Conservative
Catholics and Sedevacantists are bound by a common error: Both reject Dogma and
make the pope their Rule of Faith
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2017, 07:32:14 PM »
Quote: You MUST have
Catholic faith to be CATHOLIC
Quote from: Pax Vobis
I agree totally. What
I disagree with is the APPLICATION of this principle.
My point on Arianism (and any other doctrinally tumultuous time in Church
history, like the Protestant revolt), is that (to my knowledge) the Church has
never declared 'there were mass vacancies' in the cardinal, bishop or priestly
offices. Why not? Because it really doesn't matter.
My point is this: Nowhere in the history of the Church (even when there
were 3 competing 'popes') has the Church said, inferred, or implied that a
Catholic is BOUND in DUTY to MAKE A DETERMINATION or DECLARATION on who is or
isn't pope.
Nor is any catholic BOUND to sign any declaration on who they are/aren't
following in regards to their Bishop/Pope.
Nor has there EVER been any teaching or theological theory that any Catholic is
IN COMMUNION WITH an erroneous/heretical bishop/pope unless they formally
declare their disapproval of them.
So, why in our day and age, does such a theoretical and illogical ERROR such as
'being in communion with' so-and-so bad bishop/pope find such a following?
What does 'in communion with' even mean?
If such a formal declaration is necessary, who decides what is formal and what
isn't? Who decides if such a declaration is sufficient or not?
Where in canon law, church history, the roman ritual, church law, can
such an answer be found? Name one theologian who taught such a thing?
Answer: There is nothing in Church history to suggest anything of the
sort. The principles of sedevacantism are catholic. The purpose of
them is to teach the faithful to avoid bad clergy and their errors. The
problem is the APPLICATION of these principles, whereby certain groups are trying
to FORCE catholics to make determinations which they are unqualified to do, and
which are unnecessary.
Who is or isn't a heretic is a distraction when it's erroneously made into a
'litmus test' of catholicism; keeping the Faith is the ultimate goal and
ultimate litmus test. This can be accomplished regardless of one's
opinion on the pope.
I think you have a very good post here. Sedevacantists have drawn logical
but unnecessary conclusions from good principles.
I do not know any sedevacantist organizations, excepting Michael Dimond that
believes in Dogma qua Dogma. They all believe that Dogma does not
have to be taken literally. Everyone holds that the 1949 Holy Office
Letter sent to Cardinal Cushing in Boston censoring Fr. Feeney is a
"magisterial" document that must be accepted by every Catholic.
This document overturned every Dogma touching upon what is necessary as a
necessity of means for salvation. These sedevacantist organizations all
hold that the good-willed Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Protestant, etc., etc. can be in
a state of grace and obtain salvation. So why should they worry about
Francis or anyone else? All that is necessary for salvation is the
'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' which cannot even be
denied to the "good-willed" modernist.
The Letter presupposed the principle that there exists a distinction (or
rather, disjunction) between Dogma and the words used to express it. The
Dogma is one thing, a divine truth, but the words that are used to define the
truth are only a human approximation of that truth which necessarily must be
continually revised and purged of human accretions to develop greater purity of
expression. This is the modernists principle of Dogmatic evolution.
It was the first principle declared by Pope John XXIII at the opening
bell of Vatican II as overriding theme of the Council. It was quoted by
Benedict XVI as the first principle of his "hermeneutic of reform,"
and Msgr. Thomas Rosica recently said in an address in New York that it is the
first principle of Francis' theology and that which he holds in common with
every one of his conciliar predecessors. Unfortunately, excepting Michael
Dimond, it is a first principle shared by all sedevacantists. Rejecting
the literal meaning of Dogma, they have no grounds calling anyone a heretic.
Those who reject Dogma replace it with the person of the pope who becomes the
Rule of Faith. And since no one knows what the pope believes, the Rule of
Faith becomes whatever the pope does. This means the pope must be free of
even material heresy. This is the common ground shared between most
sedevacantists and conservative Catholics. The conservative believes the
pope is the Rule of Faith concludes everything he does must be acceptable and
the sedevacantist concludes that he cannot be pope. For faithful
Catholics, the Rule of Faith is Dogma.
But aside for this, sedevacantists are parked on a dead-end street. They
hold that they are (or have) the only legitimate priests and bishops in the
entire Church and yet, their Church does not have a pope. They agree that
the Church founded by Jesus Christ was and is constituted by a supreme pastor,
the pope, and yet they have none and have no plans of ever getting one.
They should not discuss the question with anyone until they have their
own council and elect their own pope. The very term,
"sedevacantist," is really a declaration in itself of manifest error.
They are sedevacantists because they cannot produce a pope which is a
necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. There have
been many who have recognized this defect and have tried to produce their own
pope but the results have in every instance been ridiculous. There have
more than a dozen claimants to the papacy since the 1970s but none of them have
more than a handful of followers. Does anyone think that they will ever
get one that would be acceptable to a plurality of them? They cannot even
agree among themselves as to the legitimacy of each other's orders.
Those that are bashful about electing a pope expect that God will directly
intervene miraculously filling the office, or that we are in the end-times and
there will be no more popes. Either answer is painfully insufficient.
If they have the authority to declare the office empty then they have the
authority and obligation to fill it. Ultimately, the position is a
theological conclusion of despair.
I communicated with Michael Diamond indirectly several years ago. I said
to his representative that we can continue the discussion of sedevacantism when
two things occur: one, he gets a pope, and secondly, when a conciliar pope
engages the attribute of infallibility of the Church to bind the Catholic
conscience to doctrinal and/or moral error. Neither has happened. And
the fact that the conciliar popes, despite having complete control of the
Church's administration, have never infallibly bound doctrinal or moral error
upon the Church is prima facie evidence that they are at least legally
holding the office because God has prevented them from binding error.
What is more to the point, they know it and have gone to extreme ends to
give the impression of the legitimate exercise of papal authority, such as seen
in Francis' recent synodial process to make his attack on sacramental marriage
appear as the result of a collegial consensus.
There is no precedence for heretics losing their office by a declaration of the
faithful in the old or new testament. Caiaphas was heretic who denied the
resurrection of the body and only accepted the Pentateuch as divinely inspired
scripture. He sat on the "chair of Moses" and the faithful were
directed to obey him in the legitimate exercise of his office but that did not
require the man born blind to obey him in opposition to revealed Truth.
The attribute of indefectibility and exactly how it is preserved in the Church
is open to theological speculation. No matter what the conciliarists have
done regarding doctrine, morals, worship or discipline, their errors have never
been accepted by the universal Church. I raised eight children and none
of them ever attended a Novus Ordo service. I have over 35 grandchildren
and none of them have ever attended a Novus Ordo service. I know many
other faithful Catholics who can say the same thing. This is the evidence
of indefectibility. The true faith and worship have never been entirely
absent for those willing to look for it.
Lastly, this thread is titled, "The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and
the Authentic Magisterium." The article from Si Si No No quotes Fr.
Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa saying, "Papal Magisterium that
is mere authenticum, that is, only "authentic" or
"authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his
infallibility." I believe that it was Fr. Salaverri who actually
coined the term. The "authentic magisterium" or
"authorized magisterium" only means that the persons acting actually
is the person who holds the office. Anything a legitimate pope does is an
act of the "authentic magisterium." The reason the term is very
important is because it was incorporated Lumen Gentium and from there
into the 1989 Profession of Faith as the third added proposition. Those
taking this profession vow unqualified obedience to the "authentic
magisterium" without any qualifications whatsoever. This obedience
is enforced by canon law which imposes a "just penalty." A vow
of unqualified obedience can only be made to God alone.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2017, 07:48:07 PM »
Quote from: drew
And since no one knows what
the pope believes,
I stopped reading after this...
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2017, 08:42:52 PM »
Quote from: drew
And since no one knows what
the pope believes,
Quote from: GJC
I stopped reading after
this...
What one believes is a matter of the internal forum. You only know what
someone believes by what they do, by their external acts, that can be perceived
unless they tell you or God gives you the extraordinary grace of reading the
state of souls.
Nearly every group of sedevacantists denies the literal meaning of Dogma.
That is a sorry fact. So for them, it is not and cannot be the Rule
of Faith. For them the Rule of Faith by default becomes the pope and that
Rule of Faith is grounded in what the pope does, by his external acts.
The biggest problem with this is it is not true. The next biggest problem
for sedevacantists is that they have no pope, they have no Rule of Faith and
they have no plans of ever getting one.
It is a dead end.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2017, 10:43:48 PM »
Quote from: Drew
I do not know any
sedevacantist organizations, excepting Michael Dimond, that believes in Dogma
qua Dogma. They all believe that Dogma does not have to be taken
literally. Everyone holds that the 1949 Holy Office Letter sent to
Cardinal Cushing in Boston censoring Fr. Feeney is a "magisterial"
document that must be accepted by every Catholic. This document
overturned every Dogma touching upon what is necessary as a necessity of means
for salvation. These sedevacantist organizations all hold that the
good-willed Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Protestant, etc., etc. can be in a state of
grace and obtain salvation. So why should they worry about Francis or
anyone else? All that is necessary for salvation is the 'desire to do the
will of a god who rewards and punishes' which cannot even be denied to the
"good-willed" modernist.
^^^^ True.
And this absurdity completely baffles my mind! It does not make any sense,
whatsoever.
Quote from: Drew
But aside for this, sedevacantists
are parked on a dead-end street. They hold that they are (or have) the
only legitimate priests and bishops in the entire Church and yet, their Church
does not have a pope. They agree that the Church founded by Jesus Christ
was and is constituted by a supreme pastor, the pope, and yet they have none
and have no plans of ever getting one. They should not discuss the
question with anyone until they have their own council and elect their own
pope. The very term, "sedevacantist," is really a declaration
in itself of manifest error. They are sedevacantists because they cannot
produce a pope which is a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus
Christ. There have been many who have recognized this defect and have
tried to produce their own pope but the results have in every instance been
ridiculous. There have more than a dozen claimants to the papacy since
the 1970s but none of them have more than a handful of followers. Does
anyone think that they will ever get one that would be acceptable to a
plurality of them? They cannot even agree among themselves as to the
legitimacy of each other's orders.
Those that are bashful about electing a pope expect that God will directly
intervene miraculously filling the office, or that we are in the end-times and
there will be no more popes. Either answer is painfully
insufficient. If they have the authority to declare the office empty then
they have the authority and obligation to fill it. Ultimately, the
position is a theological conclusion of despair.
I agree that this is the case for the strict sedevacantist; but may be not so,
for the adherents of the Thesis of Des Lauries (Cassiciacum, sedeprivationism)
which the strict sedevacantists actually reject. In this Thesis, the cardinals
and bishops (even the conciliar ones) still retain the power to legitimately
elect a new Pontiff, once they return to the public and integral profession of
the Faith. They still retain office. Therefore, the hierarchy is still there
and electing of a Pope through legitimate means (not an illegitimate conclave)
would be possible. Unfortunately, as it stands today, and this is quite
incomprehensible to me, I do not know of any sedeprivationist priest of
bishop who does not fall into the error of dissolving the EESN Dogma (as you
just described in your excellent post above), just as much as their conciliar
counterparts.
But then again, so does the SSPX.
If anyone says that true
and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some
metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2017, 11:40:19 PM »
Quote from: drew
The biggest problem with this is it is not true. The next biggest problem
for sedevacantists is that they have no pope, they have no Rule of Faith and
they have no plans of ever getting one.
We have the office which is what Christ instituted through Peter. During every
papal interregnum the Church is with out a Pope, the office does not cease to
exist. Same as now.
A Catholic's Rule of Faith is Scripture and Tradition as interpreted, defined
and explained by the Church. It exists while there is no Pope reigning at any
given time.
It is not a Catholic's job to elect a new Pope. It is our job to keep and
proclaim the faith and condemn errors injurious to souls.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2017, 07:40:14 AM »
Quote from: drew
What one believes is a
matter of the internal forum. You only know what someone believes by what
they do, by their external acts....
On the contrary: "But he said: Are you also yet without understanding? Do
you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the
belly, and is cast out into the privy? But the things which proceed out
of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man.
For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications,
thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man.
But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man. Matt. 16-20
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #49 on: January 12, 2017, 08:25:24 PM »
Quote from: drew
The biggest problem with
this is it is not true. The next biggest problem for sedevacantists is
that they have no pope, they have no Rule of Faith and they have no plans of
ever getting one.
Quote from: An even Seven
We have the office which is
what Christ instituted through Peter. During every papal interregnum the Church
is without a Pope, the office does not cease to exist. Same as now.
A Catholic's Rule of Faith is Scripture and Tradition as interpreted, defined
and explained by the Church. It exists while there is no Pope reigning at any
given time.
It is not a Catholic's job to elect a new Pope. It is our job to keep and
proclaim the faith and condemn errors injurious to souls.
Scripture and Tradition are the sources of revelation. "Scripture
and Tradition as interpreted, defined and explained by the Church" is what
Dogma is. For Catholics, the Rule of Faith is Dogma. But anyone who
accepts the 1949 Holy Office Letter as a magisterial document has discarded
Dogma as the Rule of Faith and replaced it with the pope. This includes
most sedevacantists who conclude for this very reason that every Catholic who
does not remove a heretical pope from his office participates in his heresy.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter introduced (in a Vatican document) the belief
that there exists a disjunction between Dogma and the words by which it is
expressed. This modernist principle is the corner stone of Vatican II and
all conciliarist popes. It is also unfortunately a fundamental belief of
most sedevacantists, the SSPX and members of the resistance. It is absurd
to appeal to "scripture and tradition as interpreted, defined and
explained by the Church" while rejecting Dogma as the Rule of Faith.
Every Catholic possesses a right to appeal to the Holy Father for a judgment on
any matter concerning the faith:
Quote from: Second Council
of Lyons, Denz. 466
The holy Roman Church holds
the highest and complete primacy and spiritual power over the universal
Catholic Church which she truly and humbly recognizes herself to have received
with fullness of power from the Lord Himself in Blessed Peter, the chief or
head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff. And just as to
defend the truth of Faith she is held before all other things, so if any
questions shall arise regarding faith they ought to be defined by her judgment.
And to her anyone burdened with affairs pertaining to the ecclesiastical
world can appeal; and in all cases looking forward to an ecclesiastical
examination, recourse can be had to her judgment.
Quote from: First Vatican Council,
Denz. 1830
And since the Roman Pontiff
is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic
primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the
faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination
recourse can be had to his judgment.
Quote from: Can. 1417
§1. By reason of the
primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any member of the faithful is free to bring or
introduce his or her own contentious or penal case to the Holy See for
adjudication in any grade of a trial and at any stage of the litigation.
§2. Recourse brought to the Apostolic See, however, does not suspend the
exercise of jurisdiction by a judge who has already begun to adjudicate a case
except in the case of an appeal. For this reason, the judge can prosecute a
trial even to the definitive sentence unless the Apostolic See has informed the
judge that it has called the case to itself.
Therefore, since every Catholic possesses a right of appeal to the Holy Father,
those who are able have a grave obligation of duty to fill the office.
The Office of the Papacy cannot willfully be left vacant without grave
sin.
You admit that you "have the office." Then you have the duty to
fill it. It is not your responsibility but the duty of the pope to
"proclaim the faith and condemn errors injurious to souls" because he
alone can engage the attribute of infallibility that the Church possesses by
nature. If you possess the jurisdictional judicial authority to determine
guilt and impose ipso facto penalties then you possess the authority to
fill the office.
You are just begging the question. The "church" you belong to
is defective of a necessary attribute without which, it cannot be the Church
founded by Jesus Christ.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #51 on: January 12, 2017, 08:52:55 PM »
Quote from: An even Seven
Vatican I: 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.
This is what it means to be subject. Obedience to Church, not only in faith and
morals, but in discipline and government.
How exactly are you obedient? You call a "true"(according to you)
Pope a heretic and will not attend a "lawful" "mass"
promulgated by him.
This follows from making the pope the Rule of Faith. It ends up in a
perverse overturning of Catholic morality, doctrine, discipline, worship and
law.
You have no idea what it means to "subject." Obedience is a
subsidiary virtue of Justice owed to a superior which is itself directly
governed by the virtue of Religion. It is the virtue of Religion which
determines if an act of obedience is meritorious or sinful. When the pope
becomes the Rule of Faith you end up with the 1989 Profession of Faith that
imposes an unqualified obedience to the "authentic magisterium" as an
article in a Catholic creed. It is the logic of sedevacantism
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2017, 05:56:51 AM »
Quote from: An even Seven
Vatican I: 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.
This is what it means to be subject. Obedience to Church, not only in faith and
morals, but in discipline and government.
How exactly are you obedient? You call a "true"(according to you)
Pope a heretic and will not attend a "lawful" "mass"
promulgated by him.
Quote from: drew
This follows from making
the pope the Rule of Faith. It ends up in a perverse overturning of
Catholic morality, doctrine, discipline, worship and law.
You have no idea what it
means to "subject." Obedience is a subsidiary virtue of Justice
owed to a superior which is itself directly governed by the virtue of Religion.
It is the virtue of Religion which determines if an act of obedience is
meritorious or sinful. When the pope becomes the Rule of Faith you end up
with the 1989 Profession of Faith that imposes an unqualified obedience to the
"authentic magisterium" as an article in a Catholic creed. It is the
logic of sedevacantism
Drew
I am pretty sure that sedevacantists do not know or cannot comprehend what
"subject" means. They simply cannot differentiate between
"subject" and "submit". There is some block they seem to
have. This block apparently hinges on making the pope the Rule of Faith as you
said.
Below you can see the sede believes that it is "my claim" and even
that it "is absurd" that there is a difference, he sees the two as
having the exact same meaning.
From another forum's sede debate:
Quote from: Sede
This is one reason the
Dogma, by Divine design, does not say we "must submit" and does say
we must "be subject to".
Quote from: Stubborn
These terms are synonymous.
Your claim is absurd.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2017, 10:31:19 AM »
Quote from: drew
Quote from: An even Seven
Vatican I: 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.
This is what it means to be
subject. Obedience to Church, not only in faith and morals, but in discipline
and government.
How exactly are you obedient? You call a "true"(according to you)
Pope a heretic and will not attend a "lawful" "mass"
promulgated by him.
Quote from: drew
This follows from making the pope the Rule of Faith. It ends up in a
perverse overturning of Catholic morality, doctrine, discipline, worship and
law.
You have no idea what it means to "subject." Obedience is a
subsidiary virtue of Justice owed to a superior which is itself directly
governed by the virtue of Religion. It is the virtue of Religion which
determines if an act of obedience is meritorious or sinful. When the pope
becomes the Rule of Faith you end up with the 1989 Profession of Faith that
imposes an unqualified obedience to the "authentic magisterium" as an
article in a Catholic creed. It is the logic of sedevacantism Drew
Quote from: Stubborn
I am pretty sure that
sedevacantists do not know or cannot comprehend what "subject" means.
They simply cannot differentiate between "subject" and
"submit". There is some block they seem to have. This block
apparently hinges on making the pope the Rule of Faith as you said.
Below you can see the sede believes that it is "my claim" and even
that it "is absurd" that there is a difference, he sees the two as having
the exact same meaning.
From another forum's sede debate:
Quote from: Sede
This is one reason the
Dogma, by Divine design, does not say we "must submit" and does say
we must "be subject to".
Quote from: Stubborn
These terms are synonymous.
Your claim is absurd.
It cannot be said often enough until it becomes the way everyone instinctively
thinks. I am subject to my husband; my children are subject to me.
I must submit to a lawful command (which presupposes that it is an
command of reason for a good end) and my children must submit to me. When
the command of my husband is not lawful or my commands to my children are not
lawful, there can be no submission because "we must obey God rather than
man." But the failure to submit to what is not lawful does not in
any way alter my being subject to my husband or my children being subject to
me.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #59 on: January 16, 2017, 01:54:17 AM »
Quote from: An even Seven
Vatican I: 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.[/color]
This is what it means to be subject. Obedience to Church, not only in faith and
morals, but in discipline and government.
How exactly are you obedient? You call a "true"(according to you)
Pope a heretic and will not attend a "lawful" "mass"
promulgated by him.
Quote from: drew
This follows from making
the pope the Rule of Faith. It ends up in a perverse overturning of
Catholic morality, doctrine, discipline, worship and law.
The Pope is not the Rule of Faith. A Catholic's Rule of Faith is Scripture and
Tradition (Proximate)as interpreted, defined and explained by the Church
(Dogma). It exists while there is no Pope reigning at any given time. Like I
said before.
How does using the Church's Dogmas end up doing all those things you say. You
don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Drew
You have no idea what it
means to "subject." Obedience is a subsidiary virtue of Justice
owed to a superior which is itself directly governed by the virtue of Religion.
It is the virtue of Religion which determines if an act of obedience is
meritorious or sinful.
I guess the Vatican I statement is not your idea of subject. Give me your
definition.
Quote from: Drew
When the pope becomes
the Rule of Faith you end up with the 1989 Profession of Faith that imposes an
unqualified obedience to the "authentic magisterium" as an article in
a Catholic creed. It is the logic of sedevacantism
Wow. You are saying that
Catholic should not be obedient to the Magisterium. You tell me where the
Church has ever taught that the Magisterium can teach error or can falter. The
Magisterium is infallible no matter which adjective is used to describe it (eg.
living, authentic, divine, permanent etc...). The VII sect knows that the
Church has always taught that one must be obedient in matters not just
pertaining to the Solemn Judgments but also the non-solemn judgments. That's
why either that Church teaches no errors and everyone must be obedient or they
do teach errors and is not the Catholic Church. There can be no "I will be
subject only when the Church proclaims something Dogmatic, but not subject to
it in anything else". This is foreign to the Catholic Church. Again, there
is a huge difference between teaching error and the Pope commanding Catholics
to do something which is merely sinful (fornicate, murder, etc..).
Here's a list that says you are wrong about the Magisterium. You MUST give me a
list that says the Magisterium can teach error/heresy if you want to convert
me.
