BACK

 

HOME

This Vatican Insider article teaches that the pope is the Rule of Faith. Its purpose is to silence critics of Francis for their disobedience.  This false doctrine is what unites Sedevacantists and Novus Ordo Catholics.

 

Offlinedrew

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists and Conservatives

« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2017, 03:09:54 PM »

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora


http://www.lastampa.it/2017/02/07/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/the-magisterium-of-pope-francis-his-predecessors-come-to-his-defence-x5jzE4YtghvlnRvSvcolGM/pagina.html

The Magisterium of Pope Francis: His Predecessors Come to His Defence
«If we claim that we hold Tradition dear then we must accept we defend Pope Francis and his magisterium also»

Pubblicato il 07/02/2017
Ultima modifica il 07/02/2017 alle ore 15:45
stephen walford *

It would seem obvious to most Catholics and commentators that the magisterium of Pope Francis is under more scrutiny and subject to more criticism than any other in living memory, and possibly going back much further than that. In particular, Amoris Laetitia has led many traditionalists to the conclusion that Pope Francis is at least deliberately “allowing” error and possibly even teaching heresy. In contrast to all the noise and commotion from social media explaining the various sides of the argument, there has been a deafening silence in one crucial area: the teaching of the popes themselves concerning their own unique charism. This is surely an area that needs exploration and acceptance because quite simply, no other authority on earth exists that can lay claim to a superior ministry on behalf of Christ and his truth.  
 
There is a small but very significant passage in Sacred Scripture that is the basis for the charism of the pope. Jesus told Peter: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.” (Lk 22:32). With these words, we discover a uniqueness of mission that applied only to Peter, and not the other apostles. St. John Paul II described it as the “charism of special assistance” explaining further: “This signifies the Holy Spirit’s continual help in the whole exercise of the teaching mission, meant to explain revealed truth and its consequences in human life. For this reason the Second Vatican Council states that all the Pope’s teaching should be listened to and accepted, even when it is not given ex cathedra” [1].
 Of course what interests us here, in relation to Pope Francis, is not the issue of infallibility for defined dogmas, but the exercise of his ordinary magisterium in which Amoris Laetitia certainly falls [2]. The question is therefore: can a Pope teach error in his ordinary magisterium in matters of faith and morals? St John Paul’s answer is a definite no: “Alongside this infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of the Holy Spirit’s assistance, granted to Peter and his successors so that they would not err in matters of faith and morals, but rather shed great light on the Christian people. This charism is not limited to exceptional cases” [3].

The Polish Pontiff also quoted Pope Innocent III, who in his Letter Apostolicae Sedis Primatus (November 12, 1199) stated “The Lord clearly intimates that Peter’s successors will never at anytime deviate from the Catholic faith, but will instead recall the others and strengthen the hesitant” [4].
No doubt a distinction needs to be made between the “private” theological speculations of a Pope-as in the case of Pope John XXII who for a time held the opinion that the beatific vision is not given immediately to the souls in heaven -and teachings deliberately given as part of the magisterium. At the time of John XXII, the dogma concerning the beatific vision had not been formulated, thus his was only a theological opinion-as he himself maintained - and not a formal teaching. In more recent times, Pope Benedict XVI was very careful to state that his Trilogy “Jesus of Nazareth” “is in no way an exercise of the magisterium”, and as one can only be a heretic after a doctrine has been formally taught by the Church, Pope John XXII even in his “private person” did not fall under that category.  

Some of the great theologians through the ages have looked into this question concerning a pope teaching heresy; St Robert Bellarmine in his De Romano Pontifice ruled it out, basing his view on Jesus’ prayer for Peter, just as Innocent III had done. Francisco de Suarez shared the same opinion while St Alphonus Liguori stated: “We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic” [5].

Pope Pius XII spoke very clearly on several occasions concerning the supreme importance of the papacy: “Whatever may be the name, the face, the human origins of any Pope, it is always Peter who lives in him; it is Peter who rules and governs; it is Peter above all, who teaches and diffuses over the world the light of liberating truth” [6]. Again on another occasion he said: While We behold shining before us the “glory” of Bernini, and above the chair…We see resplendent and dominating in a blaze of the light the symbol of the Holy Ghost, We feel and experience the fullness of the sacred character, of the superhuman mission, that the will of the Lord with the assistance of the Spirit, promised and sent by Him, has conferred on this central point of the Church of the Living God, columna et firmamentum veritatis-pillar and support of truth” [7].

