be revealed by God and to be those of the Apostles."

The testimony of the Fathers etc. Do not point to a rule of faith based on Sola Scriptura, but rather a rule of faith on a Church with Christ's very authority to teach and determine infallibly what are the books of Sacred Scripture and how to interpret them correctly. Also the same sources tell us that all of revelation is not contained in Sacred Scripture,  but also in Tradition; in fact S. S. Tells us explicitly that it  does not contain all of revelation.

To which the protestant responds "And we have no reason to doubt the 66 book canon. We have fallible moral certainty in this fact. And, unless the normal canonical means are infallible, that's the same degree of fallible certainty romanists have upon which they base their knowledge of the infallible decrees of their infallible popes."

The Protestant has no infallible way of determining the canon of Sacred Scripture; in fact the famous Reformed pastor, R.C. Sproul is quoted as saying that the "Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books". Which is false on two counts; The Bible is not only infallible, but inspired. A book on Algebra is infallible, but not inspired by the Holy Ghost. The fact that a Protestant admits that they cannot know if their collection of infallible books is the right one, leads necessarily to the conclusion that they could have books that are not inspired and the whole basis of their religious epistemology fails.
Secondly, their "rule of faith" fails, because there is no way to maintain "unity of faith" based on Sacred Scriptures, without an infallible and authoritative interpreter of such scriptures. The history of Protestantism is a clear example of this. Willy-nilly, without that infallible authority, it comes down to each man deciding what Sacred Scripture means.

It's probably best to move this to a different thread if you want to continue this discussion. I hadn't realized it was the general information subforum lol.