Quote
Pope Pius XI, Divini
Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer
in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be
mistaken.”
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec. 31, 1929: “To this magisterium
Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “… the Church has,
by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and
define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without
danger of error.”
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by
no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church
has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e.
consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as
having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever
had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
Denz. 1957- Therefore, Jesus Christ instituted in the Church a living,
authentic, and likewise permanent magisterium, which He strengthened by His
own power, taught by the Spirit of Truth, and confirmed by miracles. The
precepts of its doctrines He willed and most seriously commanded to be accepted
equally with His own. . . . This, then, is without any doubt the office of the
Church, to watch over Christian doctrine and to propagate it soundly and
without corruption. . . .
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #63 on: January 16, 2017, 08:38:10 AM »
Quote from: An even Seven
Submit- to accept or yield
to the Authority of the Church.
Subject- to be under the control or jurisdiction of the Church.
These are my definitions of the terms. What are yours?
Quote from: Stubborn
Do you understand what;
"and true obedience" means? - this as opposed to "and blind
obedience", which is what you are apparently claiming it means.
True obedience means complying with the Church laws and submitting to the
Church's authority. If one truly believes that the Church's Magisterium is free
from error, then one could never say that She can universally promote erroneous
laws and teachings.
Reflect on this please! From Denzinger:
PIUS IX
Naturalism, Communism, Socialism *
[From the Encyclical, "Quanta cura,'' Dec. 8, 1864]
1698 ... And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who
"not enduring sound doctrine" [2 Tim. 4:3], contend that
"without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold
assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose
object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights
and discipline, provided it does not touch Dogmas of faith or morals."
There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed
this is to the Catholic Dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the
Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the
universal Church.
Sec. VII. Errors Concerning Natural and Christian Ethics
1763 63. It is lawful to withhold obedience to legitimate rulers, indeed
even to rebel (1, 2, 5, 20).
“Reflect upon this please.” Your post would be correct if the pope were
the Rule of Faith. He is not. This is a serious error.
Obedience is owed to those to whom we are subject. We are first subject
to God. This is the only obedience that is unconditional. All
others to whom we are subject, we are subject to them for God’s sake, and all
acts of obedience to those to whom we are subject for God’s sake are always
conditional. They are conditional to that obedience that is
unconditionally owed to God. As St. Peter, the first pope infallibly
said, “We ought to obey God rather than man.”
Therefore every act of obedience to man, no matter the man’s office or grace of
state, is conditional and proximally governed by the virtue of Religion,
whereby, under the virtue of Justice we first “render to God the things that
are God’s.” No pope possesses the authority to command what is in
violation to the virtue of Religion, which includes nearly everything from
Vatican II to this day. Every act of obedience that violates the virtue
of Religion is a sin.
Very few examples exist of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of
the Church being engaged since John XXIII. Examples are John Paul II’s
declaration on the impossibility of women admitted to Holy Orders and Paul VI
prohibition of artificial contraception. There are no examples of the
infallible Extra-ordinary Magisterium being engaged. When it is a question
of infallibility, that is, the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed
His Church, is engaged it is God declaring the truth through his vicar and
obedience is unconditionally rendered to God who declares His truth. But
that is not what we are faced with. What we are talking about is
obedience to the pope by virtue of his grace of state engaging the fallible
authentic ordinary magisterium. This prudent and conditional obedience is
entirely governed by the virtue of Religion.
But for those who make the pope the Rule of Faith, all Dogma is subject to his
personal interpretation and never reaches its term as a definitive declaration
of truth. The pope as the Rule of Faith has its formal imposition upon
the Church in the 1949 Holy Office Letter which after affirming the Dogma that
there is no salvation outside the Church then said that this Dogma was
subject to however the Church (i.e.: the pope) wanted to interpret it. It
then took every Dogma concerning salvation and interpreted them in a non-literal
sense. When the Letter was done, anyone who wanted to do the will of a
god who rewards and punishes was a member of the Church, in the state of grace,
and able to obtain salvation. This teaching became the first principle in
the new ecclesiology of Vatican II, the justification for Ecumenism, the ground
for Rahner’s Anonymous Christian, and eventually the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
Your quote provided above refers to the question if “one can withhold assent
and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object
is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and
discipline, provided it does not touch Dogmas of faith or morals.” This
is addressing merely disciplinary questions. The problem is that Vatican II and
its worldly spirit entirely “touch (upon) Dogmas of faith and morals.”
Herein lays another problem with those who make the pope the Rule of
Faith which includes the great majority of sedevacantists. Matters that
“touch upon Dogmas of faith or morals” are treated as questions of mere
discipline when they most certainly are not.
Divine worship is considered by SSPX, SSPV, the Resistance, etc., etc., as a
subject of mere Church discipline governed by the independent will of the
legislator. Their objections are not with the pope changing the Mass but
rather how he changed it. None of these have appealed to the Dogmas of
the Church addressing the standing of immemorial ecclesiastical traditions
which clearly deny that any pope has the legitimate authority to create a Novus
Ordo of worship.
In this respect there is no real difference between Conservative Catholics who
say the pope is the Rule of Faith, therefore we must accept the Novus Ordo, and
Sedevacantists who say the same thing therefore, they conclude the pope cannot
be the pope. Those faithful Catholics who hold Dogma as the Rule of Faith
reject the Novus Ordo because it is a direct violation of Catholic Dogma.
Furthermore, it is harmful to the faith and the pope has no authority to
harm the faith.
Every Church father treating upon the parable of the cockle says that the
cockle refers to heresy sown in the Church by her enemies. The cockle is
not wheat although by a miracle of grace it may so become. The cockle is
left and permitted to grow with the wheat until the harvest. This is not
always so. In the judgment of Christ’s vicar, when the cockle is held to
be more harmful to the wheat it can be and has been removed before the harvest.
St. Pius X in his condemnation of the heresy of Modernism identified it
as a heresy within the bosom of the Church and very few of these heretics were
uprooted before Vatican II. Sedevacantist do not want to “suffer both to
grow until the harvest.” It is the “Lord of the harvest” or His vicar who
will remove this cockle at its proper time.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #64 on: January 16, 2017, 12:45:20 PM »
Quote from: drew
Every Church father
treating upon the parable of the cockle says that the cockle refers to heresy
sown in the Church by her enemies. The cockle is not wheat although by a
miracle of grace it may so become. The cockle is left and permitted to
grow with the wheat until the harvest. This is not always so. In
the judgment of Christ’s vicar, when the cockle is held to be more harmful to
the wheat it can be and has been removed before the harvest. St. Pius X
in his condemnation of the heresy of Modernism identified it as a heresy within
the bosom of the Church and very few of these heretics were uprooted before
Vatican II. Sedevacantist do not want to “suffer both to grow until the
harvest.” It is the “Lord of the harvest” or His vicar who will remove
this cockle at its proper time.
Drew
FALSE!!! I will leave you a except from a sermon of St Augustine (Donatism) on
this very topic to illustrate the point: "The words of our Lord are clear
and explicit; for, when asked by His disciples to explain the parable, He said:
The field is the world. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom. And
the cockle are the children of the wicked one. And the enemy that sowed them,
is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the
angels (Matt 13:38-39). After these words shall we believe, according to
heretics, that the field spoken of is not the world, but only Africa? That the
harvest will not take place at the end of the world, but in the present time,
and that Donatus, the chief of the heretics, is the reaper? Ah! far from
accepting such doctrines against the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, let us
patiently await the harvest which will take place in the whole world. We let
the good seed, spread out in the world, grow up until the time appointed by the
householder, and we suffer the cockle, oversowed among the good seed and
growing up every where, to remain until the time of the harvest. But let us
take heed, lest we be deceived by the language of these wicked men who, being
as light as chaff, will be cast out of the barn, even before the
Householder comes to separate them."
Clearly, in bold we see that heretics, apostates and in this case schismatics will
be cast out of the barn (the Catholic Church) EVEN BEFORE the Householder comes
to separate them from the world.
It never has been held, as some claim, that heretics are Catholics or in
the Catholic Church. PERIOD!
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2017, 03:56:42 PM »
Quote from: drew
Every Church father treating
upon the parable of the cockle says that the cockle refers to heresy sown in
the Church by her enemies. The cockle is not wheat although by a miracle
of grace it may so become. The cockle is left and permitted to grow with
the wheat until the harvest. This is not always so. In the judgment
of Christ’s vicar, when the cockle is held to be more harmful to the wheat it
can be and has been removed before the harvest. St. Pius X in his
condemnation of the heresy of Modernism identified it as a heresy within the
bosom of the Church and very few of these heretics were uprooted before Vatican
II. Sedevacantist do not want to “suffer both to grow until the harvest.”
It is the “Lord of the harvest” or His vicar who will remove this cockle
at its proper time.
Drew
Quote from: GJC
FALSE!!! I will leave you a
except from a sermon of St Augustine (Donatism) on this very topic to
illustrate the point: "The words of our Lord are clear and explicit; for,
when asked by His disciples to explain the parable, He said: The field is the
world. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom. And the cockle are
the children of the wicked one. And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil.
But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels (Matt 13:38-39).
After these words shall we believe, according to heretics, that the field
spoken of is not the world, but only Africa? That the harvest will not take
place at the end of the world, but in the present time, and that Donatus, the
chief of the heretics, is the reaper? Ah! far from accepting such doctrines
against the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, let us patiently await the
harvest which will take place in the whole world. We let the good seed, spread
out in the world, grow up until the time appointed by the householder, and we
suffer the cockle, oversowed among the good seed and growing up every where, to
remain until the time of the harvest. But let us take heed, lest we be
deceived by the language of these wicked men who, being as light as chaff,
will be cast out of the barn, even before the Householder comes to separate
them."
Clearly, in bold we see that heretics, apostates and in this case schismatics
will be cast out of the barn (the Catholic Church) EVEN BEFORE the Householder
comes to separate them from the world.
It never has been held, as some claim, that heretics are Catholics or in
the Catholic Church. PERIOD!
So what are you disputing? That the Church Fathers including St.
Augustine did not consider heretics as cockle? I do not know of any
example taken from Haydock's Commentary or Lapide's Great Commentary or St.
Thomas' Commentary that do not include heretics among the cockle. Nor do
I know any who have said that all heretics must necessarily be uprooted before
the harvest. They have defended the opinion that it is appropriate for
the Church authorities to uproot heretics before the harvest if it is
considered better for the "wheat." This is all I have said.
The heresy of Modernism is a good example of this fact. Some were
confronted and publically charged and eventually some were excommunicated, but
the number heretics actually rooted up was very, very small.
Sedevacantists want to make themselves the "Lord of the
harverst" There is no reason why the "Lord of the harvest"
cannot make a legitimate pope to replace the one they removed.
I contend that the reason for this is that most sedevacantists hold the pope as
Rule of Faith which is a grave error. If I am mistaken in this, just say
so and I will address whatever other grounds you may have.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #70 on: January 16, 2017, 09:11:41 PM »
Quote from: drew
Every Church father
treating upon the parable of the cockle says that the cockle refers to heresy
sown in the Church by her enemies. The cockle is not wheat although by a
miracle of grace it may so become. The cockle is left and permitted to
grow with the wheat until the harvest. This is not always so. In
the judgment of Christ’s vicar, when the cockle is held to be more harmful to
the wheat it can be and has been removed before the harvest. St. Pius X
in his condemnation of the heresy of Modernism identified it as a heresy within
the bosom of the Church and very few of these heretics were uprooted before
Vatican II. Sedevacantist do not want to “suffer both to grow until the
harvest.” It is the “Lord of the harvest” or His vicar who will remove
this cockle at its proper time.
Drew
Quote from: GJC
FALSE!!! I will leave you a
except from a sermon of St Augustine (Donatism) on this very topic to
illustrate the point: "The words of our Lord are clear and explicit; for,
when asked by His disciples to explain the parable, He said: The field is the
world. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom. And the cockle are
the children of the wicked one. And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil.
But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels (Matt
13:38-39). After these words shall we believe, according to heretics, that the
field spoken of is not the world, but only Africa? That the harvest will not
take place at the end of the world, but in the present time, and that Donatus,
the chief of the heretics, is the reaper? Ah! far from accepting such doctrines
against the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, let us patiently await the
harvest which will take place in the whole world. We let the good seed, spread
out in the world, grow up until the time appointed by the householder, and we
suffer the cockle, oversowed among the good seed and growing up every where, to
remain until the time of the harvest. But let us take heed, lest we be
deceived by the language of these wicked men who, being as light as chaff,
will be cast out of the barn, even before the Householder comes to separate
them."
Clearly, in bold we see that heretics, apostates and in this case schismatics
will be cast out of the barn (the Catholic Church) EVEN BEFORE the Householder
comes to separate them from the world.
It never has been held, as some claim, that heretics are Catholics or in
the Catholic Church. PERIOD!
Quote from: drew
So what are you disputing?
That the Church Fathers including St. Augustine did not consider heretics
as cockle? I do not know of any example taken from Haydock's Commentary
or Lapide's Great Commentary or St. Thomas' Commentary that do not include
heretics among the cockle. Nor do I know any who have said that all
heretics must necessarily be uprooted before the harvest. They have
defended the opinion that it is appropriate for the Church authorities to
uproot heretics before the harvest if it is considered better for the
"wheat." This is all I have said.
The heresy of Modernism is a good example of this fact. Some were
confronted and publically charged and eventually some were excommunicated, but
the number heretics actually rooted up was very, very small.
Sedevacantists want to make themselves the "Lord of the
harverst" There is no reason why the "Lord of the
harvest" cannot make a legitimate pope to replace the one they removed.
I contend that the reason for this is that most sedevacantists hold the pope as
Rule of Faith which is a grave error. If I am mistaken in this, just say
so and I will address whatever other grounds you may have.
Drew
Quote from: GJC
I am disputing the fact
that heretics are not Catholics or in the Church. I get the impression
you are pushing this false idea.
The "false idea" is that you have the authority to impose ipso
facto penalities and yet, do not have the authority to replace the pope you
have deposed. Even ipso facto penalities require a legal
determination of guilt. You apparently hold that the pope is the Rule of Faith.
You should plainly say so for the record.
Also, for the record, is an occult heretic outside the Church? If not,
why not? And if so, how do you know he is outside the Church? If an
occult heretic is not outside the Church, then would you agree that it is not
the heresy itself that puts him out of the Church? Is it then the public
nature of the crime that does so?
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #108 on: January 22, 2017, 02:10:46 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
The quote from V1 does not
say that "if the pope says such and such are part of divine revelation,
we are bound to believe that such and such must be believed" does it?
Really? It most certainly does. Unless you believe the Magisterium is linked to
someone other than the Pope. I'd be interested to see who you think can teach
Magisterially, infallibly.
"8.Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be
believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and
tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as
divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and
universal magisterium"
This is just too far out to let go.
V1 identifies for us, "all those THINGS" that we are bound to
believe:
"all those things which are contained in the word of God as
found in scripture and tradition and which
are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
V1 in no way, shape or form says that "if the pope says something is
Divinely Revealed, then that's infallible."
V1 in no way, shape or form says that "if the hierarchy all teach the same
thing, then it's infallible."
These above ideas are blatant corruptions of what the Church teaches and
teaches clearly, yet these ideas are used by sedevacantists in order to somehow
conclude their own erroneous idea of infallibility - of which they have zero
faith in. It's madness.
V1 clearly does say that whether they are teachings of the OUM OR solemn papal
pronouncements, those teachings which are contained in the word of God as found
in Scripture AND tradition AND are proposed by the Church as matters to be
believed as divinely revealed - all these THINGS are to be believed because all
these THINGS are infallible.
Is the pope a "thing"?
Stubborn,
It is as if sedevacantists interpret the second “and” conjunction in the Dogma
to effectively mean “or,” and the narrative before the infallible Dogma that
references “never-failing faith” of Peter as if this were a personal gift of
God to all popes which it is not. It would explain how they arrive at
holding the pope as the Rule of Faith which in practice means that whatever he
says is either directly infallible through the pope’s personal “never-failing
faith” or indirectly infallible through their version of the indefectibility of
the Church even when they are not found in scripture or tradition.
The pope is then no longer the servant of revealed truth but becomes the
revealer. It is a bizarre new religion that believes in an empty office
that never can and never will be filled. And since, “The Roman Pontiff is
the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and
teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our
lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole
Church," they belong to a church that cannot be Catholic because it does
not possess a necessary attribute. It is a church that will never be
“ruled and governed.” They have no pope, and they have no way to ever get one
because they will never have any government because the government is dependent
upon the pope and not vice verse.
They cannot point to any historical example for their situation because there
has never been a historical example where there existed no possibility for
choosing a pope. Some of the more extreme sedevacantists have even
arrived at an invisible church which is really ironic because many began as
Catholic converts by rejecting the Protestant concept of an invisible Church
only to end up where they started.
Your point in a previous post is important and well made. Sedevacantists
demand a degree of obedience to the pope which they themselves never made.
If they applied in practice the same demands of obedience they impose
upon others they could never have become sedevacantists in the first place.
Their blind unconditional obedience that they demand of others to the
pope, that can only be given to God, would have made them typical Indultists.
Have you ever asked a Sedevacantist exactly where and when the pope lost the
office? You’ll never get the same answer twice. Probably not even
from the same person.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #109 on: January 23, 2017, 04:54:02 AM »
Drew, you made many good
points - excellent post!
Quote from: drew
The pope is then no longer the servant of revealed truth but becomes the
revealer. It is a bizarre new religion that believes in an empty office
that never can and never will be filled.
I think most sedevacantists take it even further than this, because to them, he
is not merely the revealer, oh no, he is much more than that because whatever
he says, no matter what he says, is made an infallible truth upon his utterance
- the same is said as regards the hierarchy misnamed; "the
magisterium." This takes him from being the Revealer to being the
Instituter - but this Instituter is somehow, something less than God yet is, as
you say, still their Rule of Faith.
They also imagine that when the hierarchy all teach the same things, no matter
what the teachings are, those current hierarchical teachings, by virtue of
present unanimity, have met the requirement for protection from error by the
Holy Ghost and as such, those teachings are infallible. To most (all?)
sedevacantists, this insane formula is de fide.
If they actually had any faith whatsoever in this belief which they argue is de
fide, (which incidentally, this same belief is shared by the conciliarists),
then they are bound to "submit" to them, but since they know those
teachings are wrong, and they know the hierarchy is wrong, instead of realizing
their belief cannot be right, and instead of searching for the truth of the
matter, they cling to their belief at the expense of the entire hierarchy,
particularly the pope.
Quote from: drew
Have you ever asked a Sedevacantist exactly where and when the pope lost the
office? You’ll never get the same answer twice. Probably not even
from the same person.
I can rarely get sedevacantists to answer clear questions with clear answers.
Dozens of times I've asked sedevacantists why they personally, even need a pope
at all - having received only one honest answer in like 2 years convinced me
there is a lot of pride involved.
My theory about all of this is that, like the conciliarists who "blindly
obey" the pope, the sedevacantists embrace those false teachings which
originate from some of those "well respected" 20th century
theologians who teach that even in his non-infallible teachings, a pope cannot
harm the faithful.
I believe these erroneous teachings of those "well respected" 20th
century theologians were accepted as authentic "Church teachings" and
were, as +ABL has said, "infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms
and all the manifestations of the Church" in the late 19th and through the
20th century.
I don't know how to prove such a theory but if correct, it offers a sound
explanation as to why, in the 1960s, multitudes not only freely abandoned the
only faith they ever knew and knew it to be absolutely true and wholly
necessary, it also explains why they "stuck with the pope" and went
along with the pope into the NO - of their own free will.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #117 on: January 24, 2017, 03:43:49 PM »
Quote from: An even Seven
Answer this please. Is the
following statement true? Do we have to believe as true, what the living,
authoritative, and permanent Magisterium says is divinely revealed? Or is Pope
Leo in error?
Quote
Pope Leo XIII, "Satis
Cognitum", (#9)Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ
instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium,
which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and
by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties,
that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often,
therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or
that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by
every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident
contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in
man.
This quotation taken from Satis Cognitum is sufficient in itself without
further contextual framing to destroy the arguments of sedevacantism, and yet,
here it is be offered by a sedevacantist as evidence in support of his
position. Pope Leo is not in error but the sedevacantist understanding of
this quotation most certainly is .
This quote describes an attribute of Christ’s Church. There is in
Christ’s Church a “living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium….
strengthened by the Spirit of truth.” The church that sedevacantists
belong to does not have this attribute and has no way of ever recovering it or
correcting the problem. This fact should give every sedevacantist a
sobering slap in the face. They belong to a church that cannot be the
Church founded by Jesus Christ. They have arrived at a dead end and they
need to retrace their steps.
Sedevacantists misunderstand this passage because they do not understand the
Magisterium of the Church, and this is primarily because they make the pope the
Rule of Faith rather than Dogma. In this quote Pope Leo is referring to the
infallible Magisterium of the Church. This is clearly seen because he says, “If
it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God
Himself would be the author of error in man.” The quote is referring
to “its teachings.” It is not the pope’s teachings. The “its”
refers to the Church’ teachings that is taken from the “deposit of divine
revelation” which has already been entrusted to the Church. “He
who heareth you heareth Me” refers only to this infallible Magisterium of
the Church because God cannot possibly be the “author of error in man.”
The attributes of the Church are Authority, Infallibility, and
Indefectibility. These three attributes directly correspond to the three
functions of the Church identified by St. Pius X in Pascendi, that is: to rule,
to teach, and to worship. The pope is the person authorized to engage
these attributes. He possesses these attributes only accidentally for
when he leaves the office by death or resignation, they do not leave with him.
The attribute of Infallibility to teach without the possibility of error
is called the Magisterium. It is engaged either in an extra-ordinary
mode, or in an ordinary and universal mode. In either case when it is
engaged it becomes everywhere, for all time, and for all people, without
exception, the infallible teaching of God’s truth.
