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.
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 the1949 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
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).
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
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.
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."
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.
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
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".
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.....
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
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.
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.
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'?
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
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.
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