It would be wrong to confuse this teaching that popes are free from error in faith and morals with ultramontanism which was rejected by the Church. (cf.The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church) [8]. This truth of our faith relies solely on the Will of God; it was his choice to ensure his chosen sons in the Chair of Peter through history would be protected from error, and so we must embrace that in its totality. The image and designation of Peter as the Rock speaks of something and someone immovable; immovable in faith through a special gift of the Lord. It recalls Abraham our original Father in faith, of whom Isaiah said: “look to the rock from which you were hewn ... look to Abraham your father.” (Is 51:1-2) Peter and his successors now become the guardians of the true faith, not just in ex cathedra declarations but in all their ordinary teaching concerning faith and morals, for it is those areas that ultimately determine whether we live in the company of the Lord both here and in eternity.  

Pope Benedict XVI confirmed exactly the same interpretation as his predecessors in a homily for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul: “Jesus’ prayer [Lk 22:32] is at the same time a promise and a duty. Jesus’ prayer safeguards Peter’s faith, that faith which he confessed at Caesarea Philippi: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Mt 16: 16). And so, never let this faith be silenced; strengthen it over and over again, even in the face of the cross and all the world’s contradictions: this is Peter’s task. Therefore, the point is that the Lord does not only pray for Peter’s personal faith, but for his faith as a service to others. This is exactly what he means with the words: ‘When you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22: 32) [9].

Blessed Pius IX in his Letter Tuas Libenter confirmed the importance of the ordinary magisterium in response to certain theologians who thought adherence was only necessary with truths of the faith that had solemnly been declared: “Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world” [10].

This brings us back to our starting point: Amoris Laetitia. From the teaching of popes through history, we must affirm that Pope Francis cannot possibly be in error in his ordinary magisterium concerning issues of faith and morals, and thus his teaching that under certain, carefully considered cases, Holy Communion can be given to persons in irregular situations is perfectly valid and influenced by the Holy Spirit; to come to any other conclusion is to then call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and consequently the entire fabric of Catholicism is called into question. Do we then pick and choose which teachings of which popes to accept? That would be tantamount to a form of Protestantism. The Council of Lyons stated the Pope: “has the duty to defend the truth of the faith, and it is his responsibility to resolve all disputed matters in the area of faith” [11].

If protection from the Lord were only to apply to rare ex cathedra declarations how could all disputes of faith possibly be resolved? We must remember St Ambrose’ famous phrase: “Where Peter is, there is the Church. Where the Church is, there is no death but life eternal”. Pope John Paul II knew that different historical situations would require different responses from the popes, as he himself explained: “In its form of expression [the teaching of Peter’s successors] it can vary according to the person who exercises it, his interpretation of the needs of the time” [12].

Undoubtedly, Pope Francis, guided by the Holy Spirit is fully aware that our time needs the Church to go deeper into the issues of lives that are complex and not just mete out harsh judgments based not on subjective guilt, but simply the objective grave matter. Perhaps this explains why we finally have a Jesuit Pope after nearly five centuries. Discernment is needed now more than ever before; moral theology has certainly moved in this direction over the past century, in an authentic doctrinal development as taught by St Vincent of Lerins. Rather than being guided simply by a manual of prohibitions, the centrality of our relationship to the merciful Christ must take prominence. It is here that his healing rays of divine grace can renew hearts and bring salvation.

In conclusion, we should return to Pope Pius XII’s statement: “Whatever may be the name, the face, the human origins of any Pope, it is always Peter who lives in him; it is Peter who rules and governs”. Peter therefore lives in Pope Francis; and it is certain, that when Jesus said to Peter “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”, he saw every pope until the end of the world. He spoke those words to Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Those who have questioned the Holy Father – especially those hurling a constant barrage of abuse in a way that demeans their baptismal consecration - must now pose themselves the question: is this a lack of trust not in the Pope but actually in the prayer of Jesus: “I have prayed for you.”? If we claim that we hold Tradition dear, that we defend it with all our strength, then we must accept we defend Pope Francis and his magisterium also. There is no other interpretation available; the popes have spoken.  
---
Era from Bl Pius IX to Benedict XVI (Angelico Press), and Communion of Saints: The Unity of Divine Love in the Mystical Body of Christ (Angelico Press). He has written articles for various publications on eschatological and mariological themes. He is also a pianist and teacher.  