The word “magisterium” is not used univocally. There is another
sense in which the word is applied that refers to the teaching of churchmen by
their grace of state. This teaching is not infallible and cannot be
followed unconditionally. It must be accepted with a prudent and
conditional assent because it is the teaching of men. When that human
teaching is from the pope it is called the authentic ordinary magisterium.
The difference between the Magisterium of the Church grounded upon the
attribute of Infallibility which Christ endowed his Church and the teaching
magisterium of churchmen based upon their grace of state is one of KIND and not
one of DEGREE. Why do most sedevacantists confuse these two distinct
usages of the same term? It is because they make the pope the Rule of
Faith.
The teaching of Vatican II is the teaching of churchmen. Pope John XXIII
who opened the council, Pope Paul VI who closed the council, and theological
note published by the council unequivocally state that no infallible authority
was engaged at the council. It is at most an extra-ordinary engagement of
the most ordinary magisterium in the history of the Church. Every novelty
taught by Vatican II is purely the teaching of churchmen by their grace of
state. The strongest binding of its teachings is “religious
observance” which was imposed by Pope Paul VI. “Religious”
obedience is that which is owed to the pope teaching by his grace of state.
It is always and everywhere a conditional obedience proximally
governed by the virtue of Religion. No one can be obedient to anyone,
including the pope, in violation of the virtue of Religion without sin. When
the pope engages the infallible Magisterium of the Church, the teaching is
Dogma which constitutes the “formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.”
Quote from: Pope Paul VI
“There are those who ask
what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to
its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn Dogmatic definitions
backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by
those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on
November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided
proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any Dogmas carrying the mark of
infallibility.” Pope Paul VI, General Audience, December 1, 1966, published
in the L'Osservatore Romano January 21, 1966
Sedevacantists make the teaching of men the teaching of God when they
overthrow Dogma as the Rule of Faith and replace it by making the pope the Rule
of Faith. Then “religious” submission to whatever the pope say or does is
given the same authority that by nature belongs only to Dogma, God’s revealed
truth. That is clearly what they do when they demand that faithful
Catholics must obediently submit to teachings that either directly or
indirectly oppose the “deposit of divine revelation” on the authority of
the authentic magisterium of the pope.
Also, for the record, in Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis when he teaches
that obedience is owed to the “ordinary magisterium” in the sense that “he who
heareth you heareth Me,” the pope is actually referring to the ordinary and
universal Magisterium. This is evident in that every single example given
without exception in the encyclical where this obedience is commanded is the
universal teaching of the Church from her “deposit of divine revelation” and is
contrasted with modern novelties. The word, “novel” or its cognates
occurs six times in the encyclical and is always severely censored.
The only cure for this is to return to the proper understanding of the
nature of Dogma as Dogma. This is why Fr. Leonard Feeney is so important.
The very foundation of his theology is to treat Dogma as the formal
object of divine and Catholic faith, to treat it as the true irreformable
revelation of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Those who
follow his enemies and reject Dogma as the formal object of divine and Catholic
faith by reducing it to theological maxims and meaningless man-made formulas
are open every error possible. Sedevacantism is just one example.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #118 on: January 24, 2017, 06:50:06 PM »
Quote from: drew
It is because they make the
pope the Rule of Faith.
Take your "they make the pope the Rule of Faith" put it into your
Chesterton pipe and smoke it! Stop with your "novelty" idea already.
I don't care if a person who claims to be a Catholic is wearing a suit and
necktie, cassocks or dressed up like a pope, if they BLATANTLY speak against
the infallible teachings of the Church, whether it be word, action, or deed
they are a heretic and maybe apostate. Now the hope always will be that God
give sight to the blind as He has done numerous times or lift the veil off the
heart as He as done many times, but until that happens that individual is a
heretic, not a Catholic and clearly not a member of the Church.
Credit the fact you don't post the "once a Catholic always a
Catholic" novelty, or use terms like Membership card to describe the means
of identification members of the Church militant carry, or contemplate that the
"cockle" refer only to those who are not Catholic......
Quote
it avoided proclaiming in
an extraordinary manner any Dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”
it avoided? Do you really believe that? Only the Catholic Church can proclaim
Dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.
Now, if Montini were honest this is how it would have read: since we are
modernist heretics as pointed out by the late St Pius X and not Catholics we
CANNOT proclaim anything in any manner since we are not endowed with the
charism of Christ. Of course if he said that there would be no deception right?
I suggest you quit following Siscoe and Ebbert
Salza.
BTW, while you have your pipe out don't look for "sede" vacantism
tobacco it does not exist.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #120 on: January 24, 2017, 08:53:18 PM »
Quote from: GJC
Quote from: drew
It is because they make the
pope the Rule of Faith.
Take your "they make the pope the Rule of Faith" put it into your
Chesterton pipe and smoke it! Stop with your "novelty" idea already.
I don't care if a person who claims to be a Catholic is wearing a suit and
necktie, cassocks or dressed up like a pope, if they BLATANTLY speak against
the infallible teachings of the Church, whether it be word, action, or deed
they are a heretic and maybe apostate. Now the hope always will be that God
give sight to the blind as He has done numerous times or lift the veil off the
heart as He as done many times, but until that happens that individual is a
heretic, not a Catholic and clearly not a member of the Church.
Credit the fact you don't post the "once a Catholic always a
Catholic" novelty, or use terms like Membership card to describe the means
of identification members of the Church militant carry, or contemplate that the
"cockle" refer only to those who are not Catholic......
Quote
it avoided proclaiming in
an extraordinary manner any Dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”
it avoided? Do you really believe that? Only the Catholic Church can proclaim
Dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.
Now, if Montini were honest this is how it would have read: since we are
modernist heretics as pointed out by the late St Pius X and not Catholics we
CANNOT proclaim anything in any manner since we are not endowed with the
charism of Christ. Of course if he said that there would be no deception right?
I suggest you quit following Siscoe and Ebbert
Salza.
BTW, while you have your pipe out don't look for "sede" vacantism
tobacco it does not exist.
Sedevacantists, besides the errors of making the pope the Rule of Faith
overthrowing Dogma from its proper role, they also draw unnecessary conclusions
from good principles.
The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Every mortal sin
destroys the life of grace in the soul, that is, it ends the indwelling of the
Holy Ghost, makes the soul an enemy of God, destroys all merit of every
previous good work, and deprives the soul of the right to eternal life.
Every mortal sin formally separates the soul from the friendship of God
completely. It is not possible for a soul to be an enemy of God and
remain part of the Mystical Body of Christ. He is the dead branch on a
living vine where the sap of eternal life, of grace, is lost, completely cut
off from life. He remains formally removed from the life of the vine but
materially part of the vine. Every mortal sin formally separates the soul
from God, but it does not materially separate the soul from membership in God’s
Church.
The sin of heresy, like every mortal sin, formally removes a Catholic from the
life of grace and friendship with God. But heresy can, but not
necessarily, does more. It can also lead to the material separation of
the Catholic from membership in the Church. If the mortal sin of heresy
is an occult sin in the internal forum, it will formally, but cannot
materially, remove the sinner from the Church. If it ipso facto
necessarily caused the material removal of an occult heretic from the Church
then the Church would not then be visible because no one could ever know who
was or who was not a member of the Church. If the sin of heresy is public
and contumacious, then it is a different problem. But the important
point is that it is not the heresy per se that materially removes from
the Church but the fact of the public and contumacious manifestation of the
crime. The public and contumacious character of the crime is the efficient
cause and not the heresy itself for the material removal of the heretic from
the Church. The instrumental cause is the imposition of the ipso facto
penalty after due process determination of guilt. The final cause is the
glory of God and the protection of the faithful from the scandal of heresy.
In such cases, the Church determines that the sin of public and contumacious
heresy is a problem of scandal for faithful Catholics and therefore the Vicar
of Christ, the vicar of the “Lord of the harvest,” may determine to materially
remove the cockle before the time of the harvest for the sake of the faithful
“wheat.” But this is not always or necessarily done. For example,
very, very few Modernist heretics were ever materially removed from the Church
and then, always after due process even though every Modernists heretic was
already formally removed from the Church and cut off from the life of grace.
It is important to recognize that ipso facto penalties are only
materially imposed by the law itself after due process. It is analogous to
mandatory sentences for specific crimes under specific circumstances. The
penalty is imposed by the law itself but only after the determination of guilt
after due process. Also, the matter of removing a heretic materially
from the Church is a matter of human law and has all the limitation of all
human laws, that is, it must be an act of reason, by competent authority, for a
good end, promoting the common good, not be overly burdensome, etc. The
essential consideration in the determination to material remove a heretic form
the Church is the welfare of the faithful “wheat” in the judgment of the Church
authority.
Sedevacantists make themselves the “Lord of the harvest.” They begin by
making the pope the Rule of Faith and then they get rid of the “rule” because
of his personal heresy. The proof that they hold the pope as the Rule of
Faith is seen in their insistence, just like most conservative Catholics, that
Vatican II was “infallible” and the every Catholic must be “obedient” to every
disciplinary norm of heretical popes that are clearly harmful to the faith.
They, both the conservative Catholics and the Sedevacantists, corrupt
the virtue of Religion by inverting the proper hierarchical order making the
virtue of Religion subject to the duty of obedience. This is evidence of
the absence of Wisdom which not only requires the recognition of all truths but
necessarily will see them in their proper hierarchical order.
Every good-willed Catholic when they reach a dead-end in the road will conclude
that they must have made a wrong turn and will begin to retrace their steps.
Sedevacantists are just pacing back and forth on a dead-end road doing
nothing more but insisting that they have faithfully followed the map in every
detail. They have no pope for their Church although they recognize
that the Church Jesus Christ founded was established on the first pope, St.
Peter. Even worse, they have no plans of every getting a pope. They
cannot even begin to explain how or when a new pope will be created. The
church they belong to is missing an essential attribute of the Catholic Church.
It clearly is not the Catholic Church! They insist the pope is
the Rule of Faith and therefore whoever belongs to a Church in which has a heretic
pope as the head must necessarily participate in his heresy. This is
absurd. It is as if to say that Jesus Christ, by worshiping at the temple
in Jerusalem, participated in the heresy of the high priest, Caiaphas, or that
the man born blind owed unconditional obedience to the high priest and
therefore he should have refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ.
I have not read the book by Siscoe and Salza. If I am repeating what they
have already said, I apologize for wasting anyone's time, but I do not think
that is the case. Their book is favorably approved by the SSPX and
conservative Catholic Indultists alike. That would not be the case if
they argued that the principle problem for the great majority of Sedevacantists
is the overthrow of Dogma from its proper role as the irreformable "formal
object of divine and Catholic faith" replacing the revealed truth of God
with the opinions of man.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #121 on: January 24, 2017, 10:48:29 PM »
Quote from: Drew
He remains formally removed
from the life of the vine but materially part of the vine. Every mortal
sin formally separates the soul from God, but it does not materially separate
the soul from membership in God’s Church.
The sin of heresy, like every mortal sin, formally removes a Catholic from the
life of grace and friendship with God. But heresy can, but not
necessarily, does more. It can also lead to the material separation of
the Catholic from membership in the Church. If the mortal sin of heresy
is an occult sin in the internal forum, it will formally, but cannot
materially, remove the sinner from the Church. If it ipso facto
necessarily caused the material removal of an occult heretic from the Church
then the Church would not then be visible because no one could ever know who
was or who was not a member of the Church. If the sin of heresy is public
and contumacious, then it is a different problem. But the important
point is that it is not the heresy per se that materially removes from the
Church but the fact of the public and contumacious manifestation of the
crime. The public and contumacious character of the crime is the
efficient cause and not the heresy itself for the material removal of the
heretic from the Church. The instrumental cause is the imposition of the
ipso facto penalty after due process determination of guilt. The
final cause is the glory of God and the protection of the faithful from the
scandal of heresy.
Just wanted to briefly point out that it is precisely this distinction between formal
and material, the basis of the postulation of Des Lauriers. In the
Cassiacum Thesis, there is no formal Pope on account of his evident and
public omission to effect the good of the Church. He, therefore, loses his
authority. However, he still is pope and occupies his office, but only materially,
because he has not been removed yet by the competent authority of the Church by
means of a due legal process.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #125 on: January 25, 2017, 09:06:28 AM »
Quote
Just wanted to briefly
point out that it is precisely this distinction between formal and material,
the basis of the postulation of Des Lauriers. In the Cassiacum Thesis, there is
no formal Pope on account of his evident and public omission to effect the good
of the Church. He, therefore, loses his authority. However, he still is pope
and occupies his office, but only materially, because he has not been removed
yet by the competent authority of the Church by means of a due legal process.
Great summary, Cantarella!
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #135 on: January 29, 2017, 01:12:43 PM »
Quote from: An even Seven
Answer this please. Is the following
statement true? Do we have to believe as true, what the living, authoritative,
and permanent Magisterium says is divinely revealed? Or is Pope Leo in error?
Quote
Pope Leo XIII, "Satis
Cognitum", (#9)Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ
instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium,
which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and
by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties,
that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often,
therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or
that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by
every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident
contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in
man.
Quote from: drew
This quotation taken from Satis Cognitum is sufficient in itself without
further contextual framing to destroy the arguments of sedevacantism, and yet,
here it is be offered by a sedevacantist as evidence in support of his
position. Pope Leo is not in error but the sedevacantist understanding of
this quotation most certainly is .
This quote describes an attribute of Christ’s Church. There is in
Christ’s Church a “living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium….
strengthened by the Spirit of truth.” The church that sedevacantists
belong to does not have this attribute and has no way of ever recovering it or
correcting the problem. This fact should give every sedevacantist a
sobering slap in the face. They belong to a church that cannot be the
Church founded by Jesus Christ. They have arrived at a dead end and they
need to retrace their steps.
Sedevacantists misunderstand this passage because they do not understand the
Magisterium of the Church, and this is primarily because they make the pope the
Rule of Faith rather than Dogma. In this quote Pope Leo is referring to
the infallible Magisterium of the Church. This is clearly seen because he says,
“If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then
God Himself would be the author of error in man.” The quote is
referring to “its teachings.” It is not the pope’s teachings.
The “its” refers to the Church’ teachings that is taken from the “deposit
of divine revelation” which has already been entrusted to the Church.
“He who heareth you heareth Me” refers only to this infallible
Magisterium of the Church because God cannot possibly be the “author of
error in man.”
The attributes of the Church are Authority, Infallibility, and
Indefectibility. These three attributes directly correspond to the three
functions of the Church identified by St. Pius X in Pascendi, that is: to rule,
to teach, and to worship. The pope is the person authorized to engage
these attributes. He possesses these attributes only accidentally for
when he leaves the office by death or resignation, they do not leave with him.
The attribute of Infallibility to teach without the possibility of error
is called the Magisterium. It is engaged either in an extra-ordinary
mode, or in an ordinary and universal mode. In either case when it is
engaged it becomes everywhere, for all time, and for all people, without
exception, the infallible teaching of God’s truth.
The word “magisterium” is not used univocally. There is another
sense in which the word is applied that refers to the teaching of churchmen by
their grace of state. This teaching is not infallible and cannot be
followed unconditionally. It must be accepted with a prudent and
conditional assent because it is the teaching of men. When that human
teaching is from the pope it is called the authentic ordinary magisterium.
The difference between the Magisterium of the Church grounded upon the
attribute of Infallibility which Christ endowed his Church and the teaching
magisterium of churchmen based upon their grace of state is one of KIND and not
one of DEGREE. Why do most sedevacantists confuse these two distinct
usages of the same term? It is because they make the pope the Rule of
Faith.
The teaching of Vatican II is the teaching of churchmen. Pope John XXIII
who opened the council, Pope Paul VI who closed the council, and theological
note published by the council unequivocally state that no infallible authority
was engaged at the council. It is at most an extra-ordinary engagement of
the most ordinary magisterium in the history of the Church. Every novelty
taught by Vatican II is purely the teaching of churchmen by their grace of
state. The strongest binding of its teachings is “religious
observance” which was imposed by Pope Paul VI. “Religious”
obedience is that which is owed to the pope teaching by his grace of state.
It is always and everywhere a conditional obedience proximally governed
by the virtue of Religion. No one can be obedient to anyone,
including the pope, in violation of the virtue of Religion without sin. When
the pope engages the infallible Magisterium of the Church, the teaching is
Dogma which constitutes the “formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.”
Quote from: Pope Paul VI
“There are those who ask
what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to
its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn Dogmatic definitions
backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by
those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on
November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided
proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any Dogmas carrying the mark of
infallibility.” Pope Paul VI, General Audience, December 1, 1966, published
in the L'Osservatore Romano January 21, 1966
Sedevacantists make the
teaching of men the teaching of God when they overthrow Dogma as the Rule of
Faith and replace it by making the pope the Rule of Faith. Then
“religious” submission to whatever the pope say or does is given the same
authority that by nature belongs only to Dogma, God’s revealed truth. That is clearly what
they do when they demand that faithful Catholics must obediently submit to
teachings that either directly or indirectly oppose the “deposit of divine
revelation” on the authority of the authentic magisterium of the pope.
Also, for the record, in Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis when he teaches
that obedience is owed to the “ordinary magisterium” in the sense that “he who
heareth you heareth Me,” the pope is actually referring to the ordinary and
universal Magisterium. This is evident in that every single example given
without exception in the encyclical where this obedience is commanded is the
universal teaching of the Church from her “deposit of divine revelation” and is
contrasted with modern novelties. The word, “novel” or its cognates
occurs six times in the encyclical and is always severely censored.
The only cure for this is to return to the proper understanding of the
nature of Dogma as Dogma. This is why Fr. Leonard Feeney is so important.
The very foundation of his theology is to treat Dogma as the formal
object of divine and Catholic faith, to treat it as the true irreformable
revelation of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Those who
follow his enemies and reject Dogma as the formal object of divine and Catholic
faith by reducing it to theological maxims and meaningless man-made formulas
are open every error possible. Sedevacantism is just one example.
Drew
Here it is. You keep repeating yourself and have not replied to this post which
answered your question. Who is the one ignoring replies?
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #140 on: February 01, 2017, 02:27:24 AM »
Quote from: drew
Quote
Pope Leo XIII, "Satis
Cognitum", (#9)Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ
instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium,
which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and
by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties,
that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often,
therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or
that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by
every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident
contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in
man.
This quote describes an attribute of Christ’s Church. There is in
Christ’s Church a “living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium….
strengthened by the Spirit of truth.” The church that sedevacantists
belong to does not have this attribute and has no way of ever recovering it or
correcting the problem. This fact should give every sedevacantist a
sobering slap in the face. They belong to a church that cannot be the
Church founded by Jesus Christ. They have arrived at a dead end and they
need to retrace their steps.
Maybe you could be consistent. Who’s the one that thinks that the Pope is the
Rule of Faith? Just because there is no Pope right now, that means that the
Magisterium is dead? The Rule of Faith (Dogma) continues whether there is a
Pope reigning or not. There did not seem to be a way out during the GWS but God
provided it. The fact is that there are men claiming to be Pope that are
authoritatively teaching heresy. If you consider them Popes then the Church
Christ founded couldn’t be more defective.
Quote from: drew
Sedevacantists
misunderstand this passage because they do not understand the Magisterium of
the Church, and this is primarily because they make the pope the Rule of Faith
rather than Dogma. In this quote Pope Leo is referring to the infallible
Magisterium of the Church. This is clearly seen because he says, “If it could
in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself
would be the author of error in man.” The quote is referring to “its
teachings.” It is not the pope’s teachings. The “its”
refers to the Church’ teachings that is taken from the “deposit of divine
revelation” which has already been entrusted to the Church. “He
who heareth you heareth Me” refers only to this infallible Magisterium of
the Church because God cannot possibly be the “author of error in man.”
It’s quite obvious that the Church is referring to the infallible Magisterium
of the Church. As if there were a type that isn’t. Where is the teaching from
the Church that there is a type of Magisterium that is not infallible? You have
to answer this.
You say this quote is referring to the Church’s teachings. Who declares what
those teachings are? If we are not supposed to use private interpretation for
Scripture or we don’t even know what was passed on word of mouth, who tells us
what those written teachings (Scripture) mean or who relays what those
unwritten teachings are (Tradition) and their place in Divine Revelation? Who
is the mouthpiece of Christ that explains what we are to believe?
Quote from: drew
The word “magisterium” is
not used univocally. There is another sense in which the
word is applied that refers to the teaching of churchmen by their grace of
state. This teaching is not infallible and cannot be followed
unconditionally. It must be accepted with a prudent and conditional
assent because it is the teaching of men. When that human teaching is
from the pope it is called the authentic ordinary magisterium. The
difference between the Magisterium of the Church grounded upon the attribute of
Infallibility which Christ endowed his Church and the teaching magisterium of
churchmen based upon their grace of state is one of KIND and not one of DEGREE.
Why do most sedevacantists confuse these two distinct usages of the same
term? It is because they make the pope the Rule of Faith.
When the term Magisterium is used and whatever adjective is used to describe
it, it is unable to err. There is no sense or KIND of the Magisterium that is
applied to anyone but the Pope. If any teaching is to be considered part of the
Magisterium, the Pope is involved, either speaking or writing it directly or
giving his explicit consent to it. You must show a Teaching of the Church that
says there are teachings from any kind of Magisterium that can err. Whether
defining something that must be believed as part of divine revelation or
reiterating something that is Dogma, it cannot be fallible. The teachings of
church men are NOT part of any KIND of Magisterium. The Pope can err when
speaking privately or not intending a teaching to be binding on the whole
Church.
Quote from: drew
The teaching of Vatican II
is the teaching of churchmen. Pope John XXIII who opened the council,
Pope Paul VI who closed the council, and theological note published by the
council unequivocally state that no infallible authority was engaged at the
council. It is at most an extra-ordinary engagement of the most ordinary
magisterium in the history of the Church. Every novelty taught by Vatican
II is purely the teaching of churchmen by their grace of state. The
strongest binding of its teachings is “religious observance” which was
imposed by Pope Paul VI. “Religious” obedience is that which is
owed to the pope teaching by his grace of state. It is always and
everywhere a conditional obedience proximally governed by the virtue of
Religion. No one can be obedient to anyone, including the pope, in
violation of the virtue of Religion without sin. When the pope engages the
infallible Magisterium of the Church, the teaching is Dogma which constitutes
the “formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.”
I already showed that V II said that religious liberty is part of divine
revelation and had all the requisites for infallibility. Paul VI solemnly
approved all 16 documents of V II.
Quote from: drew
Quote from: Pope Paul VI
“There are those who ask
what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to
its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn Dogmatic definitions
backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by
those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on
November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided
proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any Dogmas carrying the mark of
infallibility.” Pope Paul VI, General Audience, December 1, 1966, published
in the L'Osservatore Romano January 21, 1966
I’m not sure if you messed up the dates but the LOR couldn’t have pulished what
Paul VI said 12 months before he said it. What he said here is irrelevant
because he already Solemnly approved V II. What’s interesting is that in the
same General Audience, in the following sentence after your quote, he said
this: “The Council is a great act of the
magisterium of the Church, and anyone who adheres to the Council is, by that
very fact, recognizing and honoring the magisterium of the
Church…”
And this: “…it [the Council] still provided its teaching with the authority of
the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so
obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the
faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of
the individual documents.”
In his “encyclical” Ecclesiam Suam he said this: “It is precisely because
the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine
de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called
the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”
Quote from: drew
Sedevacantists make the
teaching of men the teaching of God when they overthrow Dogma as the Rule of
Faith and replace it by making the pope the Rule of Faith. Then
“religious” submission to whatever the pope say or does is given the same
authority that by nature belongs only to Dogma, God’s revealed truth. That is clearly what
they do when they demand that faithful Catholics must obediently submit to
teachings that either directly or indirectly oppose the “deposit of divine
revelation” on the authority of the authentic magisterium of the pope.
It is precisely because of Dogma that these men cannot be pope.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #141 on: February 01, 2017, 02:33:50 AM »
Quote from: An even Seven
Answer this please. Is the
following statement true? Do we have to believe as true, what the living,
authoritative, and permanent Magisterium says is divinely revealed? Or is Pope
Leo in error?
Quote
Pope Leo XIII, "Satis
Cognitum", (#9)Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ
instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium,
which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and
by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties,
that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often,
therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or
that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by
every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident
contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in
man.
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
Here it is. You keep
repeating yourself and have not replied to this post which answered your
question. Who is the one ignoring replies?
They have not answered which is precisely why I keep repeating it. If a Pope
tells us something is part of divine revelation, especially in a solemn manner,
we must accept it as infallible, or else the Pope serves no purpose other that
purely temporal duties. Paul VI solemnly declared the "right to religious
liberty" is part of divine revelation. He did so solemnly, as can be seen
from the words of the document. Of course he was a heretic and not Pope so it
is of no consequence other than to fool people like you.
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.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #142 on: February 01, 2017, 10:20:10 AM »
Quote from: drew
Sedevacantists misunderstand this passage because they do not understand the
Magisterium of the Church, and this is primarily because they make the pope the
Rule of Faith rather than Dogma. In this quote Pope Leo is referring to
the infallible Magisterium of the Church. This is clearly seen because he says,
“If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then
God Himself would be the author of error in man.” The quote is
referring to “its teachings.” It is not the pope’s teachings.
The “its” refers to the Church’s teachings that is taken from the “deposit
of divine revelation” which has already been entrusted to the Church.
“He who heareth you heareth Me” refers only to this infallible
Magisterium of the Church because God cannot possibly be the “author of
error in man.”
Drew
If anyone makes the pope the Rule of Faith it is YOU.
This link might be of help to those who are confused about sedevacantism.
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_05.html
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #144 on: February 01, 2017, 05:30:33 PM »
Quote from: drew
QuotePope Leo XIII,
"Satis Cognitum", (#9)Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ
instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium,
which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and
by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties,
that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often,
therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or
that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by
every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident
contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in
man.
This quote describes an
attribute of Christ’s Church. There is in Christ’s Church a “living,
authoritative and permanent Magisterium…. strengthened by the Spirit of truth.” The church that
sedevacantists belong to does not have this attribute and has no way of ever
recovering it or correcting the problem. This fact should give every
sedevacantist a sobering slap in the face. They belong to a church that
cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ. They have arrived at a dead
end and they need to retrace their steps.
Quote from: An even Seven
Maybe you could be
consistent. Who’s the one that thinks that the Pope is the Rule of Faith? Just
because there is no Pope right now, that means that the Magisterium is dead?
The Rule of Faith (Dogma) continues whether there is a Pope reigning or not.
There did not seem to be a way out during the GWS but God provided it. The fact
is that there are men claiming to be Pope that are authoritatively teaching
heresy. If you consider them Popes then the Church Christ founded couldn’t be
more defective.
So I will assume that you believe that Dogma is the Rule of Faith, and
therefore, the typical sedevacantist position, in nearly every case, that
holds that the good Jew as a Jew, the good Protestant as a Protestant, the good
Muslim as a Muslim, the good Hindu as a Hindu, etc., etc., by virtue of a
‘desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes’ can therefore be in
the state of grace, a temple of the Holy Ghost, a secret member of the Church
and obtain salvation, is clearly erroneous. This opinion is only possible
for those who believe the pope is the Rule of Faith. This opinion is
held by Dolan, Cekeda, Kelly, Sanborn, the CRMI, etc., etc. In fact, the only
sedevacantist that I am aware of who does not hold this opinion is Br. Michael
Dimond.
I would appreciate you clearly stating this fact so it can be set aside because
in this post and previous posts you claim to believe in Dogma as the Rule of
Faith but repeatedly express opinions to the contrary which I will identify in
this reply.
Quote from: drew
Sedevacantists
misunderstand this passage because they do not understand the Magisterium of
the Church, and this is primarily because they make the pope the Rule of Faith
rather than Dogma. In this quote Pope Leo is referring to the infallible
Magisterium of the Church. This is clearly seen because he says, “If it could
in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself
would be the author of error in man.” The quote is referring to “its
teachings.” It is not the pope’s teachings. The “its”
refers to the Church’ teachings that is taken from the “deposit of divine
revelation” which has already been entrusted to the Church. “He
who heareth you heareth Me” refers only to this infallible Magisterium of
the Church because God cannot possibly be the “author of error in man.”
Quote from: An even Seven
It’s quite obvious that the
Church is referring to the infallible Magisterium of the Church. As if there
were a type that isn’t. Where is the teaching from the Church that there is a
type of Magisterium that is not infallible? You have to answer this.
“Quite obvious”? Let me explain this again. The word “magisterium”
is used equivocally. It is the noun form derived from the verb meaning
“to teach.” It is the teaching office of the Church. Its equivocal
meaning depends on who is the teacher. The three attributes of the Church
are infallibility, indefectibility, and authority. They correspond to
the three duties of the Church as a religious society as specified by St. Pius
X in Pascendi, that is, to teach, to worship, and to govern.
Whenever the churchmen teach by virtue of the Church’s attribute of
infallibility the teaching is without possibility of error. Whenever
churchmen teach by their grace of state the possibility of error is always
present and therefore, the acceptance of the teaching is always and necessarily
conditional. The former teaching is the Magisterium of God and the later
is the magisterium of men by virtue of their grace of state. The
difference between these two understandings is not one of DEGREE, but one of
KIND. I indicate the Magisterium of God by using a capital “M.”
There is a third meaning of the term, “authentic or authorized magisterium”
which identifies the person holding the office to which the Magisterium of the
Church is exercised.
Quote from: An Even Seven
You say this quote is
referring to the Church’s teachings. Who declares what those teachings are? If
we are not supposed to use private interpretation for Scripture or we don’t
even know what was passed on word of mouth, who tells us what those written
teachings (Scripture) mean or who relays what those unwritten teachings are
(Tradition) and their place in Divine Revelation? Who is the mouthpiece of
Christ that explains what we are to believe?
The “mouthpiece of Christ” belongs to the churchmen holding the office to which
the Magisterium of the Church is exercised. The acts of this person are
called the “authentic or authorized magisterium.” When the attribute of
infallibility is engaged and the churchmen are teaching by virtue of the
Magisterium, it is God who is the teacher, and therefore the teaching is always
and everywhere infallible. This Magisterium can be engaged in either an
“ordinary and universal” mode or an “extra-ordinary” mode of operation.
When the churchmen teach by
virtue of their grace of state the possibility of error is always present.
Therefore it requires only a “religious assent” of the faithful which is
a prudent and conditional assent.
Quote from: drew
The word “magisterium” is
not used univocally. There is another sense in which the
word is applied that refers to the teaching of churchmen by their grace of
state. This teaching is not infallible and cannot be followed
unconditionally. It must be accepted with a prudent and conditional
assent because it is the teaching of men. When that human teaching is
from the pope it is called the authentic ordinary magisterium. The
difference between the Magisterium of the Church grounded upon the attribute of
Infallibility which Christ endowed his Church and the teaching magisterium of
churchmen based upon their grace of state is one of KIND and not one of DEGREE.
Why do most sedevacantists confuse these two distinct usages of the same
term? It is because they make the pope the Rule of Faith.
Quote from: An even Seven
When the term Magisterium
is used and whatever adjective is used to describe it, it is unable to err.
There is no sense or KIND of the Magisterium that is applied to anyone but the
Pope. If any teaching is to be considered part of the Magisterium, the Pope is
involved, either speaking or writing it directly or giving his explicit consent
to it. You must show a Teaching of the Church that says there are teachings
from any kind of Magisterium that can err. Whether defining something that must
be believed as part of divine revelation or reiterating something that is
Dogma, it cannot be fallible. The teachings of church men are NOT part of any
KIND of Magisterium. The Pope can err when speaking privately or not intending
a teaching to be binding on the whole Church.
The opinions expressed in this paragraph are erroneous. These are
conclusions that are only possible if you believe that the pope is the Rule of
Faith.
Whenever the authentic (or authorized) ordinary magisterium is employed there
is always a possibility of error because it is the magisterium of churchmen
teaching by virtue of their grace of state. The words, “authentic”,
“authorized”, and “ordinary” are adjectives that restrict the meaning of the
noun. For you to say that this teaching is “unable to err” means that
you believe the pope is infallible by virtue of his grace of state and
therefore must be your “Rule of Faith.”
There is an article in AER by Fr. Fenton on the teaching authority of
encyclicals in which he gives examples of historical errors in the exercise of
the authentic ordinary magisterium. You can access AER articles online.
It was discussed in detail in another thread which can be reviewed by searching
in CathInfo.
The decree on papal infallibility from Vatican I identifies clearly what
criteria must be met for the pope to engage the attribute of infallibility of
the Church and exercise the Magisterium of the Church to teach without the
possibility of error. The outcome of this teaching is DOGMA which is the formal
object of divine and Catholic faith. It is DOGMA that constitutes the
Rule of Faith for faithful Catholics.
Quote from: drew
The teaching of Vatican II
is the teaching of churchmen. Pope John XXIII who opened the council,
Pope Paul VI who closed the council, and theological note published by the
council unequivocally state that no infallible authority was engaged at the
council. It is at most an extra-ordinary engagement of the most ordinary
magisterium in the history of the Church. Every novelty taught by Vatican
II is purely the teaching of churchmen by their grace of state. The
strongest binding of its teachings is “religious observance” which was
imposed by Pope Paul VI. “Religious” obedience is that which is
owed to the pope teaching by his grace of state. It is always and
everywhere a conditional obedience proximally governed by the virtue of
Religion. No one can be obedient to anyone, including the pope, in
violation of the virtue of Religion without sin. When the pope engages the
infallible Magisterium of the Church, the teaching is Dogma which constitutes
the “formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.”
Quote from: An even Seven
I already showed that V II
said that religious liberty is part of divine revelation and had all the
requisites for infallibility. Paul VI solemnly approved all 16 documents of V
II.
You have not shown anything. It is an absurdity to claim that
churchmen were doing what they publically and repeatedly professed NOT TO BE
DOING! “Religious” obedience is what is owed to the authentic
ordinary magisterium of churchmen teaching by their grace of state. Furthermore,
it would be a sin to give churchmen teaching by their grace of state an
unconditional obedience because unconditional obedience can only be given to
GOD. You are making the pope your Rule of Faith which is a form of
idolatry.
Quote from: drew
Quote from: Pope Paul VI
“There are those who ask
what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to
its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn Dogmatic definitions backed
by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who
remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16,
1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming
in an extraordinary manner any Dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”
Pope Paul VI, General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the
L'Osservatore Romano January 21, 1966
Quote from: An even Seven
I’m not sure if you messed
up the dates but the LOR couldn’t have pulished what Paul VI said 12 months
before he said it. What he said here is irrelevant because he already Solemnly
approved V II. What’s interesting is that in the same General Audience, in the
following sentence after your quote, he said this: “The Council is a great act
of the magisterium of the Church, and anyone who adheres to the Council is, by
that very fact, recognizing and honoring the magisterium of the Church…”
And this: “…it [the Council] still provided its teaching with the authority of
the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so
obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the
faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of
the individual documents.”
In his “encyclical” Ecclesiam Suam he said this: “It is precisely because
the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine
de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the
continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”
Now that you understand the different usages of “magisterium” you should have
no problem understanding what was being said. The “supreme ordinary
magisterium” is the teaching of churchmen by their grace of state and that is
all that Vatican II was. This has to be “accepted” with a conditional
“religious” obedience, that is, an obedience that admits the possibility of
error.
Even if the Council were treated as a “continuation and complement of the First
Vatican Council” it makes no difference whatsoever. Ecumenical Councils
often deal with matters of doctrine, and/or discipline, and/or worship, and/or
and general law. The only things from ecumenical councils that are
infallible are those teaching which are clearly indicated as such. From
Trent, only the Dogmatic canons are infallible. The narratives preceding
the canons are not. That is why the narrative must always be understood
in light of the canons and not vice versa as commonly happens with those who do
not hold Dogma as the Rule of Faith.
Quote from: drew
Sedevacantists make the
teaching of men the teaching of God when they overthrow Dogma as the Rule of
Faith and replace it by making the pope the Rule of Faith. Then
“religious” submission to whatever the pope say or does is given the same
authority that by nature belongs only to Dogma, God’s revealed truth. That is clearly what
they do when they demand that faithful Catholics must obediently submit to
teachings that either directly or indirectly oppose the “deposit of divine
revelation” on the authority of the authentic magisterium of the pope.
Quote from: An even Seven
It is precisely because of
Dogma that these men cannot be pope.
You began this post comparing the current crisis to Great Western Schism (GWS).
Your comparison with the GWS does not apply. It is said that all
analogies limp but this one can’t even crawl. The listed sedevacantists
in the beginning of this reply all deny the validity of Novus Ordo orders.
They deny that there exists not just a pope, but a curia and
ecclesiastical hierarchy throughout the world, excepting them. The attribute
of “authority” is always present with God’s Church. Who then is
exercising it? If a pope is to be found, he must be found among
current sedevacantists who have valid orders. Well, where is he?
“God will provide” is just begging the question? “God will provide”
is the same thing conservative Catholics have argued for years to make the
novelties of Vatican II palatable. Well, how will God provide? By
what mechanism can the problem of sedevacatism be corrected? What are the
possible efficient and instrumental causes for a correction? The
church you belong to does not have a pope and has no way to make one. It
is defective of a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ
that will last until the end of time. It therefore cannot be Christ’s
Church.
The current heretical pope teaches heresy by his own authority. Never has the
Church’s attribute of infallibility been engaged by the conciliar “authentic
magisterium” to teach error. Those that claim that it has are ignorant of
the question. You said, “If you consider them (conciliar popes) Popes then the
Church Christ founded couldn’t be more defective.” To believe that a
heretical pope makes the Church “defective” is only possible if you believe
that the pope is the Rule of Faith. It is bizarre to conclude that a
heretical pope makes the Church “defective” but having no pope at all does not!
I asked a question in an earlier post that has not been answered. If a
pope is a heretic in the internal forum only, does he lose his office? If
so, how do you know, and if not, why not?
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #145 on: February 02, 2017, 02:45:30 AM »
Quote from: drew
So I will assume that you
believe that Dogma is the Rule of Faith, and therefore, the typical
sedevacantist position, in nearly every case, that holds that the good
Jew as a Jew, the good Protestant as a Protestant, the good Muslim as a Muslim,
the good Hindu as a Hindu, etc., etc., by virtue of a ‘desire to do the will of
a god who rewards and punishes’ can therefore be in the state of grace, a
temple of the Holy Ghost, a secret member of the Church and obtain salvation,
is clearly erroneous. This opinion is only possible for those who believe the
pope is the Rule of Faith. This opinion is held by Dolan, Cekeda, Kelly,
Sanborn, the CRMI, etc., etc. In fact, the only sedevacantist that I am aware
of who does not hold this opinion is Br. Michael Dimond.
I would appreciate you clearly stating this fact so it can be set aside because
in this post and previous posts you claim to believe in Dogma as the Rule of
Faith but repeatedly express opinions to the contrary which I will identify in
this reply.
I absolutely do not hold the above heresy. There is EENS. One cannot be “in” or
a “member” without Baptism. One is not subject to the Pope without Baptism.
Etc…
Quote from: drew
Let me explain this again.
The word “magisterium” is used equivocally. It is the noun form
derived from the verb meaning “to teach.” It is the teaching office of
the Church. Its equivocal meaning depends on who is the teacher.
The three attributes of the Church are infallibility, indefectibility,
and authority. They correspond to the three duties of the Church as a
religious society as specified by St. Pius X in Pascendi, that is, to teach, to
worship, and to govern. Whenever the churchmen teach by virtue of the
Church’s attribute of infallibility the teaching is without possibility of
error. Whenever churchmen teach by their grace of state the possibility
of error is always present and therefore, the acceptance of the teaching is
always and necessarily conditional. The former teaching is the
Magisterium of God and the later is the magisterium of men by virtue of their
grace of state. The difference between these two understandings is not
one of DEGREE, but one of KIND. I indicate the Magisterium of God by using a
capital “M.”
There is a third meaning of the term, “authentic or authorized magisterium”
which identifies the person holding the office to which the Magisterium of the
Church is exercised.
There is no teaching of the Church that says that anybody but the Pope is
endowed with the charism of Infallibility. There is NO teaching of the Church
that states that there is any KIND of Magisterium that is able to err. The
Church has never taught this.
If the Pope teaches something that is considered erroneous, we know that it is
not part of the Magisterium. There are numerous quotes from Popes talking about
the Magisterium, some use different adjectives to describe its purpose etc. One
thing is for sure though, they all affirm that it is unable to err or is
infallible.
Quote from: drew
Whenever the authentic (or
authorized) ordinary magisterium is employed there is always a possibility of
error because it is the magisterium of churchmen teaching by virtue of their
grace of state.
Give me a Magisterial source for this comment. There is nothing you can quote
from the Church that states the Authentic Magisterium can possibly err.
Pope
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9:” Therefore, Jesus Christ instituted in the Church
a living, authentic, and likewise permanent magisterium, which He strengthened
by His own power, taught by the Spirit of Truth, and confirmed by miracles. The
precepts of its doctrines He willed and most seriously commanded to be accepted
equally with His own. . . . This, then, is without any doubt the office of the
Church, to watch over Christian doctrine and to propagate it soundly and
without corruption. . . .”
Quote from: drew
The words, “authentic”,
“authorized”, and “ordinary” are adjectives that restrict the meaning of the
noun. For you to say that this teaching is “unable to err” means that you
believe the pope is infallible by virtue of his grace of state and therefore
must be your “Rule of Faith.”
Again, show where there are any words that restrict the meaning of the word
“Magisterium” so as to mean a sense in which it can err.
You can stop now with the ‘pope is your Rule of Faith’ stuff. I already said
that Dogma is Rule of Faith and I proved so by saying that the Pope is not
infallible all the time. He is however, the only person on Earth whom
infallibility is granted. Since there are numerous teachings that say the
Magisterium cannot err, the only person on Earth whom the teachings of the
Magisterium can come from is the Pope. Again, this does not mean that
everything the Pope says is infallible or that he exercises it in every word,
but when the Magisterium is employed, it is the Pope who employs it.
If you will, instead of just saying I’m wrong, I want you to prove it through
the teachings of the Church. You have cited nothing other than a few articles
by different people to prove that the Magisterium can err. This only shows how
little you people care about the Papacy or the governance of a Pope.
Quote from: drew
You have not shown
anything. It is an absurdity to claim that churchmen were doing what they
publically and repeatedly professed NOT TO BE DOING! “Religious”
obedience is what is owed to the authentic ordinary magisterium of churchmen
teaching by their grace of state. Furthermore, it would be a sin to give
churchmen teaching by their grace of state an unconditional obedience because
unconditional obedience can only be given to GOD. You are making the pope
your Rule of Faith which is a form of idolatry.
This only shows your contempt for the Vicar of Christ on Earth. To show
obedience to the Church is to show obedience to hierarchy and the Rock upon
which it was founded. You are refusing legitimate obedience to the authority of
Christ on Earth. If these men were true Popes, you cannot say “I can be
obedient in some things, just only those things that I deem important or
legitimate”. If the Pope were to solemnly say that every man has the right to
be whatever religion they want and then said this is divinely revealed, no
Catholic would have the option to disagree with this as this is a matter of
Catholic faith. The only logical conclusion is that they cannot be Pope because
our Rule of Faith says that liberty of religion is heresy and contrary to
Divine Revelation.
Quote from: drew
Now that you understand the
different usages of “magisterium” you should have no problem understanding what
was being said. The “supreme ordinary magisterium” is the teaching of churchmen
by their grace of state and that is all that Vatican II was. This has to
be “accepted” with a conditional “religious” obedience, that is, an obedience
that admits the possibility of error.
This is a direct contradiction of Pope Pius XII. This quote shows that even
matters pertaining to Church Doctrine in the acts of the Pope, the Ordiary
Magisterium, require assent and are NOT open to free discussion.