How timely that the Vatican would publish an article defending this great modern error of papolatry that makes the pope himself the Rule of Faith.  This author attributes whatever a modern pope teaches by virtue of his grace of state as the work of the Holy Ghost.
 

Quote from: Vatican Insider Article

This brings us back to our starting point: Amoris Laetitia. From the teaching of popes through history, we must affirm that Pope Francis cannot possibly be in error in his ordinary magisterium concerning issues of faith and morals, and thus his teaching that under certain, carefully considered cases, Holy Communion can be given to persons in irregular situations is perfectly valid and influenced by the Holy Spirit; to come to any other conclusion is to then call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and consequently the entire fabric of Catholicism is called into question.


This is the sin against the Holy Ghost spoken of by our Lord.  The Pharisees attributed the miracles worked by Jesus to the power of Beelzebub, that is, they attributed the works of the Holy Ghost to the devil.  This article attributes the teaching of giving Holy Communion to Catholics in a state of unrepentant adultery to the Holy Ghost.  

I strongly recommend everyone read this article and reflect upon its implications.  This teaching is held by the SSPX, most every sedevacantist, and is axiomatic with every conservative Catholic.  Its remote source is a gross distortion of the dogmatic declarations of Vatican I and its proximate source is the1989 Holy Office Letter condemning Fr. Feeney's defense of Dogma.  It was in this letter that Dogma was no longer taken literally but reduced to doctrinal axioms, general guidelines, that were open to development and theological speculation.  Its crowning achievement was in John XXIII opening speech at Vatican II in which he made a formal distinction between the doctrines of Faith and the manner in which they are expressed, that is, the Dogma itself, which was held to contain perennial truths and human contingent accretions that in the course of normal doctrinal development must be distilled away.

This article has many mistakes but most importantly, it describes the "never failing faith" that was given as a personal gift by Jesus Christ to St. Peter as a personal possession of every pope.  Cornelius a Lapide in his Great Commentary specifically addresses this scriptural passage and denies this interpretation.  No father or doctor of the Church is referenced as having supported this belief and it is not so much as even mentioned by St. Thomas or in Haydock's commentary.  The author of this article further errs in repeatedly conflating the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium with the ordinary authentic magisterium from the evidence he provides.

Unless a Catholic understands the true nature of Dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic Faith, as the Rule of Faith, he cannot defend the Faith as demonstrated by +Fellay in the doctrinal discussions with Rome, and he cannot avoid the pitfalls of conservative Catholicism and sedevacantism.

Drew


OfflineBellator Dei

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2017, 03:52:02 PM »

Quote from: drew

This article has many mistakes but most importantly, it describes the "never failing faith" that was given as a personal gift by Jesus Christ to St. Peter as a personal possession of every pope.  Cornelius a Lapide in his Great Commentary specifically addresses this scriptural passage and denies this interpretation.  No father or doctor of the Church is referenced as having supported this belief and it is not so much as even mentioned by St. Thomas or in Haydock's commentary.  The author of this article further errs in repeatedly conflating the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium with the ordinary authentic magisterium from the evidence he provides.


Is Pope Leo XIII wrong then?

Quote from: Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith. "But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not" (Luke xxii., 32), and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: "Confirm thy brethren" (Ibid.). He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defence of its faith. "Could not Christ who confided to him the Kingdom by His own authority have strengthened the faith of one whom He designated a rock to show the foundation of the Church?" (S. Ambrosius, De Fide, lib. iv., n. 56).


Offlinedrew

 

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2017, 08:09:56 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: drew

This article has many mistakes but most importantly, it describes the "never failing faith" that was given as a personal gift by Jesus Christ to St. Peter as a personal possession of every pope.  Cornelius a Lapide in his Great Commentary specifically addresses this scriptural passage and denies this interpretation.  No father or doctor of the Church is referenced as having supported this belief and it is not so much as even mentioned by St. Thomas or in Haydock's commentary.  The author of this article further errs in repeatedly conflating the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium with the ordinary authentic magisterium from the evidence he provides.