Pope
Pius XII, Humani Generis It is not to be thought that what is set down in
Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes
do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are
taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent:
"He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is
set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to
Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due
consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is
clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same
Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among
the theologians.
Therefore, you are required to give assent to your “popes” in all matters
concerning Catholic Doctrine. Obviously the false claimants teach contrary
to what has been taught by the Church, but if they were valid, you would not be
able to dissent from their teaching. That is called refusing subjection to the
Pontiff and is an act of Schism.
Quote from: drew
The only things from
ecumenical councils that are infallible are those teaching which are clearly
indicated as such. From Trent, only the Dogmatic canons are infallible.
The narratives preceding the canons are not
This is one of the most disturbing things I’ve read. Where did you get this “teaching”
from? Vatican I clearly outlines the requirements for infallibility. Nowhere
does it say that it only applies to Canons. If the Pope intends to teach
something to the entire Church in virtue of his apostolic authority in matters
pertain to faith or morals, it is infallible. There is so much in Trent that
meets these requirements. Anyone reading this should be able to see that you
are making your own rules concerning infallibility to suit your own needs.
Quote from: drew
The church you belong to
does not have a pope and has no way to make one. It is defective of a
necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ that will last until
the end of time. It therefore cannot be Christ’s Church.
The Church has been without a Pope many times. It also has not been clear who
the Pope is at certain points in history. It is not a necessary attribute that
there is a Pope reigning at every minute or it would have defected many times.
What is necessary is that the Pope be a Catholic and not a heretic because
heretics are not in the Church. Your “church” has a heretic for a leader. The
Catholic Church is in a period without a Pope. However she gets one is not up
to us to decide. How are you going to get a Pope when all of your hierarchy are
heretics.
Quote from: drew
To believe that a heretical
pope makes the Church “defective” is only possible if you believe that the pope
is the Rule of Faith. It is bizarre to conclude that a heretical pope
makes the Church “defective” but having no pope at all does not!
The Church has said more than once that the gates of hell are heretics. If the
Earthly leader of Christ’s Church were a heretic, then the gates of hell have
prevailed. Thus, it would defect.
A period without a man occupying the Papacy does not cause defection. If this
were true then the Church defected after the death of St. Peter. Your illogic
is nauseating.
Quote from: drew
I asked a question in an
earlier post that has not been answered. If a pope is a heretic in the
internal forum only, does he lose his office? If so, how do you know, and
if not, why not?
In your hypothetical scenario there would be no way of knowing. If he lost the
faith internally but never externally manifested it, in the eyes of the Church
he would continue as Pope. As St. Robert says, we can’t read a man’s heart, but
if he manifests heresy, we judge him to be a Heretic.
This is moot, since it can be shown that these men never were Pope due to
publically manifested heresy before their elections.
Now answer my question. You keep mentioning that there are kinds of Magisterium
that can err and only require a "conditional assent". Where is the
Magisterial Teaching for this?
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #146 on: February 02, 2017, 03:14:56 PM »
Quote from: drew
So I will assume that you
believe that Dogma is the Rule of Faith, and therefore, the typical
sedevacantist position, in nearly every case, that holds that the good
Jew as a Jew, the good Protestant as a Protestant, the good Muslim as a Muslim,
the good Hindu as a Hindu, etc., etc., by virtue of a ‘desire to do the will of
a god who rewards and punishes’ can therefore be in the state of grace, a
temple of the Holy Ghost, a secret member of the Church and obtain salvation,
is clearly erroneous. This opinion is only possible for those who believe the
pope is the Rule of Faith. This opinion is held by Dolan, Cekeda, Kelly,
Sanborn, the CRMI, etc., etc. In fact, the only sedevacantist that I am aware
of who does not hold this opinion is Br. Michael Dimond.
I would appreciate you clearly stating this fact so it can be set aside because
in this post and previous posts you claim to believe in Dogma as the Rule of
Faith but repeatedly express opinions to the contrary which I will identify in
this reply.
Quote from: An even Seven
I absolutely do not hold
the above heresy. There is EENS. One cannot be “in” or a “member” without
Baptism. One is not subject to the Pope without Baptism. Etc…
Good. It was Fr. Feeney to whom we are indebted for defending the literal
meaning of Dogma. Those who follow this heresy, which is nearly every
sedevacantist group, the SSPX, etc., believe that Dogma is subject to
non-literal theological interpretations. That is how Archbishop Lefebvre,
Bishops Fellay, Kelly, Dolan, Sanborn, et al. all came to believe in the
salvation of any pagan, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Protestant, etc. by virtue of their
“desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.” It is also
how they fell into the error that Dogma is subject to the free and independent
will of the pope, and thus, the pope became the Rule of Faith. From this
we get conservative Catholics who follow ever error the pope says or does and
sedevacantists who remove the pope from the picture entirely.
Quote from: drew
Let me explain this again.
The word “magisterium” is used equivocally. It is the noun form
derived from the verb meaning “to teach.” It is the teaching office of
the Church. Its equivocal meaning depends on who is the teacher.
The three attributes of the Church are infallibility, indefectibility,
and authority. They correspond to the three duties of the Church as a
religious society as specified by St. Pius X in Pascendi, that is, to teach, to
worship, and to govern. Whenever the churchmen teach by virtue of the
Church’s attribute of infallibility the teaching is without possibility of
error. Whenever churchmen teach by their grace of state the possibility
of error is always present and therefore, the acceptance of the teaching is
always and necessarily conditional. The former teaching is the
Magisterium of God and the later is the magisterium of men by virtue of their grace
of state. The difference between these two understandings is not one of
DEGREE, but one of KIND. I indicate the Magisterium of God by using a capital
“M.”
There is a third meaning of the term, “authentic or authorized magisterium”
which identifies the person holding the office to which the Magisterium of the
Church is exercised.
Quote from: An even Seven
There is no teaching of the
Church that says that anybody but the Pope is endowed with the charism of
Infallibility. There is NO teaching of the Church that states that there is any
KIND of Magisterium that is able to err. The Church has never taught this.
If the Pope teaches something that is considered erroneous, we know that it is
not part of the Magisterium. There are numerous quotes from Popes talking about
the Magisterium, some use different adjectives to describe its purpose etc. One
thing is for sure though, they all affirm that it is unable to err or is
infallible.
If the word “magisterium” is taking univocally as you are doing, then the pope
must be the Rule of Faith because everything he says or does must be
infallible. Whenever the popes are speaking of the infallible
Magisterium, they are referring to the teaching of the pope when he engages the
attribute of infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His Church. This
power is engaged either in the Extra-ordinary or the Ordinary & Universal
modes. This is always and everywhere infallible because the teacher is
GOD. The fruit of this teaching is called, DOGMA. And DOGMA is the Rule
of Faith for all faithful Catholics.
Let’s examine the quotation you referenced from Pope Leo XIII:
Quote from: Pope Leo XIII
Wherefore, as appears from
what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and
permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of
truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the
gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His
own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching
that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be
believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident
contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in
man. (translation taken from Vatican web page.)
The reason the Magisterium (with a capital “M”) is always infallible is because
the “teachings” are the direct revelation of God. Therefore these
“teachings should be received as if they were His own” because they are “His
own.” They are “His own” because they were revealed by Him and are
“contained in the deposit of divine revelation.” If there were “false”
then “God Himself would be the author of error in man.” This Magisteium
is derived from the Church’s attribute of infallibility and guided in its use
by the “Spirit of Truth,” the Holy Ghost, who is the “soul of the Church,” to
prevent the human person of the pope from ever erring in its exercise.
Outside of this specific engagement of the attribute of infallibility of the
Church, the pope is capable of error. When he teaches anything, he is
teaching by his grace of state. And due to this grace and exalted nature
of his office he deserves our respectful religious submission. But this
submission is always and necessarily conditional. The teaching of the
pope by his grace of state is called his magisterium, written with a small “m.”
You must recognize this distinction. If you hold that the pope is always
engaged with or engaging the attribute of infallibility, he necessarily becomes
a divine oracle and the Rule of Faith.
Quote from: drew
Whenever the authentic (or
authorized) ordinary magisterium is employed there is always a possibility of
error because it is the magisterium of churchmen teaching by virtue of their
grace of state.
Quote from: An even Seven
Give me a Magisterial
source for this comment. There is nothing you can quote from the Church that
states the Authentic Magisterium can possibly err.
Pope
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9:” Therefore, Jesus Christ instituted in the Church
a living, authentic, and likewise permanent magisterium, which He strengthened
by His own power, taught by the Spirit of Truth, and confirmed by miracles. The
precepts of its doctrines He willed and most seriously commanded to be accepted
equally with His own. . . . This, then, is without any doubt the office of the
Church, to watch over Christian doctrine and to propagate it soundly and
without corruption. . . .”
You must first understand the proper usage of the terminology. The
“authentic or sometimes called, the authorized magisterium” refers, not to
the teaching but to the teacher. It is a relatively new theological
term and we have discussed it before in detail on this forum. I think it
is fair to say that whatever a pope says or does, if he is indeed the pope, is
an act of the “authentic (or authorized) magisterium.”
Fr. Joseph Fenton attributes the term “authentic (or authorized)
magisterium" to the theological writings of the esteemed Fr. Joachim
Salaverri who said:
Quote from: Fr. Joachim
Salaverri
“An internal and religious
assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See which have
been authentically approved by the Roman Pontiff.” Fr. Joachim Salaverri, of
the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in
Spain, quote taken from article by Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the
Encyclicals, AER, 1953
Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only
"authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself,
not as regards his infallibility. (no.659ff). Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae
Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.)
For the record, Fr. Fenton considered Fr. Salaverri and Louis Cardinal Billot,
S. J. the foremost theologians of their time.
Fr. Fenton said regarding the “authentic magisterium”:
Quote from: Fr. Joseph
Fenton
The fact of the matter is
that every doctrine taught by the Holy Father in his capacity as the Vicar of
Christ must, by the very constitution of the Church militant of the New
Testament, be accepted by the faithful for what it is. If it is an infallible
declaration, it is to be accepted with an absolutely firm and irrevocable
assent. If it is a non-infallible statement, it must be accepted with a firm
but conditional mental assent.
Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953
Other theologians before Vatican II were in agreement with Fr. Fenton.
Quote from: Fr. Nicholas
Jung
This is why we owe the
“authentic” Magisterium not a blind and unconditional assent but a prudent and
conditional one: Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is
infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various
decisions.
The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and
moral truths defined by the Church's Magisterium. He is not required to give
the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not
imposed on the whole Christian body as a Dogma of faith. In this case it
suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate
ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such
decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since
in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one's
superior....Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of
submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the
gravity of the question.
Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp.153,154
Quote from: Dom Paul Nau
"If we are not to be
drawn into error, we urgently need to remember that the assent due to the
non-infallible Magisterium is... that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as
of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity,
unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest
discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had
hitherto been taught."
Dom Paul Nau, Pope or Church?, p.29, 1956
These references should make it clear that there exists and non-infallible
exercise of the magisterium that must be accepted but only conditionally.
Reagarding the infallible teaching, the “Magisterial source for this comment” is
found in First Vatican Council that defines the Dogma of infallibility. The
criteria are clearly set forth which must necessarily be met for the pope to
engage the Church’s attribute of infallibility. Whenever the pope
teaches and these criteria are not met, he is teaching be virtue of his grace
of state. When the pope teaches by his grace of state, it is would be the
authentic (or authorized) ordinary magisterium. If the pope is teaching
by virtue of the attribute of infallibility which Christ endowed His Church, it
is would be the authentic (or authorized) Extra-ordinary Magisterium or the
authentic (or authorized) Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
You must distinguish the different usages of the word “magisterium.” If
not, the pope by default must be your Rule of Faith.
Quote from: drew
The words, “authentic”,
“authorized”, and “ordinary” are adjectives that restrict the meaning of the
noun. For you to say that this teaching is “unable to err” means that you
believe the pope is infallible by virtue of his grace of state and therefore
must be your “Rule of Faith.”
Quote from: An even Seven:
Again, show where there are
any words that restrict the meaning of the word “Magisterium” so as to mean a
sense in which it can err.
You can stop now with the ‘pope is your Rule of Faith’ stuff. I already said
that Dogma is Rule of Faith and I proved so by saying that the Pope is not
infallible all the time. He is however, the only person on Earth whom
infallibility is granted. Since there are numerous teachings that say the
Magisterium cannot err, the only person on Earth whom the teachings of the
Magisterium can come from is the Pope. Again, this does not mean that
everything the Pope says is infallible or that he exercises it in every word,
but when the Magisterium is employed, it is the Pope who employs it.
If you will, instead of just saying I’m wrong, I want you to prove it through
the teachings of the Church. You have cited nothing other than a few articles
by different people to prove that the Magisterium can err. This only shows how
little you people care about the Papacy or the governance of a Pope.
The Magisterium cannot error, that is, when the pope teaches by virtue of the
attribute of infallibility Jesus Christ endowed His Church. When can
known when this attribute is engaged by the criteria set forth from Vatican I
on papal infallibility. The problem is that you do not distinguish when
this attribute is engaged or not. You do not distinguish between the
Magisterium and the pope’s authentic (or authorized) ordinary magisterium which
is he teaching by virtue of his grace of state.
Quote from: drew
You have not shown
anything. It is an absurdity to claim that churchmen were doing what they
publically and repeatedly professed NOT TO BE DOING! “Religious”
obedience is what is owed to the authentic ordinary magisterium of churchmen
teaching by their grace of state. Furthermore, it would be a sin to give
churchmen teaching by their grace of state an unconditional obedience because
unconditional obedience can only be given to GOD. You are making the pope
your Rule of Faith which is a form of idolatry.
Quote from: An even Seven
This only shows your
contempt for the Vicar of Christ on Earth. To show obedience to the Church is
to show obedience to hierarchy and the Rock upon which it was founded. You are
refusing legitimate obedience to the authority of Christ on Earth. If these men
were true Popes, you cannot say “I can be obedient in some things, just only
those things that I deem important or legitimate”. If the Pope were to solemnly
say that every man has the right to be whatever religion they want and then
said this is divinely revealed, no Catholic would have the option to disagree
with this as this is a matter of Catholic faith. The only logical conclusion is
that they cannot be Pope because our Rule of Faith says that liberty of
religion is heresy and contrary to Divine Revelation.
You just said above that, “You can stop now with the ‘pope is your Rule of
Faith’ stuff.” And then in the next paragraph you affirm that the pope is the
Rule of Faith! If the pope is the Rule of Faith, obedience becomes
unconditional, therefore, all Catholics must obey the pope.
(Sedevacantists hold that) since the pope commands what is
unconscionable, therefore, Catholics cannot obey the pope, therefore, he is not
the pope.
Why does disobedience to the pope constitute “Contempt for the Vicar of Christ
on Earth” while throwing him out of office does not? You charge is
absurd. I have said it before but it bears repeating. Obedience in
and of itself is not a virtue. Unconditional obedience is owed to God
alone. All other acts of obedience are always and necessarily
conditional. Obedience is only a virtue when it is properly regulated by
the virtue of Religion. The virtue of Religion is the principle subsidiary
virtue under the moral virtue of Justice whereby we “render to God the things
that are God’s.” No one, no one whatsoever, has the authority to command
anything in violation of the virtue of Religion. When did the pope, with the same solemnity
that Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, define
that “every man has a right to whatever religion they want” as a formal object
of divine and Catholic faith?
He did not and neither did Vatican II pretend to be speaking in the person of
God. What you have done, even though you deny it, is make the pope your
Rule of Faith.
Quote from: drew
Now that you understand the
different usages of “magisterium” you should have no problem understanding what
was being said. The “supreme ordinary magisterium” is the teaching of churchmen
by their grace of state and that is all that Vatican II was. This has to
be “accepted” with a conditional “religious” obedience, that is, an obedience
that admits the possibility of error.
Quote from: An even Seven
This is a direct
contradiction of Pope Pius XII. This quote shows that even matters pertaining
to Church Doctrine in the acts of the Pope, the Ordiary Magisterium, require
assent and are NOT open to free discussion.
Pope
Pius XII, Humani Generis It is not to be thought that what is set down in
Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes
do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are
taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent:
"He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is
set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to
Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due
consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is
clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same
Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the
theologians.
Therefore, you are required to give assent to your “popes” in all matters
concerning Catholic Doctrine. Obviously the false claimants teach
contrary to what has been taught by the Church, but if they were valid, you
would not be able to dissent from there teaching. That is called refusing
subjection to the Pontiff and is an act of Schism.
This again has already been addressed. I admit, as I have already
admitted, that Pope Pius XII used the term “ordinary magisterium.” It is
unfortunate because he is not
talking about the “ordinary magisterium.” He is addressing the “Ordinary
and Universal Magisterium” which, as defined at Vatican I, is always
infallible. We know this because every single example Pope Pius XII
provides is the universal teaching of the Church. I will give one example
which should be sufficient to prove my point.
In Mystici Corporis Pius XII teaches that there is an identity between the
Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church. He appeals
directly to our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles for this doctrine.
Quote from: Pope Pius XII,
Mystici Corporis
The doctrine of the
Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the
Redeemer Himself. [.....] If we would define and describe this true Church
of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church
- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the
expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which
springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of
the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
Therefore, he affirms that it is a doctrine of divine and apostolic tradition.
It is therefore a universal doctrine of the Catholic Church being taught
be the ordinary magisterium in an encyclical. We know be divine and
Catholic faith that the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible.
This infallible doctrine is referred to again in Humani Generis where
Pope Pius XII specifically says that some believe that they are not bound to
this doctrine.
Quote from: Pope Pius XII,
Humani Generis
Some say they are not bound
by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and
based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of
Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to
a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to
gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the
credibility of Christian faith.
Pius XII, Humani Generis
Again, the pope appeals to "sources of Revelation" for this
doctrinal teaching. It is therefore a universal matter of belief always
and everywhere among the faithful. This is one of the specific examples that
Pius XII references when he quotes our Lord saying, "He who heareth you,
heareth Me." This is NOT simply the ordinary magisterium speaking.
IT is the ordinary and universal which is known by divine and Catholic
faith to be infallible.
Every single example given by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis is part of the
“Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.”
Quote from: Pope Pius XII,
Humani Generis
It is not surprising that
novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all
branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine
revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created
universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that
the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the
world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of
divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowledge
of the free actions of men - all this in contradiction to the decrees of the
Vatican Council.[5]
Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter
and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of the
supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings
without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is this all.
Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original
sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God,
as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some
even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated
philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real
presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism,
whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the
spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful
members of His Mystical Body.
Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter
of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches
that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the
same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of
belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others
finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian
faith.
It is to the Universal & Ordinary Magisterium, by divine and Catholic
Faith, known to be infallible to which we necessarily owe the unconditional
obedience: “He the heareth you, heareth Me” applies without any qualification
whatsoever.
Quote from: drew
The only things from
ecumenical councils that are infallible are those teaching which are clearly
indicated as such. From Trent, only the Dogmatic canons are infallible.
The narratives preceding the canons are not
Quote from: An even Seven
This is one of the most
disturbing things I’ve read. Where did you get this “teaching” from? Vatican I
clearly outlines the requirements for infallibility. Nowhere does it say that
it only applies to Canons. If the Pope intends to teach something to the entire
Church in virtue of his apostolic authority in matters pertain to faith or
morals, it is infallible. There is so much in Trent that meets these
requirements. Anyone reading this should be able to see that you are making
your own rules concerning infallibility to suit your own needs.
You should not find this “disturbing” at all unless you hold that the pope is
the Rule of Faith. This is such a fundamental truth that essential definitions
are not applicable. It is easier to reframe the question. Vatican I
clearly states the criteria for infallibility. Everything that does not
meet the criteria is open to the possibility of error. The important word
in the Dogma is not “teach,” but “define.” It is when the pope is fulfilling
his office as “teacher” he “defines” a doctrine of “faith and morals.” Dogmas,
the formal of objects of divine and Catholic faith, are proposed to the
faithful in the form of categorical propositions that are always and everywhere
universally admit of being only true or false. They are doctrines
formally defined. That is not the case in the narrative sections of
the council texts. Furthermore, there is nothing in Vatican II that is
proposed as a formally defined doctrine on faith and/or morals that is proposed
to the faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.
Take this Dogma for example:
Quote from: Vatican I
Therefore, if anyone says
that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say,
by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the
primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor
of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
This canon is a Dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. It
is in the form of a categorical proposition that can only be true or false.
The only tools needed for understanding Dogma are definition and grammar.
So what do think about the word, “perpetual”? What does it mean?
The word is derived from the “from Latin perpetualis, from perpetuus
continuing throughout, from perpes, perpet- continuous.” (Oxford) How
many years does it take to break “continuity”? Can you give any secular
historical example “perpetual succession” is claimed to have been maintained
after a period of sixty years of vacancy? And even after 60 years there
is no possible way for sedevacantists to fill the office? How are you
going to do it and when?
Quote from: drew
The church you belong to
does not have a pope and has no way to make one. It is defective of a
necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ that will last until
the end of time. It therefore cannot be Christ’s Church.
Quote from: An even Seven
The Church has been without
a Pope many times. It also has not been clear who the Pope is at certain points
in history. It is not a necessary attribute that there is a Pope reigning at
every minute or it would have defected many times. What is necessary is that
the Pope be a Catholic and not a heretic because heretics are not in the
Church. Your “church” has a heretic for a leader. The Catholic Church is in a
period without a Pope. However she gets one is not up to us to decide. How are
you going to get a Pope when all of your hierarchy are heretics.
Again, it is a Dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that there
will always be until the end of time “perpetual successors” in the Chair
of Peter. You have no pope and you have no hope of ever getting one.
It is a necessary attribute of Christ’s Church and it is the clear
evidence that the church you belong to in not Catholic.
It is only “necessary that the Pope be a Catholic and not a heretic” if the
pope is the Rule of Faith. You deny this repeatedly and then affirm it in
the next breath.