Is Pope Leo XIII wrong then?

Quote from: Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith. "But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not" (Luke xxii., 32), and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: "Confirm thy brethren" (Ibid.). He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defence of its faith. "Could not Christ who confided to him the Kingdom by His own authority have strengthened the faith of one whom He designated a rock to show the foundation of the Church?" (S. Ambrosius, De Fide, lib. iv., n. 56).

 


Pope Leo is perfectly correct in what he says in this quote.  He is confirming the Catholic understanding of this article of faith. Before Vatican I it was the received tradition for the proper understanding of the "never failing faith" conferred upon St. Peter, and after, Vatican I, became a dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  It is "in the fulfillment of the office" that God has promised the successors of St. Peter that they would never employ the Extra-ordinary, or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium to bind the faithful to doctrinal or moral error.  This is exactly what Rev. Cornelius a Lapide says in his Great Commentary drawn from all the Church fathers and doctors to his time.

The Dogmatic definition of papal infallibility references this exact scripture passage of "never failing faith" in support of its definition of the Dogma of papal infallibility.  The dogmatic definition defines what criteria must be met for the pope to engage the attribute of infallibility of the Church.   Nothing is said or implied in this definition that the pope possesses a personal "never failing faith."

The promise of a personal never failing faith was made to St. Peter alone.  If a never failing faith as a personal attribute of every pope was correct, then the pope would necessarily be the "rule of faith,"  and he would therefore have to be preserved from not just formal heresy but from all material error whatsoever.  It would make no difference if the pope erred willingly or unwillingly because either a formal or a material error would have the same result, that is, it would lead others into error. This is historically untenable.

Making the pope the rule of faith is the error that has not just produced the corruption of the conciliar popes, most notably Francis, but it is the reason that everyone else has been impotent in defending the faith.

Drew  


OfflineAn even Seven

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2017, 12:50:40 AM »

Quote from: drew


Making the pope the rule of faith is the error that has not just produced the corruption of the conciliar popes, most notably Francis, but it is the reason that everyone else has been impotent in defending the faith.

Drew  


This is what you deny. That the Pope is the unity of faith. The rule of faith is Dogma, and Dogma is defined by the Pope. He not only has to be submitted to when he uses infallibility but also in the day to day governance of the Church. This teaching is infallible and it is what you deny when you refuse obedience to the "pope" in matters other than his "infallible' teachings.

Vatican Council, Sess. 4: "4.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...7.This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.
8.Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock."

Vatican Council, Sess. 4, Ch. 3: "2.Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
3.In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd.

The Roman Pontiff must have the same faith in order to preserve the union instituted by Christ.

By saying that your "pope" is a heretic you also deny this Vatican Council teaching: "7.This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

How does your "church" stand firm against the gates of hell when your "pope" is a heretic? How is the Church preserved in Unity when the Church's faithful are being fed the "poisonous food of error"?

Finally, this infallible teaching from Pope Pius IX, teaches that by not obeying the "pope" you are specifically denying Dogma.

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura: "5....Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

6. Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned."

Mark 16:[15] And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. [16] He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

 


Offlinedrew

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2017, 06:57:44 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: drew

Making the pope the rule of faith is the error that has not just produced the corruption of the conciliar popes, most notably Francis, but it is the reason that everyone else has been impotent in defending the faith.

Drew  


This is what you deny. That the Pope is the unity of faith. The rule of faith is Dogma, and Dogma is defined by the Pope. He not only has to be submitted to when he uses infallibility but also in the day to day governance of the Church. This teaching is infallible and it is what you deny when you refuse obedience to the "pope" in matters other than his "infallible' teachings.


No.  Dogma is the rule of faith.  The faith is the principle sign and cause of unity.  The pope is not the final cause of Dogma.  He is the necessary but insufficient means by which Dogma is revealed. (He is the instrumental cause).  Dogma is the revelation of God (which makes God the efficient cause of Dogma).

I did not read the rest of your post because I know that you have nothing worthwhile to say.  The article posted by Maria is very important to read and understand, but you are not capable of that.  It may be a mental or psychological problem but the result is the same.  It is like looking in the mirror and being unable to recognize your own image.  You are the one who said that the Paul VI's promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae is equivalent to Pius XII's Dogmatic decree on the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  This strikes me as being frightfully ignorant.  This is only possible if you believe that the pope is the rule of faith and you know nothing of what the Magisterium/magisterium is.  You are so deeply sunk in this quagmire that you cannot smell it on yourself.

I have compared sedevacantism to parking on a dead end street.  Maybe a better analogy would be the "death spiral" that can happen to disoriented aviators.  It is such a destructive disorientation because the corrective measures the pilot uses to recover only make the situation worse, much worse.

Regardless, it always leads to despair because you have created a church that cannot be Catholic because it is permanently defective of a necessary attribute.

Drew

P.S.  For sedevacantists, it is as you say, "the pope is the unity of faith."  Now you have no pope and no hope of ever having one, you have no "unity of faith."


OfflinePax Vobis

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2017, 09:27:47 AM »

Quote from: drew

No.  Dogma is the rule of faith.  The faith is the principle sign and cause of unity.  The pope is not the final cause of Dogma.  He is the necessary but insufficient means by which Dogma is revealed. (He is the instrumental cause).  Dogma is the revelation of God (which makes God the efficient cause of Dogma).

 


Let me try to re-frame this discussion in another way.  Let us all remember this obvious, but in our day and age, corrupted truth.  There are not, nor will there ever be, NEW catholic truths.  Christ revealed everything that we must believe to save our souls.  The Catholic Faith is unchanging, fixed, immovable.

I bring this up because oftentimes when the pope/dogma is discussed, people incorrectly imply that the pope is of some necessity when it comes to keeping the Faith.  Practically, he is not necessary to keep the faith or save your soul!  You can pick up a good catechism and learn ALL that you need to save your soul.  The pope is a blessing, in that his job is to DEFEND the truth, or CLARIFY dogma, or RE-TEACH that which has been infected with error.  It is a blessing, because many popes don't use this power, or they use it unwisely, so when a good pope fulfills his office, then the Church has good days.  If he fails to defend, clarify or teach the truth, the Church has not failed, she simply has a leader that is poor at his job.  But, in all these things, as the bible says "there's nothing new under the sun".  The pope does NOT have the power to CREATE any new truths, as many imply by their over-emphasis on his importance.

However, the pope is important for the governance of the temporal affairs of the Church.  Without a head, the organization would implode.  He is, of course, very important for the spiritual aspect as well, but history shows that God gives bad leaders as a punishment for sin, so we can't expect for a holy pope to guide us to heaven.  At the end of the day, WE have to KNOW our faith, live it and teach it to others.  We can't, and shouldn't, rely on a pope to get us to heaven.  This is spiritual immaturity and irresponsibility.  This is not how it works.

This is why, practically speaking, the question of who is/isn't the pope is pointless. Sedevacantists aren't disturbed by a vacant chair because they know they must hold onto the faith regardless and that God will fix the situation.  They say: "The pope has lost his office because he hasn't followed the Faith.  I must continue to follow the faith to save my soul."  

Non-sedevacantists have the same logic.  They see a bad pope and realize he's a danger and that eventually, God will fix the situation.  They say: "The pope is to be ignored because he hasn't followed the Faith.  I must continue to follow the faith to save my soul."

The outcome is the same - follow the Faith, to save your soul.  I don't see the point in fighting over inconsequential details.


Offlinedrew

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2017, 07:21:53 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Quote from: drew

No.  Dogma is the rule of faith.  The faith is the principle sign and cause of unity.  The pope is not the final cause of Dogma.  He is the necessary but insufficient means by which Dogma is revealed. (He is the instrumental cause).  Dogma is the revelation of God (which makes God the efficient cause of Dogma).


Let me try to re-frame this discussion in another way.  Let us all remember this obvious, but in our day and age, corrupted truth.  There are not, nor will there ever be, NEW catholic truths.  Christ revealed everything that we must believe to save our souls.  The Catholic Faith is unchanging, fixed, immovable.
[.....]
This is why, practically speaking, the question of who is/isn't the pope is pointless. Sedevacantists aren't disturbed by a vacant chair because they know they must hold onto the faith regardless and that God will fix the situation.  They say: "The pope has lost his office because he hasn't followed the Faith.  I must continue to follow the faith to save my soul."  