Quote from: drew
To believe that a heretical
pope makes the Church “defective” is only possible if you believe that the pope
is the Rule of Faith. It is bizarre to conclude that a heretical pope
makes the Church “defective” but having no pope at all does not!
Quote from: An even Seven
The Church has said more
than once that the gates of hell are heretics. If the Earthly leader of
Christ’s Church were a heretic, then the gates of hell have prevailed. Thus, it
would defect.
A period without a man occupying the Papacy does not cause defection. If this
were true then the Church defected after the death of St. Peter. Your illogic
is nauseating.
It was said by Stubborn in an earlier post that sedevacantists are always
drawing unnecessary conclusions from good principles. This is just
another example of the same problem except, even your principles are not any
good. Pope Honorius was declared by an ecumenical council to have been a
heretic and this declaration was approved formally by the pope. The
“gates of hell” did not prevail except in the minds of those who held Honorius
to be the Rule of Faith. Once again you showing your bad principles.
Sedevacantism is a theology of despair. You have no idea of the meaning
of magisterium, you have no idea how the attribute of indefectibility is
preserved, you corrupt the word “perpetual” into a meaning unrecognizable to
any common use of language, and you give no evidence of any carefully reasoned
argument. You’re a sloganeer. You can’t be reasoned out of
sedevacantism because you did not reason yourself into it.
Quote from: drew
I asked a question in an
earlier post that has not been answered. If a pope is a heretic in the
internal forum only, does he lose his office? If so, how do you know, and
if not, why not?
Quote from: An even Seven
In your hypothetical
scenario there would be no way of knowing. If he lost the faith internally but
never externally manifested it, in the eyes of the Church he would continue as
Pope. As St. Robert says, we can’t read a man’s heart, but if he manifests
heresy, we judge him to be a Heretic.
This is moot, since it can be shown that these men never were Pope due to
publically manifested heresy before their elections.
Now answer my question. You keep mentioning that there are kinds of Magisterium
that can err and only require a "conditional assent". Where is the
Magisterial Teaching for this?
It is not “moot.” It is an acknowledgment on your part that it is not the
heresy but the public scandal that removes the heretic pope from office ipso
facto. By what authority do you impose a canonical ipso facto penalty
without due process? Where did you obtain this jurisdiction? Who
made you the “lord of the harvest”?
Your last question was specifically addressed above in the quotations taken
from AER article by Fr. Joseph Fenton.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #147 on: February 02, 2017, 10:36:00 PM »
Quote from: drew
Sedevacantists
misunderstand this passage because they do not understand the Magisterium of
the Church, and this is primarily because they make the pope the Rule of Faith
rather than Dogma. In this quote Pope Leo is referring to the infallible
Magisterium of the Church. This is clearly seen because he says, “If it could
in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself
would be the author of error in man.” The quote is referring to “its
teachings.” It is not the pope’s teachings. The “its”
refers to the Church’ teachings that is taken from the “deposit of divine
revelation” which has already been entrusted to the Church. “He
who heareth you heareth Me” refers only to this infallible Magisterium of
the Church because God cannot possibly be the “author of error in man.”
Drew
Quote from: MyrnaM
If anyone makes the pope
the Rule of Faith it is YOU.
This link might be of help to those who are confused about sedevacantism.
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_05.html
I take it that Drew is taking exception to the idea that the pope is the sole
Rule of Faith? In other words, he is accusing sedes of making the pope
into a divinity. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast
majority of sedes will affirm everything in Chapter 5 of W&S. Thank
you Myrna for posting that! As explained there, "Hence the original
promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by
the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule." I assume that when Drew
says that Dogma is the Rule of Faith that he means that the original
promulgation is the Rule of Faith. But W&S contradicts that idea.
The Rule of Faith has a remote aspect as well as a proximate aspect.
So limiting the Rule of Faith to one or the other of those is wrong.
We have to affirm both. If you accept that Francis is the Head of
the Teaching Body (i.e. the Pope) then Francis is the proximate Rule of Faith
for you and you owe him all the various levels of submission as outlined in
W&S Chapter 5. Obviously as a traditional Catholic that would be a
major problem. So how to resolve it? Do we throw out centuries of
Catholic theology and claim a right to be our own proximate Rule of Faith, a la
Luther? Or do we follow St. Robert Bellarmine and agree that a manifest
heretic cannot possibly be a member of the Church and therefore neither can he
possess any authority whatsoever in the Church? I think the answer is
obvious. In 1988-91 Archbishop Lefebvre still held out some hope that
maybe JP2 might reform himself. But he admitted that there may come a
time when we Catholics might have to admit that these post-V2 popes were not
true popes. I think that time has come.
By the way, maybe it makes sense to be R&R now that Francis is heralding
Martin Luther as a great figure of Christianity. Maybe by resisting
Francis you are actually affirming his teaching? As for me, I think I
will just stick to the SV thesis based on the teaching of St. Robert.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #148 on: February 02, 2017, 11:00:49 PM »
Quote from: drew
It is not “moot.” It is an acknowledgment
on your part that it is not the heresy but the public scandal that removes the
heretic pope from office ipso facto. By what authority do you impose a
canonical ipso facto penalty without due process? Where did you obtain
this jurisdiction? Who made you the “lord of the harvest”?
Drew, do you understand the meaning of ipso facto penalty? No one imposes
it but God. If that were not so we would be in Stubborn's World where it
is impossible for the a pope to actually lose his office. Gee, I wonder
if even a dead pope would lose his office because who has the authority to
declare him dead?
"This pope is dead."
"Tisn't!"
"Tis!"
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/4vuW6tQ0218[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/kQFKtI6gn9Y[/youtube]
Anyway, I don't know of any sedes who are claiming authority to depose the
pope. They are not even claiming to make an official declaration that the
pope is a heretic. They are merely saying that it is quite obvious that
Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic. If he isn't a manifest heretic,
why are we resisting him?
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #149 on: February 03, 2017, 04:07:29 AM »
Quote from: drew
Whenever the popes are speaking
of the infallible Magisterium, they are referring to the teaching of the pope
when he engages the attribute of infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His
Church
Magisterial Citation please?
Quote from: drew
I think it is fair to
say that whatever a pope says or does, if he is indeed the pope, is an act of
the “authentic (or authorized) magisterium.”
It would not be fair but false. If the Pope errs in something it is not an act
of the authentic magisterium because the Magisterium is infallible. Please
provide a Magisterial citation that there is any KIND of Magisterium that can
err.
Quote from: drew
If the pope is the Rule of
Faith, obedience becomes unconditional, therefore, all Catholics must obey the
pope. Since the pope commands what is unconscionable, therefore,
Catholics cannot obey the pope, therefore, he is not the pope.
If this is what you think the SV argument is based on then you need to study.
The claimant is not the Pope because of his manifest heresy/apostasy before his
election. It’s not because of what he commands, it’s because of what he
believes. One cannot be Catholic and publically do and teach what these men
believe. Vatican II taught heresy to the universal Church and Paul VI used
solemn Dogmatic language. That was an outward manifestation of his beliefs and
those of whom were in attendance and agreed upon it.
Quote from: drew
When did the pope, with the
same solemnity that Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, define that “every man has a right to whatever religion they want” as a
formal object of divine and Catholic faith?
Quote from: Paul VI
Vatican II document,
Dignitatis Humanae:
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD(in the exercise of his office as
shepherd and teacher of all Christians), TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE
SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY...9.The things which this Vatican Synod
declares concerning the right of man to religious liberty… this doctrine on
liberty has its roots in divine Revelation(he defines a doctrine concerning
faith or morals to be held by the whole church); with all the more reason,
therefore, it is to be preserved sacredly by Christians...12.The Church
therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the
Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord
with human dignity and the revelation of God(he defines a doctrine concerning
faith or morals to be held by the whole church), and when it promotes it…EACH
AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE
FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US(in virtue of
his supreme apostolic authority) BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN
APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE
DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I,
PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Quote from: drew
I admit, as I have already
admitted, that Pope Pius XII used the term “ordinary magisterium.” It is
unfortunate because he is not talking about the “ordinary magisterium.”
Unfortunate for you that is, because it proves you wrong.
Quote from: drew
Vatican I said:
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord
himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have
perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman
pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be
anathema.
So what do think about the word, “perpetual”? What does it mean?
The word is derived from the “from Latin perpetualis, from perpetuus
continuing throughout, from perpes, perpet- continuous.” (Oxford)
Well if perpetual meant having a Pope every single second from Peter on, this
statement from Vatican I would be false. So it must mean something else. It is
clear from the context, it is talking about the office of the Papacy.
Quote from: drew
How many years does it take
to break “continuity”? Can you give any secular historical example “perpetual
succession” is claimed to have been maintained after a period of sixty years of
vacancy?
At least one Vatican I theologian seemed to think that there is no limit on an
interregnum and that it doesn’t affect Perpetual Succession.
I was wondering if you can give a historical example of Catholics calling the
Pope a heretic and claiming he is still in the Church. Or if you could give an
example of people refusing obedience and submission to a lawful Pope.
Ridiculous!
Quote from: drew
It is only “necessary that
the Pope be a Catholic and not a heretic” if the pope is the Rule of Faith.
You deny this repeatedly and then affirm in the next breath.
WHAT!!!!! This statement made me laugh literally out loud. If you could only
see how ludicrous this is. The Church has ALWAYS taught that a heretic is NOT a
Catholic. I think you need some quotes.
Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those
who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics
and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting
fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to
the Church before the end of their lives…”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to
sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.
”Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the
unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic
communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree
from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason
regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise
some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any
one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority,
since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the
Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of
heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of
which we believe that no one is saved.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice,
II, 30:"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to
be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a
member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest
heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be
Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he
cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not
a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is
clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.),
St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.)
and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic
Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic,
he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other
sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as
long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut
off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would
by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a
heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot
possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de
Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p.
456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female
[as Pope] would be null and void."
Quote from: drew
Pope Honorius was declared
by an ecumenical council to have been a heretic and this declaration was
approved formally by the pope. The “gates of hell” did not prevail except
in the minds of those who held Honorius to be the Rule of Faith. Once
again you are showing your bad principles.
First, it is argued whether or not Honorius was heretic or failed to stamp out
heresy. The CE article on him explains it well.
Second, The 3rd Council of Constantinople never declared that he retained his
office or lost it. So there’s that.
I’m sure if Honorius would have declared to the Church that Christ only had one
will, instead of only discussing with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the
faithful would have considered him to fall from office. That’s because all
Catholics everywhere from the beginning of the Church were taught that heretics
are not part of the Church.
Quote from: drew
Sedevacantism is a theology
of despair.
SV is not a theology. It is a term coined to describe the interregnum currently
befalling the Church. It is based on Dogma that Heretics are not a part of the
Church.
Quote from: drew
You have no idea the meaning
of magisterium,
The Magisterium is the Church’s office of its Teaching Authority and it is
unable to err, and until you can prove from the Magisterium that it can err,
you have lost the battle against Church Teaching.
Quote from: drew
you have no idea how the
attribute of indefectibility is preserved,
It is preserved by the authority of Christ. The Church will not ever be
overcome by heretics, which are the Gates of Hell.
Second
Council of Constantinople:“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy
Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these
we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”
If a heretic were the leader of the Church of Christ then the Gates of hell
have most literally prevailed.
Quote from: drew
By what authority do you
impose a canonical ipso facto penalty without due process?
This never ceases to amaze me. You clearly have no idea what an ipso facto penalty
is. It means it is incurred by that very fact. Before any sentence. A hearing
and sentence may proceed, but that is only to declare what has ALREADY
happened.
Here is Pope Pius VI
Auctorem
fidei:47. "Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary,
according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for
suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore,
sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat
without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of
the Church, erroneous.
Clearly a personal examination does not need to happen for the excommunication
to happen. That is, for the person to be outside the Church. Here is St. Robert
explaining it quite nicely.
St.
Robert Bellarmine: "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments
from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto'
deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders
that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself
to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial
sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are
excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but heretics exile
themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the Body of Christ.”
Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
“There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office,
which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and
hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has
publicly fallen away from the faith.”
Quote from: drew
Your last question was
specifically addressed above in the quotations taken from AER article by Fr.
Joseph Fenton.
I asked for you to provide a teaching from the Magisterium, you provided a
quote from a theologian and a relatively modern one at that. I guess
theologians are part of your "magisterium".
Not going to cut it. I have shown many quotes from Popes that state the
Magisterium, in all its forms, is free from error. You have shown quotes from
men, whom are able to err, that contradict the Popes. You are no better than
the SV’s who deny EENS and try to prove their points by fallible men.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #152 on: February 03, 2017, 04:40:34 PM »
Quote from: drew
Sedevacantists
misunderstand this passage because they do not understand the Magisterium of
the Church, and this is primarily because they make the pope the Rule of Faith
rather than Dogma. In this quote Pope Leo is referring to the infallible
Magisterium of the Church. This is clearly seen because he says, “If it could
in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself
would be the author of error in man.” The quote is referring to “its
teachings.” It is not the pope’s teachings. The “its”
refers to the Church’ teachings that is taken from the “deposit of divine
revelation” which has already been entrusted to the Church. “He
who heareth you heareth Me” refers only to this infallible Magisterium of
the Church because God cannot possibly be the “author of error in man.”
Drew
Quote from: MyrnaM
If anyone makes the pope the Rule of Faith it is YOU.
This link might be of help to those who are confused about sedevacantism.
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_05.html
Quote from: Clemens Maria
I take it that Drew is
taking exception to the idea that the pope is the sole Rule of Faith?
In other words, he is accusing sedes of making the pope into a divinity.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of sedes
will affirm everything in Chapter 5 of W&S. Thank you Myrna for
posting that! As explained there, "Hence the original promulgation
is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching
Body is the proximate Rule." I assume that when Drew says that Dogma
is the Rule of Faith that he means that the original promulgation is the Rule
of Faith. But W&S contradicts that idea. The Rule of Faith has
a remote aspect as well as a proximate aspect. So limiting the Rule of
Faith to one or the other of those is wrong. We have to affirm both.
If you accept that Francis is the Head of the Teaching Body (i.e. the
Pope) then Francis is the proximate Rule of Faith for you and you owe him all
the various levels of submission as outlined in W&S Chapter 5.
Obviously as a traditional Catholic that would be a major problem.
So how to resolve it? Do we throw out centuries of Catholic
theology and claim a right to be our own proximate Rule of Faith, a la Luther?
Or do we follow St. Robert Bellarmine and agree that a manifest heretic
cannot possibly be a member of the Church and therefore neither can he possess
any authority whatsoever in the Church? I think the answer is obvious.
In 1988-91 Archbishop Lefebvre still held out some hope that maybe JP2
might reform himself. But he admitted that there may come a time when we
Catholics might have to admit that these post-V2 popes were not true popes.
I think that time has come.
By the way, maybe it makes sense to be R&R now that Francis is heralding
Martin Luther as a great figure of Christianity. Maybe by resisting
Francis you are actually affirming his teaching? As for me, I think I
will just stick to the SV thesis based on the teaching of St. Robert.
You misunderstand Scheeban's article on the Rule of Faith.
You err in making the pope your Rule of Faith. You said:
Quote from: Clemens Maria
"If you accept that
Francis is the Head of the Teaching Body (i.e. the Pope) then Francis is the
proximate Rule of Faith for you and you owe him all the various levels of
submission as outlined in W&S Chapter 5."
This is a grave error in calling the pope the "proximate Rule of
Faith." The honor belongs to Dogma. The remote Rule of Faith is
divine revelation found in scripture and tradition. The proximate Rule of
Faith is Dogma. Scheeban does not contradict this but in fact reaffirms
it repeatedly.
Dogma is not the teaching of the pope, it is the formal definition by God of
God's revelation to His Church exercised through the pope by virtue of the
attribute of infallibility God has endowed His Church. That is why Dogma
is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. (It is why St. Pius X calls
Dogmas, “Truths fallen from heaven.”)
Every sedevacantist group, every one excepting Br. Michael Dimond, makes this
same mistake. It is best exemplified in their belief that the good Jew as
a Jew, the good Hindu as a Hindu, the good Muslim as a Muslim, the good
Protestant as a Protestant, even the good pagan as a pagan can obtain salvation
by their "desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes."
All of them, excepting Br. Dimond, believe that the Dogmas that affirm
what is necessary for salvation, as necessities of means, may be reinterpreted
by the pope to be understood by Catholics in a none literal sense. It
was good to see that An Even Seven repudiated this heresy, but what about you?
It is an error grounded upon holding the pope as the Rule of Faith, and
from this error sedevacantism logically follows.
Quote from: Drew
It is not “moot.” It is an
acknowledgment on your part that it is not the heresy but the public scandal
that removes the heretic pope from office ipso facto. By what authority
do you impose a canonical ipso facto penalty without due process? Where
did you obtain this jurisdiction? Who made you the “lord of the harvest”?
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Drew, do you understand the
meaning of ipso facto penalty? No one imposes it but God. If that
were not so we would be in Stubborn's World where it is impossible for the a
pope to actually lose his office. Gee, I wonder if even a dead pope would
lose his office because who has the authority to declare him dead?
"This pope is dead."
"Tisn't!"
"Tis!
Your reply is not well thought out at all. You claim that:
Quote from: Clemens Maria
"No one imposes ipso
facto penalities but God"
This is not true, for man also can and does impose ipso facto penalties
for crimes of both human and divine law. This is common even in secular
criminal law.
God always imposes "ipso facto" penalties for every single
sin, omission, and negligence. When a mortal sin is committed in the
internal forum, know only to God, the sinner is ipso facto formally
removed from the life of grace, he is no longer a temple of the Holy Ghost, no
longer has a right to heaven, and if he dies unrepentant, will be lost
eternally. This sinner may still be a material member of the Church.
In fact, there is no mortal sin where God uniformly ipso facto materially
ends Church membership and this includes heresy.
The same ipso facto penalty applies to formal heresy in the internal
forum, which is a moral sin. God does not removed a heretic materially ipso
facto from the Church. That is done by men in consequence of the
human law of the Church. When a heretic is materially removed from the
Church it is not because of the heresy per
se but rather because of the scandal to the faithful. There are
numerous examples of Modernist heretics not being materially removed from the
Church during and since the time of St. Pius X. When the heretic is materially
removed from the Church it is always done as a consequence of the human law of
the Church. Penalties that remove a heretic materially from the Church that
are applied ipso facto still require canonical due process determination
of guilt. Martin Luther was formally
removed from the Church by God when he committed the mortal sin of heresy.
He was materially removed from
the Church by churchmen only after the excommunication following the due
process of a formal canonical trial.
The parable of the Cockle has been previously mentioned. The commentaries
of Lapide, Haydock, and St. Thomas all include heretics among the cockle.
In the parable God keeps the cockle until the harvest. The
arguments on this question concern the right of the Church to remove the
heretical cockle before the harvest if in her judgment it is better for the
faithful wheat. None have argued that the Church must always and necessarily
materially remove a heretic from the Church. When it is done, it is done
for the welfare of the faithful.
Sedevacantists have made themselves the "lord of the harvest."
The hold the pope as the Rule of Faith and claim that any faithful
associated with him materially is formally contaminated. This is to
believe that Jesus Christ formally sinned by being materially associated with
the heretic Caiaphas the high priest by participating in Temple worship.
So Clemens, you belong to a Church that has no pope, and no hope of ever
getting one. The Church founded by Jesus Christ was built upon Peter the
first pope and we know by divine and Catholic faith that Peter will have
"perpetual successors." Those that do not regard Dogma as the
Rule of Faith have no problem with taking this Dogma in a non-literal sense.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #153 on: February 03, 2017, 09:25:42 PM »
Quote from: drew
Whenever the popes are
speaking of the infallible Magisterium, they are referring to the teaching of
the pope when he engages the attribute of infallibility that Jesus Christ
endowed His Church
Quote from: An even Seven
Magisterial Citation
please?
This is by definition. Common knowledge.
Quote from: drew
I think it is fair to say
that whatever a pope says or does, if he is indeed the pope, is an act of the
“authentic (or authorized) magisterium.”
Quote from: An even Seven
It would not be fair but false. If the Pope errs in something it is not an act
of the authentic magisterium because the Magisterium is infallible. Please
provide a Magisterial citation that there is any KIND of Magisterium that can
err.
I have already provided you with authoritative quotations by a theologian
considered to be the best of his time by Fr. Fenton defining the term
"authentic magisterium" which is a relatively new theological term.
I have already provided you with authoritative theologians regarding the
possibility of error in the authentic ordinary magisterium where the pope
teaches by his grace of state. Still you make the same error again and
again and again. I can only provide you with the information. I
cannot make you read it. I cannot make you understand it.
Quote from: drew
If the pope is the Rule of
Faith, obedience becomes unconditional, therefore, all Catholics must obey the
pope. Since the pope commands what is unconscionable, therefore,
Catholics cannot obey the pope, therefore, he is not the pope.
Quote from: An even Seven
If this is what you think the SV argument is based on then you need to study.
The claimant is not the Pope because of his manifest heresy/apostasy before his
election. It’s not because of what he commands, it’s because of what he
believes. One cannot be Catholic and publically do and teach what these men
believe. Vatican II taught heresy to the universal Church and Paul VI used
solemn Dogmatic language. That was an outward manifestation of his beliefs and
those of whom were in attendance and agreed upon it.
This is an admission that you have made yourself the "lord of the
harvest."
Quote from: drew
When did the pope, with the
same solemnity that Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, define that “every man has a right to whatever religion they want” as a
formal object of divine and Catholic faith?