Non-sedevacantists have the same logic.  They see a bad pope and realize he's a danger and that eventually, God will fix the situation.  They say: "The pope is to be ignored because he hasn't followed the Faith.  I must continue to follow the faith to save my soul."

The outcome is the same - follow the Faith, to save your soul.  I don't see the point in fighting over inconsequential details.


The subject of this thread concerns what constitutes the "rule of faith."  You cannot just "follow the Faith" if you do not know what the "rule of faith" is.  And that is why you cannot simply examine the problem from a "practical" perspective because the theoretical first principles will in the end determine the practical course taken.

The Vatican Insider article is an exposition of the doctrine that the pope is the "rule of faith."  This false doctrine has been taken as normative since the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney whereby Dogma as the rule of faith was "formally" replaced with the "pope as the rule of faith."  This false doctrine is held by conservative Catholics, all sedevacantists (except Br. Michael Dimond), and those priests and religious formed by the SSPX.  It explains why they believe and do the things they do.    

The article was posted so that those who hold this doctrine may better see its implications when it is used to overthrow the sacraments of marriage and penance leading to sacrilegious communions.  Maybe they will begin to trace it back to the overthrowing of the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Drew

 


OfflineAn even Seven

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2017, 12:41:30 AM »

Quote from: drew

No.  Dogma is the rule of faith.  The faith is the principle sign and cause of unity.  The pope is not the cause of Dogma.


I never said the Pope is the cause of Dogma. You lie about that and then form a whole fallacious argument based on your lie. Your deception and straw-man arguments are easy for anyone to see through.
You say you ignored the rest of my post, which I doubt, because it completely destroys your belief that you can completely ignore everything the Pope does except when he uses his infallibility.

Quote from: drew

P.S.  For sedevacantists, it is as you say, "the pope is the unity of faith."  Now you have no pope and no hope of ever having one, you have no "unity of faith."


Another ridiculous response. I guess according to your logic, the unity of faith would have ceased after the death of St. Peter. It must mean the Office conferred on St. Peter from Christ.
You have no unity of faith with your "pope". You are not in communion with your "head".


OfflineGJC

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2017, 10:08:34 AM »

Quote from: drew

The subject of this thread concerns what constitutes the "rule of faith."  You cannot just "follow the Faith" if you do not know what the "rule of faith" is.


You said it. How can you claim to have any faith at all when you don't even recognize a heretic/apostate that your in line with?

How will you answer the most Just Judge when asked: Have you not read the scriptures; blind followers of blind leaders will both go into the pit (hell)?

You can try to justify yourself all you like with your "rule of faith" argument, but you can never escape the fact you are united to the Novus Ordo as the article accuses the sedevacantist of.

For the record, I printed a copy of the 1949 letter, borrowed a lighter, and burned it.....


Offlinedrew

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2017, 04:49:43 PM »

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: drew

The subject of this thread concerns what constitutes the "rule of faith."  You cannot just "follow the Faith" if you do not know what the "rule of faith" is.


You said it. How can you claim to have any faith at all when you don't even recognize a heretic/apostate that your in line with?

How will you answer the most Just Judge when asked: Have you not read the scriptures; blind followers of blind leaders will both go into the pit (hell)?

You can try to justify yourself all you like with your "rule of faith" argument, but you can never escape the fact you are united to the Novus Ordo as the article accuses the sedevacantist of.

For the record, I printed a copy of the 1949 letter, borrowed a lighter, and burned it.....


“Burned the 1949 Holy Office Letter” censoring Fr. Feeney?  Well that is not the typical response from anyone who holds the pope as the rule of faith.  So if you do not hold the pope as the rule of faith, you then must hold Dogma as the rule of faith for what is left is the Protestant option which holds that each individual believer is his own rule of faith.  

So how is it that a Catholic becomes associated with the heresy of each of the conciliar popes by recognizing their papacy if they keep Dogma as the rule of faith?  "Have you not read the scriptures"?  Was Jesus Christ tainted by the sin of Caiaphas the heretic by acknowledging him as the high priest and worshiping at the temple?  

The laws that remove a heretic pope from office are not, as has been claimed by others, "Divine law."  They are human law with all the problems entailed in applying human laws in individual cases.

Nearly every sedevacantist holds the pope as the rule of faith.  That is why they are obligated to usurp the authority of enforcing the penalties of human law and remove him from office or else they would have to obey him like the conservative conciliar Catholics have done.  But the sedevacantists in so doing end up in a church that does not and can never have a pope which is a necessary attribute of the Church Jesus Christ founded.  It is a clear and unmistakable sign that the church they belong to in not the Catholic Church.

Fr. Feeney was censored in the 1949 Holy Office Letter for defending the literal meaning of the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church.  He was censored for holding Dogma as the rule of faith.  

This is something that every sedevacantist needs to reflect upon.  

Drew


OfflineJPaul

 

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2017, 10:42:54 AM »

Quote from: drew

The Vatican Insider article is an exposition of the doctrine that the pope is the "rule of faith."  This false doctrine has been taken as normative since the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney whereby Dogma as the rule of faith was "formally" replaced with the "pope as the rule of faith."  This false doctrine is held by conservative Catholics, all sedevacantists (except Br. Michael Dimond), and those priests and religious formed by the SSPX.  It explains why they believe and do the things they do.  

The article was posted so that those who hold this doctrine may better see its implications when it is used to overthrow the sacraments of marriage and penance leading to sacrilegious communions.  Maybe they will begin to trace it back to the overthrowing of the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Drew



Indeed, that pernicious letter is the gift that keeps on giving, with its corroded and faulty interpretations of the Church's mind.
Interpretations which are ascribed to by most of the neo-traditionl sects and the Novus Ordo clergy.
That is how they come to the contradictory conclusions that someone who clearly believes and espouses heresy is not a heretic, but due to the protection of the Church, such a one could not mean to be a heretic, though he acts and speaks as  one.
That is at best, is cognitive dissonance, or as more popularly quoted, a diabolical disorientation of the Catholic sense.


OfflineGJC

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2017, 06:32:45 PM »

Quote from: drew

So how is it that a Catholic becomes associated with the heresy of each of the conciliar popes by recognizing their papacy if they keep Dogma as the rule of faith?  "Have you not read the scriptures"?  Was Jesus Christ tainted by the sin of Caiaphas the heretic by acknowledging him as the high priest and worshiping at the temple?



But was Jesus united to the Sanhedrin? Did Jesus recognize the Sanhedrin as the Kingdom of God (the Church)?

You on the other hand recognize the modern day Sanhedrin a.k.a. the Novus Ordo/Concilar church as the Catholic Church and remain united to it.


OfflineGJC

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2017, 07:00:06 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Non-sedevacantists have the same logic.  They see a bad pope and realize he's a danger and that eventually, God will fix the situation.  They say: "The pope is to be ignored because he hasn't followed the Faith.  I must continue to follow the faith to save my soul."

[/b]

What faith? The Church has defined heresy/apostasy...At least Fr. Wathen had the fortitude to call a heretic a heretic. Look at the strong stance he took against JP2 called him an atheist, destroyer of faith, apostate, etc... he just made the MAJOR mistake of considering him still a Catholic and that's how Fr Wathen justified himself and his position. The other option is to call a full blown heretic a "bad pope" to justify remaining united, in communion, or part of... or whatever.

Ask yourself a question: Am I a member of the novus ordo/concilar church even though I do not go to their Churchs'?

 


Offlinedrew

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2017, 08:22:50 PM »

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: drew

So how is it that a Catholic becomes associated with the heresy of each of the conciliar popes by recognizing their papacy if they keep Dogma as the rule of faith?  "Have you not read the scriptures"?  Was Jesus Christ tainted by the sin of Caiaphas the heretic by acknowledging him as the high priest and worshiping at the temple?


But was Jesus united to the Sanhedrin? Did Jesus recognize the Sanhedrin as the Kingdom of God (the Church)?

You on the other hand recognize the modern day Sanhedrin a.k.a. the Novus Ordo/Concilar church as the Catholic Church and remain united to it.


Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.  Matt 23: 1-3

Throughout His entire life Jesus kept the routine and regulated temple worship from His Presentation with the Blessed Virgin’s Purification through the regular going-up to Jerusalem during His active ministry.  Jesus called the temple, His “Father’s House” and declared to the Samaritan woman that “salvation was of the Jews.”  He directed those He had worked miracles on to "show themselves to the priests" and make the offering commanded in the law by Moses.  