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Paul VI
Vatican II document,
Dignitatis Humanae:
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD(in the exercise of his office as
shepherd and teacher of all Christians), TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE
SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY...9.The things which this Vatican Synod
declares concerning the right of man to religious liberty… this doctrine on
liberty has its roots in divine Revelation(he defines a doctrine concerning
faith or morals to be held by the whole church); with all the more reason,
therefore, it is to be preserved sacredly by Christians...12.The Church
therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and
the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in
accord with human dignity and the revelation of God(he defines a doctrine
concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church), and when it
promotes it…EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON
THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED
ON US(in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority) BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE
VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE
HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE
PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
You know next to nothing about the Church's magisterium and what you do know,
you have twisted. This is additional evidence. Equating this document to
the Ex Cathedra definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Pope
Pius XII engaging the Extra-ordinary Magisterium of the Church to Dogmatically
define this doctrine, demonstrates that you have no idea what the Magisterium
is or how it is exercised.
Furthermore, your quote of the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty, is
improper for at least two important reasons. Firstly, the document is not
even a decree claiming to be "Dogmatic" within the context of the
council. It is professed to be a merely pastoral decree admitted by all
both during and after the council. Secondly, your quote taking out of
context with the intention of implying that the document is claiming that
doctrine of Religious Liberty has its source divine Revelation. That is
false. The entire paragraph cited says:
Quote from: Vatican II, On
Religious Liberty
9. The declaration of this
Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in
the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to
human reason through centuries of experience. What is more, this doctrine of
freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are
bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. Revelation does not indeed
affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in
matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person
in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ
showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in
the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a
Master ought to adopt and continually follow. Thus further light is cast upon
the general principles upon which the doctrine of this declaration on religious
freedom is based. In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely
consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.
The decree in fact denies that Religious Liberty is directly found in divine
Revelation and admits that the doctrine is deduced as an implication from the
"dignity of the human person in its full dimensions." This is
nothing other than churchmen teaching by their grace of state and nothing more.
Lastly, the Dogma from Vatican I infallibility states that the Church must
intend to "define." In this document there is no formal
definition and nothing is proposed as a formal object of divine and Catholic
faith.
To imply or argue that this document is a papal claim to be invoking the
Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (which is infallible) is an act of
deception. To suggest that this document is equivalent to Pope Pius XII's
definition of the Assumption may be evidence for declaration of brain death.
What it does clearly demonstrate is that you believe the pope is the Rule
of Faith for there is no other premise from which anyone could conclude that
these two papal acts are equivalent. You must believe that the pope
himself is the determining factor and not the act. Again, that is making
the pope the Rule of Faith.
Quote from: drew
I admit, as I have already
admitted, that Pope Pius XII used the term “ordinary magisterium.” It is
unfortunate because he is not talking about the “ordinary magisterium.”
Quote from: An even Seven
Unfortunate for you that is, because it proves you wrong.
Quote from: drew
Vatican I said:
"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the
lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have
perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman
pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be
anathema."
So what do think about the word, “perpetual”? What does it mean?
The word is derived from the “from Latin perpetualis, from perpetuus
continuing throughout, from perpes, perpet- continuous.” (Oxford)
Quote from: An even Seven
Well if perpetual meant
having a Pope every single second from Peter on, this statement from Vatican I
would be false. So it must mean something else. It is clear from the context,
it is talking about the office of the Papacy.
Who has claimed that "perpetual successor" means "having a pope
every single second from Peter on"? But no matter how long a papal interregnum has been, at most a couple
years, there has always been an intent from the death of one pope to the
confirm his successor and always a mechanism to do so. Never has
there been a situation where there exists no efficient cause nor instrumental
cause to create a pope. Never has an interregnum lasted beyond a couple
years. It is now 60 years since John XXIII's election and after 60 years you
still have nothing to hope for. You are at a dead end.
There are examples in nature of perpetual events with long periods for
recurrence such as some forms of radioactive decay or planetary rotation but to
called "perpetual" these periods must recur at regular and predicable
intervals. Nowhere in the history of the "perpetual successors"
of Peter has there been an interval of 60 years with no hope of
resolution over the horizon.
What you are doing again is the
corruption of Dogma twisting its clear meaning of words. This is what
those who make the pope the Rule of Faith always do. They consider Dogma as
general theoretical guide lines or approximations of truth that can be
interpreted in a non-literal sense to serve the theological ends of whoever is
playing "lord of the harvest."
Quote from: drew
How many years does it take
to break “continuity”? Can you give any secular historical example “perpetual
succession” is claimed to have been maintained after a period of sixty years of
vacancy?
Quote from: An even Seven
At least one Vatican I
theologian seemed to think that there is no limit on an interregnum and that it
doesn’t affect Perpetual Succession.
I was wondering if you can give a historical example of Catholics calling the
Pope a heretic and claiming he is still in the Church. Or if you could give an
example of people refusing obedience and submission to a lawful Pope.
Ridiculous!
This answer is absurd. A "theologian seemed to think" that the
papal office could be indefinitely vacant and still have "perpetual
succession"?
Pope Honorius was formally declared a heretic and no one ever suggested he lost
his office. Caiaphas was a heretic and Jesus Christ never declared that
he lost his office.
Still you have no understanding regarding how acts of obedience are morally
regulated after being told several times.
Quote from: drew
(As you said,) it is only
“necessary that the Pope be a Catholic and not a heretic” if the pope is the
Rule of Faith. You deny this repeatedly and then affirm in the next
breath.
Quote from: An even Seven
WHAT!!!!! This statement
made me laugh literally out loud. If you could only see how ludicrous this is.
The Church has ALWAYS taught that a heretic is NOT a Catholic. I think you need
some quotes.
Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those
who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics
and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting
fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to
the Church before the end of their lives…”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to
sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.
”Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the
unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic
communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree
from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason
regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise
some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any
one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority,
since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the
Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of
heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of
which we believe that no one is saved.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice,
II, 30:"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to
be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a
member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest
heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be
Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he
cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not
a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is
clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont.
Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra
Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic
Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic,
he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other
sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as
long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut
off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would
by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a
heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot
possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de
Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p.
456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female
[as Pope] would be null and void."
This has been address repeatedly and you add nothing new. Formal heresy
will formally remove a Catholic formally from the Church just like every mortal
sin. Heresy can, but does not necessarily, remove a Catholic materially
from the Church. You have already admitted that a heretic in the
internal forum alone would not lose his office. The implications of
this are lost on you. The removal of a heretic materially from the Church
is done so because of scandal and not because of the heresy per se and
this removal is possible but not necessary. A heretic that is removed
materially from the Church is done so by the human law of the Church which
imposes ipso facto penalties by law that can only be imposed after due
process determination of guilt. The law imposes the penalty, the law does
not impose the guilt.
Quote from: drew
Pope Honorius was declared
by an ecumenical council to have been a heretic and this declaration was
approved formally by the pope. The “gates of hell” did not prevail except
in the minds of those who held Honorius to be the Rule of Faith. Once
again you showing your bad principles.
Quote from: An even Seven
First, it is argued whether or not Honorius was heretic or failed to stamp out
heresy. The CE article on him explains it well.
Second, The 3rd Council of Constantinople never declared that he retained his
office or lost it. So there’s that.
I’m sure if Honorius would have declared to the Church that Christ only had one
will, instead of only discussing with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the
faithful would have considered him to fall from office. That’s because all
Catholics everywhere from the beginning of the Church were taught that heretics
are not part of the Church.
It does not matter what you are "sure" of. Honorius was
formally declared a heretic by an ecumenical council that was affirmed by the
pope. This act, by your understanding of councilar and papal acts, is
infallible. He was never during his life or after considered by anyone to
have lost his office. No legitimate papal act of Honorius was ever
considered null because of loss of office due to heresy. It did not
happen. This is the only precedent for formal heresy in a pope and no
loss of office.
Quote from: drew
Sedevacantism is a theology
of despair.
Quote from: An even Seven
SV is not a theology. It is a term coined to describe the interregnum currently
befalling the Church. It is based on Dogma that Heretics are not a part of the
Church.
Quote from: drew
You have no idea the
meaning of magisterium,
Quote from: An even Seven
The Magisterium is the Church’s office of its Teaching Authority and it is
unable to err, and until you can prove from the Magisterium that it can err,
you have lost the battle against Church Teaching.
Quote from: drew
you have no idea how the
attribute of indefectibility is preserved,
Quote from: An even Seven
It is preserved by the authority of Christ. The Church will not ever be
overcome by heretics, which are the Gates of Hell.
This is correct regarding the Magisterium for Christ's Church. It is an
error to claim that sedevacantism is not a "theology." Its
theology has brought you to a church that is not the Catholic Church. The
Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ, was founded upon Peter and his
"perpetual successors." Your church is lacking this necessary
attribute. You did not end up at this dead-end by definition.
Have you considered a name for your church?
Quote from: An even Seven
Second Council of
Constantinople:“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and
Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we
understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”
If a heretic were the leader of the Church of Christ then the Gates of hell
have most literally prevailed.
Quote from: drew
By what authority do you
impose a canonical ipso facto penalty without due process?
Quote from: An even Seven
This never ceases to amaze
me. You clearly have no idea what an ipso facto penalty is. It means it is
incurred by that very fact. Before any sentence. A hearing and sentence may
proceed, but that is only to declare what has ALREADY happened.
Here is Pope Pius VI
Auctorem
fidei:47. "Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary,
according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for
suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore,
sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat
without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of
the Church, erroneous.
Clearly a personal examination does not need to happen for the excommunication
to happen. That is, for the person to be outside the Church. Here is St. Robert
explaining it quite nicely.
St.
Robert Bellarmine: "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments
from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto'
deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who
orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing
himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or
judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other
sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but
heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the
Body of Christ.”
Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
“There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office,
which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and
hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has
publicly fallen away from the faith.”
These laws are human laws of the Church. Ipso facto penalties are imposed
by law upon the guilty. Lacking a public charge of heresy and an
admission of guilt, the determination of guilt requires due process in the
external forum for penalty of law to be imposed.
You have made yourself the "lord of the harvest."
The essential problem for you is that you belong to a church that is manifestly
not the Catholic Church. You have no pope, you will never get one, and
therefore the church you belong to is not Catholic because the Catholic Church
will always have "perpetual successors" to Peter. To achieve this
end you have corrupted what the Magisterium of the Church is. You have
made the pope the Rule of Faith by taking his personal teaching by his grace of
state and given these teachings the marks of infallibility in direct opposition
to the Dogmas on infallibility which establish the criteria for infallible
teachings.
I don't think you are stupid but there is clear evidence that you are
unknowledgeable on very important matters, poorly educated, and unable to
examine any problem outside a fixed and determined perspective. I have
only entered this discussion with you for the benefit others. As I said before
no one can be reasoned from a position that did not reasonable assume.
Still, you should at least know that the church you belong to is not
Catholic. That is clearly evident and there is no salvation outside the
Catholic Church. Sedevacantism is a theology of despair. You think a
heretical pope means the "gates of hell have prevailed." Just
another example of drawing conclusions that do not necessarily follow. I
would only believe this if I belonged to a church in which its necessary
attributes were not nor could ever be present. The only question I have
is: Which more often comes first, the despair or the sedevacantism?
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #154 on: February 04, 2017, 03:38:55 AM »
Quote from: drew
I have already provided you
with authoritative quotations by a theologian considered to be the best of his
time by Fr. Fenton defining the term "authentic magisterium" which is
a relatively new theological term. I have already provided you with
authoritative theologians regarding the possibility of error in the authentic
ordinary magisterium where the pope teaches by his grace of state
I did not think you could prove your erroneous belief. That, not only do you
not have any Magisterial teaching to back your claims, but you consider
theologians part of the Magisterium. This shows your hypocrisy, that you are
more willing to accept what a theologian says as Authoritative than what you
consider a Pope says.
Quote from: drew
Furthermore, your quote of
the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty, is improper for at least two
important reasons. Firstly, the document is not even a decree claiming to
be "Dogmatic" within the context of the council. It is professed
to be a merely pastoral decree admitted by all both during and after the
council. Secondly, your quote taking out of context with the intention of
implying that the document is claiming that doctrine of Religious Liberty has
its source divine Revelation. That is false.
The decree in fact denies that Religious Liberty is directly found in divine
Revelation and admits that the doctrine is deduced as an implication from the
"dignity of the human person in its full dimensions." This is
nothing other than churchmen teaching by their grace of state and nothing more.
Lastly, the Dogma from Vatican I infallibility states that the Church must
intend to "define." In this document there is no formal
definition and nothing is proposed as a formal object of divine and Catholic
faith.
First, a decree does not have to claim to be Dogmatic for it to be so. Show
where the Magisterium says it has to. Let me add that to your list of made up
"teachings".
Second, If a council claims something is of Divine Revelation (DR), and
especially if the Pope declares it through his apostolic authority to the whole
Church, it is infallible. Vatican II explicitly says in DH #9” this doctrine
on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation” and in #12” The Church
therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and
the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in
accord with human dignity and the revelation of God” I understand
that you don’t want to admit it but it’s right there. And for you to say that
it actually denies that it’s part of DR, is a lie.
Lastly, Proclaiming that something is part of DR, definitely constitutes
infallibility in this circumstance. You have no valid response. Paul VI uses
his apostolic authority and declares to the whole church that Rel. Lib. Is part
of DR.
He is telling “catholics” that Rel. Lib. Is included in the Rule of Faith. You
are making yourself the Rule of Faith by making up different rules, then
contradicting them, about what is infallible. You said before that only the
Canons in Trent were infallible. You skipped my question as to why that is.
Then you claim that DH isn't infallible because it say it was Dogmatic. Then
you tell me that the right to religious liberty is not to be considered
infallible because you say it didn't intend to define. Rel. Lib. is not part of
DR but Paul VI clearly taught that it is. He is saying that it was handed down
from God and has always been believed. This is just as authoritative as the
Canons in Trent were Paul VI actually the Pope.
You are all over the place and only want to consider infallible what fits your
narrative.
Quote from: drew
But no matter how long a
papal interregnum has been, at most a couple years, there has always been an
intent from the death of one pope to the confirm his successor and always a
mechanism to do so. Never has there been a situation where there exists
no efficient cause nor instrumental cause to create a pope. Never has an
interregnum lasted beyond a couple years. It is now 60 years since John
XXIII's election and after 60 years you still have nothing to hope for.
You are at a dead end.
Who says that Pope Pius XII didn’t intend to have a successor confirmed or that
a single clergyman can’t elect a new Pope. The Cardinals haven’t always elected
a Pope, nor has it always been clear how a certain Pope was elected. What
has to be ABSOLUTELY true is that the Pope elected had to have the Catholic
Faith prior to their election as per Dogma and “Cum Ex”.
Quote from: drew
What you are doing again is
the corruption of Dogma twisting its clear meaning of words. This is what
those who make the pope the Rule of Faith always do. They consider Dogma as
general theoretical guide lines or approximations of truth that can be interpreted
in a non-literal sense to serve the theological ends of whoever is playing
"lord of the harvest."
That is not true. Dogma is the Rule of Faith not some guideline. You are making
a straw man here. I adhere to Dogma while you claim that you are the arbiter of
what Dogma is. I wish I could say what you consider Dogma and Infallible but
your guidelines change so much, it's impossible. If you don’t like the response
you're given, you claim, it’s not infallible, or imply that a Theologian is the
Rule of Faith.
Quote from: drew
This answer is absurd.
A "theologian seemed to think" that the papal office could be
indefinitely vacant and still have "perpetual succession"?
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time,
of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In
the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a
Pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and
elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at
every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of
Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to
his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would
have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this
is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an
interregnum.”(Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society
– Theological Essays, 1882)
Fr. O’Reilly spoke after Vatican I and was said to be considered the most
important Theologian of his time. So it’s not absurd to think an Interregnum
could last a very long time, nor is it contrary to any Dogma.
Quote from: drew
Pope Honorius was formally
declared a heretic and no one ever suggested he lost his office. Caiaphas
was a heretic and Jesus Christ never declared that he lost his office.
No one ever suggested that he retained his office. Were you there? Did
the Council ever relate what the common thought was? Was Honorius’ heresy
public and manifest?
To Caiaphas. Was he a heretic? Where is the evidence for that? What Church
Dogmas did he deny? Evil and Sinful? Yes. Heretic? I don’t know and neither do
you.
Quote from: drew
Formal heresy will formally
remove a Catholic formally from the Church just like every mortal sin.
Wow. Every mortal sin removes a Catholic from the Church? It’s amazing that you
imply I’m so uneducated about Catholic Teaching and yet say things like this.
Not every Mortal sin removes one from the Church. Here is an extension of the
quote already provided.
Pope
Pius XII, Mystici Corp. Chris.:”For not every sin, however grave it may be, is
such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or
apostasy.
Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable
of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold
fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred
on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved
to prayer and penance for their sins.”
No sin, no matter how GRAVE, severs a man from the Church as does heresy etc…
He goes on to teach what happens when one is in mortal sin but still in
the Church. That is, lose charity and divine grace, incapable of supernatural
merit. Then says, but they are not deprived of all life implying that those in
heresy etc… are deprived of all life. This has it’s basis in the Dogmatic Teaching
that heretics are not in the Church.
You are the opposite extreme of Stubborn. He doesn’t think that any sin can
sever a man from the Church, you think all mortal sins sever a man. This is too
much, how can I argue with someone who has total disregard for the teachings of
the Popes and Dogma.
Quote from: drew
A heretic that is removed
materially from the Church is done so by the human law of the Church which
imposes ipso facto penalties by law that can only be imposed after due process
determination of guilt.
Every time you talk about “ipso facto” penalties you show your ignorance of it
more and more. Ipso facto and a penalty imposed after due process are opposite
from each other. Ipso facto excommunicates by the act of the violation. This is
done before due process or else it would have no meaning. If the act required
due process, ipso facto could not be applied. This is easily understood if one
were to only read the quotes provided before.
We are not trying to determine whether these claimants are heretics based on
what we think they believe in their hearts. No one could do that so that
assertion is irrelevant. They manifested their heresies through word/deed
before their election and have done so ever since their false elevations.
Quote from: drew
Have you considered a name
for your church?
Catholic.
How about you? Maybe the sometimes-catholic church? The fifth-pillar-catholic
church? The material-catholic church? The defective-catholic church? The
unable-to-legitimately-govern-because-the-pope-is-a-heretic-catholic church?
Quote from: drew
Lacking a public charge of
heresy and an admission of guilt, the determination of guilt requires due
process in the external forum for penalty of law to be imposed.
Then ipso facto has no meaning. If a Catholic hears another Baptized person
saying that there are three Gods in the Trinity, even though he says he knows
the Church teaches that there are three persons in One God, do we have to say
that this statement is orthodox and this person is a Catholic until a court
says that the statement is heretical and that person a heretic. Or can we say
that statement is heresy and that person a heretic? This person is ipso facto
severed from the Church without any further official Church Statement. That is,
by that very fact. Therefore, he is unable to become Pope because he is not
Catholic.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #158 on: February 04, 2017, 06:47:05 PM »
Quote from: drew
I have already provided you
with an authoritative quotations by a theologian considered to be the best of
his time by Fr. Fenton defining the term "authentic magisterium"
which is a relatively new theological term. I have already provided you
with authoritative theologians regarding the possibility of error in the
authentic ordinary magisterium where the pope teaches by his grace of state
Quote from: An even Seven
I did not think you could prove your erroneous belief. That, not only do you
not have any Magisterial teaching to back your claims, but you consider
theologians part of the Magisterium. This shows your hypocrisy, that you are
more willing to accept what a theologian says as Authoritative than what you
consider a Pope says.
Your replies are nothing more than bromides that are endlessly and mindlessly
repeated by sedevacantists. It is hoped that having arrived in a church
that is missing a necessary attribute of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus
Christ that you might try to rethink the problem but you have not thought about
anything. You don't argue, you just repeat slogans. This reply is
just parroting the same erroneous understanding you have of the meaning of the
word "magisterium."
The theologian quoted was to provide a definition of the term
"authentic magisterium." You have been misusing the term
constantly in your posting. Now you are asking for a "Magisterial
teaching" to prove that the definition of the term "authentic
magisterium" is correct! And because this, which does not exist, was
not provided it "shows (my) hypocrisy."
Getting your definitions correct is the first job you have to address before
you can even try to reason.
The second theologian with Fr. Fenton was to provide you with an expert opinion
that teachings of the authentic ordinary magisterium, that is, the pope
teaching by his grace of state have in the past and may in the future contain
error and therefore admit of a "prudent" and "conditional"
acceptance. Your bromide reply: It is "hypocrisy .... more willing
to accept what a theologian says as Authoritative than what you consider a Pope
says."
This reply is not just stupid, it is totally disconnected from what in fact was
said. It is a mindless reply.
Quote from: drew
Furthermore, your quote of
the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty, is improper for at least two
important reasons. Firstly, the document is not even a decree claiming to
be "Dogmatic" within the context of the council. It is professed
to be a merely pastoral decree admitted by all both during and after the
council. Secondly, your quote taking out of context with the intention of
implying that the document is claiming that doctrine of Religious Liberty has
its source divine Revelation. That is false.
The decree in fact denies that Religious Liberty is directly found in divine
Revelation and admits that the doctrine is deduced as an implication from the
"dignity of the human person in its full dimensions." This is
nothing other than churchmen teaching by their grace of state and nothing more.
Lastly, the Dogma from Vatican I infallibility states that the Church must
intend to "define." In this document there is no formal
definition and nothing is proposed as a formal object of divine and Catholic
faith.
Quote from: An even Seven
First, a decree does not
have to claim to be Dogmatic for it to be so. Show where the Magisterium says
it has to. Let me add that to your list of made up "teachings".
Second, If a council claims something is of Divine Revelation (DR), and
especially if the Pope declares it through his apostolic authority to the whole
Church, it is infallible. Vatican II explicitly says in DH #9” this doctrine
on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation” and in #12” The Church therefore,
faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles
when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with
human dignity and the revelation of God” I understand that you don’t
want to admit it but it’s right there. And for you to say that it actually
denies that it’s part of DR, is a lie.
Lastly, Proclaiming that something is part of DR, definitely constitutes
infallibility in this circumstance. You have no valid response. Paul VI uses
his apostolic authority and declares to the whole church that Rel. Lib. Is part
of DR.