All the sacrifices by the priests in the Old Testament were types prefiguring the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  Without going into much detail, it is absurd to believe that Jesus, who was the great Anti-type, would have a false priesthood responsible for his sacrificial offering.  That would make the sacrifices of the Old Testament more real than the sacrifices of Jesus on the Cross.  Absurd!

We know from scripture that Caiaphas was the “high priest” and that he was a heretic because he denied the resurrection and only accepted the authority of the Pentateuch.  Jesus never declared the “chair of Moses” vacant.  

No one here is arguing that Pope Francis is not a manifest heretic.  That being the case the ipso facto laws that would remove a pope from office are part of the human law of the Church.  They are not, as has been affirmed by others, part of divine law.  No ipso facto  penalty imposed by human law is suffered until there has been a determination of guilt through due process after which the penalty of the law is imposed by the law.  Those who want to impose ipso facto  penalties without due process are just making themselves the "lord of the harvest."

Those who hold the pope as the rule of faith have a problem because of his heresy.  The great majority of sedevacantist believe that the pope is the rule of faith and they cannot abide a heretic as their rule of faith.  Sedevacantism naturally follows from this error.  Those who correctly hold that Dogma as the rule of faith do not have this problem because the heresy of any pope cannot touch them personally.  Those who recognize Pope Francis as pope, acknowledging his open manifest heresy, are no more contaminated by his heresy than Jesus Christ was by the heresy of Caiaphas.  

You should begin from what is known for certain.  You are in a church that has no pope and can never get one and therefore the church you are in cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  There is without doubt a fundamental error you have made that has taken you down the wrong road.  

Drew


OfflineAn even Seven

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2017, 01:23:33 AM »

Quote from: drew quoting Scripture to try to prove heretics can be Popes

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.  Matt 23: 1-3


First, Our Lord says to do what they command. You do not do what your "pope" commands (observe all the of the VII "council" and the N.O. etc...)
Second, This fits in well with what we've been saying, that a bad Pope, one who is personally sinful, still has the power to rule, so long as he's not a heretic.
 

Quote from: drew

We know from scripture that Caiaphas was the “high priest” and that he was a heretic because he denied the resurrection and only accepted the authority of the Pentateuch.  Jesus never declared the “chair of Moses” vacant.


We know after the Revelation of Our Lord, that the Sadducees believed heretical things. There is no evidence that the Jews thought it was heretical as we know what is heretical from Dogma. The Old Law was much different than the New. At the time of Our Lord the Romans appointed and removed the High Priests. Things were much different. So your attempt to justify yourself through the Old Law falls short.

Quote from: CE

The Sadducees retained however, their traditional priestly functions and also a varying preponderance in the Sanhedrin, but even in this respect their influence was much diminished through the policy of Herod and later of the Roman procurators of Judea, who, arbitrarily and mainly for political reasons, appointed and removed the high-priests at will.

Mark 16:[15] And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. [16] He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.


Offlinedrew

Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives

« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2017, 07:53:18 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: drew quoting Scripture to try to prove heretics can be Popes

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.  Matt 23: 1-3

First, Our Lord says to do what they command. You do not do what your "pope" commands (observe all the of the VII "council" and the N.O. etc...)
Second, This fits in well with what we've been saying, that a bad Pope, one who is personally sinful, still has the power to rule, so long as he's not a hereric


This is proof positive that An Even Seven believes that the pope is the rule of faith for it is impossible to say that unconditional obedience is owed to pope and the Vatican II unless this were true.

How mindless!  As if Jesus Christ’s admonition to his disciples of obedience to those sitting on the chair of Moses was unconditional.  Mindless of the necessary conditions that any act of obedience to man, any man, be governed by the virtue of Religion.  St. Peter and the man born blind both knew very well that “we must obey God rather than man.”

With any error in principle at the beginning it is difficult to imagine its ramifications in the long run.  Fr. Fenton defended the 1949 Holy Office Letter.  He did not even figure it out after his removal from the editorship of AER and the victory of the neo-Modernists at Vatican II.

But this article from Vatican Insider should make the most rabid defender of the pope as the rule of faith error reconsider.  Nearly every sedevacantist holds this error.  Nearly every conservative Catholic holds this error.  Nearly every priest formed by the SSPX holds this error.  This error makes defense of the faith impossible and leads to hopeless dead end.

Drew

 

BACK

 

HOME