He is telling “catholics” that Rel. Lib. Is included in the Rule of Faith. You
are making yourself the Rule of Faith by making up different rules, then
contradicting them, about what is infallible. You said before that only the
Canons in Trent were infallible. You skipped my question as to why that is.
Then you claim that DH isn't infallible because it say it was Dogmatic. Then
you tell me that the right to religious liberty is not to be considered
infallible because you say it didn't intend to define. Rel. Lib. is not part of
DR but Paul VI clearly taught that it is. He is saying that it was handed down
from God and has always been believed. This is just as authoritative as the
Canons in Trent were Paul VI actually the Pope.
You are all over the place and only want to consider infallible what fits your
narrative.
Oh brother! Where to begin. Another bromide. Another mindless
parroting of sedevacantist canned answers. You are like a talking doll
with a handful possible answers, just pull the string and see what you get.
You should begin be reading the Dogma from Vatican I on infallibility
with the purpose of trying to understand it. I do not know of any
Dogmatic definitions that begin by saying "This is a Dogma." A
Dogmatic definition gives evidence of itself by meeting specific criteria.
You must learn what those criteria are.
Vatican II never defined any doctrine and proposed it as a formal object of
divine and Catholic faith. Dogma requires a formal definition on faith
and/or morals with the intent to bind all the faithful for all time. This
intent of Vatican II to define doctrine was explicitly denied by the pope who
called the council and the pope who closed the council. After the council
there were statements from Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI that no Dogma was
defined in the council. Not only was it not done, there was not expressed
intent ever to do so. Lacking intent, it is impossible to engage the
Church's attribute of infallibility.
Of the 16 documents, two are called "Dogmatic constitutions" and the
others are "decrees" or "declarations." The document
on Religious Liberty (DH) was called a "declaration." The term
"Dogmatic" that was incorporated in two council texts is used in the
same sense that Ott entitled his book, Dogmatic Theology. Neither of
these texts defined any doctrine as a formal of divine and Catholic faith.
They produced no Dogma. Still the two constitutions establish the
foundational principles that justify all the decrees and declarations that
followed.
My complaint is that you took a quotation from DH out of context to imply that
the teaching for Religious Liberty was from "divine Revelation."
This is lie and now reply by repeating the lie. You are an ass if think
anyone has to listed to your distortions.
Rather than reply again to you, which is clearly wasted effort. I invite
anyone else to compare your claim with the actual text of paragraph nine.
The declaration describes what is means by "roots in divine
Revelation" and that description says explicitly that this novel doctrine
is not taught in divine Revelation but extrapolated from what is calls,
"dignity of the human person in its full dimensions."
From this paragraph you argue that DH has the same authority as the
Extra-ordinary Dogmatic degree of Pope Pius XII on the Assumption of the
Blessed Virgin Mary! Those who say, as you have, that DH claims that
Religious Liberty is of divine Revelation are liars that intentionally distort
the text out of context to deceive others.
Quote from: drew
But no matter how long a
papal interregnum has been, at most a couple years, there has always been an
intent from the death of one pope to the confirm his successor and always a
mechanism to do so. Never has there been a situation where there exists
no efficient cause nor instrumental cause to create a pope. Never has an
interregnum lasted beyond a couple years. It is now 60 years since John
XXIII's election and after 60 years you still have nothing to hope for.
You are at a dead end.
Quote from: An even Seven
Who says that Pope Pius XII didn’t intend to have a successor confirmed or that
a single clergyman can’t elect a new Pope. The Cardinals haven’t always elected
a Pope, nor has it always been clear how a certain Pope was elected. What
has to be ABSOLUTELY true is that the Pope elected had to have the Catholic
Faith prior to their election as per Dogma and “Cum Ex”.
So you have a "single clergyman" to "elect a new Pope."
Good. Do it. It has been tried plenty of time since Vatican II.
There must have been at least a dozen papal claimants. Which of
these is your Pope? There is Michael I, two different Peter II, Gregory
XVII, Gregory XVIII, Leo XIV, Innocent XIV, Alexander IX, Pius XIII, Clement
XIV, Mathurin I, Linus II, etc., etc. Innocent XIV was elected after an
international conclave of sorts. He walked away when the plan failed to gather
any support. So which of these is your pope? If none, why not?
Again, these are rhetorical questions. The point is that even if a
group a sedevacantists got together and elected a pope he will not be received
by other groups of sedevacantists. That is the historical record over the
last sixty years.
Heresy is the rejection of Dogma. So since nearly every single
sedevacantist holds that the pope is the Rule of Faith and that inconvenient
Dogmas, such as that which says that there will always be "perpetual
successors" in the Chair of Peter, need not be believed, how can a sedevacantist
ever produce a pope when they are heretics by definition? Again, just a
rhetorical question. Don't bother trying to answer.
Quote from: drew
What you are doing again is
the corruption of Dogma twisting its clear meaning of words. This is what
those who make the pope the Rule of Faith always do. They consider Dogma as
general theoretical guide lines or approximations of truth that can be
interpreted in a non-literal sense to serve the theological ends of whoever is
playing "lord of the harvest."
Quote from: An even Seven
That is not true. Dogma is the Rule of Faith not some guideline. You are making
a straw man here. I adhere to Dogma while you claim that you are the arbiter of
what Dogma is. I wish I could say what you consider Dogma and Infallible but
your guidelines change so much, it's impossible. If you don’t like the response
you're given, you claim, it’s not infallible, or imply that a Theologian is the
Rule of Faith.
You do not even know what Dogma is! How is it then possible that it could be
your Rule of Faith? Don't bother replying. The question is rhetorical
because you cannot possible answer it. You are unable to distinguish between
the authority of DH from Vatican II and the Extra-ordinary Dogmatic declaration
of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That being said, any answer
would only confuse you more.
Quote from: drew
This answer is absurd.
A "theologian seemed to think" that the papal office could be
indefinitely vacant and still have "perpetual succession"?
Quote from: An even Seven
“We may here stop to
inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three
claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first
place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope – with
the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill
up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a
Pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the
Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not
that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or
inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest,
but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”(Fr. Edmund
James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays,
1882)
Fr. O’Reilly spoke after Vatican I and was said to be considered the most
important Theologian of his time. So it’s not absurd to think an Interregnum
could last a very long time, nor is it contrary to any Dogma.
I do not know Fr. O'Reilly but if your reference is accurate and not out of
context as you did with your reference to DH, what possible authority is this!
When you read an article by Fr. Fenton in AER you will typically find
references to a dozen or more expert theologians on both sides of any given
question. In his article on the authority of papal encyclicals he
references more than thirty different expert theologians of varying opinions.
Now this reference to some unknown character who postulates that if during the
GWS there had been no pope at all, it would not mean that the "perpetual
succession" had been lost. This is empty speculation. Empty because
it never happened. Empty because even if it had, there still was a
hierarchy present with the intent and power to select a pope. You have
neither! Therefore you do not have an efficient and/or instrumental cause
capable of creating a pope. For you the "perpetual succession"
to the chair of Peter is broken! You cannot fix it. The church you
belong to is without an essential attribute that Jesus Christ endowed His
Church. The church you belong to is not, and cannot be, His church!
Quote from: drew
Pope Honorius was formally
declared a heretic and no one ever suggested he lost his office. Caiaphas
was a heretic and Jesus Christ never declared that he lost his office.
Quote from: An even Seven
No one ever suggested that he retained his office. Were you there? Did
the Council ever relate what the common thought was? Was Honorius’ heresy
public and manifest?
To Caiaphas. Was he a heretic? Where is the evidence for that? What Church
Dogmas did he deny? Evil and Sinful? Yes. Heretic? I don’t know and neither do
you.
Because, if Honorius had lost his office, all his papal acts would have had to
have been corrected. Never happened. That is the historical proof that he
never lost his office. Honorius was formally declared to have been a
heretic by an ecumenical council that was approved by the Pope. This act
was both public and manifest which is the appropriate response to the crime.
Caiaphas was a Sadducee. We know from scripture that the Sadducees denied
the resurrection of the body. We also know that they only accepted the
Pentateuch for scriptural authority. That is why when the Sadducees
presented the speculative theological problem of the multiple marriages to
Jesus, He answered correcting their error with a reference from the Pentateuch.
The denial of the resurrection of the body was a heresy. It is a
doctrine directly affirmed by St. Martha to our Lord. Jesus affirmed that
the rulers "sit on the chair of Moses" and therefore they were to be
obeyed but not imitated. Still, when the man born blind was disobedient to the
rules for proclaiming Jesus as a prophet and expelled from the Temple, Jesus
rewarded his disobedience to the legitimate rulers by seeking him out and
revealing to him His divinity.
Quote from: drew
Formal heresy will formally
remove a Catholic formally from the Church just like every mortal sin.
Quote from: An even Seven
Wow. Every mortal sin
removes a Catholic from the Church? It’s amazing that you imply I’m so
uneducated about Catholic Teaching and yet say things like this.
Not every Mortal sin removes one from the Church. Here is an extension of the
quote already provided.
Pope
Pius XII, Mystici Corp. Chris.:”For not every sin, however grave it may be, is
such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or
apostasy.
Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable
of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold
fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are
spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and
are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.”
No sin, no matter how GRAVE, severs a man from the Church as does heresy etc…
He goes on to teach what happens when one is in mortal sin but still in
the Church. That is, lose charity and divine grace, incapable of supernatural
merit. Then says, but they are not deprived of all life implying that those in
heresy etc… are deprived of all life. This has it’s basis in the Dogmatic
Teaching that heretics are not in the Church.
You are the opposite extreme of Stubborn. He doesn’t think that any sin can
sever a man from the Church, you think all mortal sins sever a man. This is too
much, how can I argue with someone who has total disregard for the teachings of
the Popes and Dogma.
You have already admitted that the sin of heresy in the internal forum would
not remove anyone from their office. In this you are correct. So
what does Pope Pius XII mean by saying that the "nature" of heresy,
schism and apostasy to "sever a man from the body of the Church"?
If it were the "nature" of the sin as you understand it, then
itself (formal) heresy, whether in the internal forum alone or the external
forum, in both cases would cause both the formal and material separation from
the Church. It does not. It is the nature of these sins to destroy
the virtue of faith without which repentance is impossible. That is the
reason for the separation from the Church by these sins.
But the problem is different when examined from either a legal perspective or a
moral perspective. From the legal perspective it is the human law of the
Church the removes materially a heretic from the Church. These human laws
have an ipso facto penalties of excommunication. The law imposes the
penalty but the law does not materially impose the guilt. The guilt must
always be materially proven through due process. That is the nature of
human law.
From a moral perspective it may be easier to understand. The
Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same. The
"soul of the Church" is the Holy Ghost. The soul is coextensive
with every living part of the body. A Catholic in mortal sin no longer
has sanctifying grace, no longer has the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, he is an
enemy of God and has lost the right to eternal life in heaven. He has
lost God's friendship. He is no longer is a member of the Mystical Body
of Christ. He is a dead to the life of Christ. So how is still a
member of the Church since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ?
Every mortal sin formally removes a Catholic from the Church but not
materially. Just as a dead limb can still be part of a tree but the life
of three is lost to the dead limb. The dead limb is formally removed from
the life of the tree but is not materially removed. When the sin does not
attack the virtue of Faith, the Church does not materially exclude the sinner
from the Church. Schism, heresy and apostasy are sins against the virtue
of Faith. They like all mortal sins formally separate the sinner from the
Church. If the heresy is only in the internal forum, perhaps known only
to a confessor and God, there is no ipso facto material separation from the
Church. These sins by their nature can but do not necessarily lead to material
separation from the Church. It is the nature of these sins that when they are
in the external forum they can lead to the Church to materially separate the
heretic for the sake of the faithful. If heresy in and of itself always
and everywhere caused material separation then, the Church would not be visible
because sins of the internal forum are unknown to all but God. It
therefore is the nature of heresy, apostasy and schism to materially separate
the sinner from the Church because they attack the virtue of Faith. That
is the normal natural course of development but this is not absolute, it is not
a necessary result. The moral and legal cause of material separation from
the Church is the good of the Faithful and not the heresy itself.
I do not expect any reply from you on this question. You only have a
fixed slogan for a pat answer.
I do not pretend to have definitive answers to these questions but my
understanding of this question is in accord with Catholic Dogma, principles of
moral theology, and Church law and they do not lead to conclusions that a
clearly and manifestly offensive to Catholic Faith.
You cannot say the same.
Quote from: drew
A heretic that is removed materially
from the Church is done so by the human law of the Church which imposes ipso
facto penalties by law that can only be imposed after due process determination
of guilt.
Quote from: An even Seven
Every time you talk about “ipso facto” penalties you show your ignorance of it
more and more. Ipso facto and a penalty imposed after due process are opposite
from each other. Ipso facto excommunicates by the act of the violation. This is
done before due process or else it would have no meaning. If the act required
due process, ipso facto could not be applied. This is easily understood if one
were to only read the quotes provided before.
We are not trying to determine whether these claimants are heretics based on
what we think they believe in their hearts. No one could do that so that
assertion is irrelevant. They manifested their heresies through word/deed
before their election and have done so ever since their false elevations.
Ipso facto laws will lead to immediate formal excommunication but not material
excommunication. You already admitted this when you agreed that a heretic
in the internal forum alone would not lose his office. For a legal ipso
facto penalty to be imposed by the law in the external forum for heresy
requires determination of guilt. The same is true for secular criminal
laws. For example, a state may have a law that if a gun is used in an
armed robbery then a mandatory sentence of ten years is imposed by the law.
These laws impose ipso facto the penalty for the crime but they do not do
so until there is a due process determination of guilt.
These laws are human laws of the Church. God has bound them in the
internal forum but God does not always see that the criminal is brought to
human justice.
Quote from: drew
Have you considered a name
for your church?
Quote from: An even Seven
Catholic.
How about you? Maybe the sometimes-catholic church? The fifth-pillar-catholic
church? The material-catholic church? The defective-catholic church? The
unable-to-legitimately-govern-because-the-pope-is-a-heretic-catholic church?
Your church cannot be the Catholic Church. You have no pope. As
they say, 'better a leg that limps than no leg at all.'
Many saints and theologians have speculated that the Church would recapitulate
in her life the life of Christ on earth. Jesus said that He was the
"light of the world." And so He is. He then said that his
Church would carry on this light after his Ascension. He told them that
they would be the "light of the world." On occasions there were
those who were scandalized by the doctrine and cross of Jesus and left him.
In his passion it was nearly everyone. The Church seems to me to be
still in the Garden of Olives where we saw the first collective decision of the
Apostolic College, "they all fled." Sedevacantism is just one a
several directions to flee. But all those who have made the pope their
Rule of Faith will fail this trial.
Quote from: drew
Lacking a public charge of
heresy and an admission of guilt, the determination of guilt requires due
process in the external forum for penalty of law to be imposed.
Quote from: An even Seven
Then ipso facto has no meaning. If a Catholic hears another Baptized person
saying that there are three Gods in the Trinity, even though he says he knows
the Church teaches that there are three persons in One God, do we have to say
that this statement is orthodox and this person is a Catholic until a court
says that the statement is heretical and that person a heretic. Or can we say
that statement is heresy and that person a heretic? This person is ipso facto
severed from the Church without any further official Church Statement. That is,
by that very fact. Therefore, he is unable to become Pope because he is not
Catholic.
Take another witness with you to correct their error. If they will not
hear either of you, take them to the Church. If they will not hear the
Church then let me treated as the heathen and the publican. If the Church will
not correct them, you have done all you are morally required to do. You
do not have the authority to do what the Church has failed to do. You
want to make yourself the "lord of the harvest." The pope is your
Rule of Faith and since you reject his rule, you want to usurp an office that
is not yours. You want to determine and enforce your own canonical
process. You are a thief. You are scandalized by their sin a do not
have the patience to suffer the cross. The cross that God offers, you reject.
Like the disciples in the Garden, you have fled. But don't pretend
to what you have fled is the Catholic Church. You are not one, you are
not holy, you are not catholic, and you have no pope. And without your
"pope," you have lost your Rule of Faith.
This reply is not intended for you. It is for anyone else who might think
that the temptation of sedevacantism is an answer to the crisis in the Catholic
Church.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #160 on: February 05, 2017, 03:35:26 AM »
Quote from: drew
This reply is just
parroting the same erroneous understanding you have of the meaning of the word
"magisterium."
The theologian quoted was to provide a definition of the term "authentic
magisterium." You have been misusing the term constantly in your
posting. Now you are asking for a "Magisterial teaching" to
prove that the definition of the term "authentic magisterium" is
correct! And because this, which does not exist, was not provided it
"shows (my) hypocrisy."
Getting your definitions correct is the first job you have to address before
you can even try to reason.
This is the point. Just because a theologian says something is the definition
of “Magisterium”, doesn’t make it so. Especially when that theologian says it
can err and is contradicting a Pope when he’s teaching that this KIND of
Magisterium is unable to err. I’m sorry that you have trouble understanding
that. So whatever the definition of it is, it cannot err. How could the Church
banish one who departs, even in the least way, from its Authentic Magisterium,
if this Magisterium could err? It contradicts your teaching.
Quote from: drew
I do not know of any
Dogmatic definitions that begin by saying "This is a Dogma." A
Dogmatic definition gives evidence of itself by meeting specific criteria.
You must learn what those criteria are.
You said:” Firstly, the document is not even a decree claiming to be
"Dogmatic" within the context of the council.”
This implies that a decree has to claim itself to be Dogmatic for it to be so.
It doesn't matter anyway because it meets Vatican I's definition for Ex
Cathedra.
Quote from: drew
Vatican II never defined
any doctrine and proposed it as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.
Dogma requires a formal definition on faith and/or morals with the intent
to bind all the faithful for all time.
If the council declares that something is of divine revelation and has not been
defined up to that point, then yes, it intends to define. V II taught that
Religious Liberty is part of Divine Revelation. You’re ignoring this. You
merely give your canned answers that you learned from the “society”.
Quote from: drew
My complaint is that you
took a quotation from DH out of context to imply that the teaching for
Religious Liberty was from "divine Revelation." This is lie and
now reply by repeating the lie. You are an ass if think anyone has to listed to
your distortions.
You better be careful. After this statement people might begin to see who you
really are.
The language is extremely clear in DH. Rel. Lib., according to the “council” is
of Divine Revelation.
Quote from: drew
Rather than reply again to
you, which is clearly wasted effort. I invite anyone else to compare your
claim with the actual text of paragraph nine. The declaration describes
what is means by "roots in divine Revelation" and that description
says explicitly that this novel doctrine is not taught in divine Revelation but
extrapolated from what is calls, "dignity of the human person in its full
dimensions."
I invite anyone to do so also. I also hope that they will not ignore paragraph
12 like you have done. This is where is gives the meaning of what is said.
” In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following
the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the
principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in
accord with divine revelation.”
Faithful to the TRUTH of the Gospel? In accord with DIVINE REVELATION? Uh
Oh…looks like V II is teaching to the entire “church” that Rel. Lib. can be
found in the Revelation of God and the Holy Ghost is the Author of it.
Quote from: drew
Those who say, as you have,
that DH claims that Religious Liberty is of divine Revelation are liars that
intentionally distort the text out of context to deceive others.
Those who say, as you have, that DH does not claim that Religious Liberty is of
Divine Revelation either haven’t read the text, are incapable of comprehension,
or have as their motive the destruction of souls.
Do you believe it’s the infallible teaching of the Church that Religious
Liberty is condemned?
Quote from: drew
Heresy is the rejection of
Dogma
Do you believe the Dogma that heretics are outside the Church? If so, how can
you have a non-Catholic be your Pope?
Quote from: drew
I do not know Fr. O'Reilly
but if your reference is accurate and not out of context as you did with
your reference to DH, what possible authority is this! When you read an
article by Fr. Fenton in AER you will typically find references to a dozen or
more expert theologians on both sides of any given question
I am supposed to listen to your theologian and you won’t listen to mine. LOL.
I can prove from the Popes that all types or kinds of Magisterium, assuming
they’re not just different words used to describe the same Magisterium, cannot
err. You cannot prove that any type of Magisterium can err. I can prove from
history that there are times where this is no Pope reigning a given time, you
cannot prove that there is a limit to how long that time can last.
This is your problem and I hope you gain your “eyesight”, you do not start with
the actual authority. The Pope is God’s human authority in the Church, he is
the mouthpiece through which Dogmas are taught, not Fenton and his buddies.
Until you have respect for the Office of the Teaching Authority in the Church
you will remain blind.
Quote from: drew
You have already admitted
that the sin of heresy in the internal forum would not remove anyone from their
office. In this you are correct. So what does Pope Pius XII mean by
saying that the "nature" of heresy, schism and apostasy to
"sever a man from the body of the Church"?
We are talking about different things here. You are talking about a Pope who
becomes a heretic. I am talking about a heretic who gets elected Pope. We know
what the Saints say about what happens to a Pope who becomes a heretic, which
BTW you deny. That’s fine. The problem is that a public heretic cannot be
elected Pope. This is the infallible teaching of the Church. I can post it for
you if you want. There is proof in the external forum that these men were
heretics before their elections.
Quote from: drew
He then said that his
Church would carry on this light after his Ascension. He told them that
they would be the "light of the world."
I must have missed the part
where our Lord said that the man who is to govern in His place would not have
the Faith.
Also, could you please respond to the questions I asked Pax in reply to his CE
quote?
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #161 on: February 05, 2017, 06:06:35 PM »
Quote from: drew
I do not know of any
Dogmatic definitions that begin by saying "This is a Dogma." A
Dogmatic definition gives evidence of itself by meeting specific criteria.
You must learn what those criteria are.
Quote from: An even Seven
You said:” Firstly, the
document is not even a decree claiming to be "Dogmatic" within the
context of the council.”
This implies that a decree has to claim itself to be Dogmatic for it to be so.
It doesn't matter anyway because it meets Vatican I's definition for Ex
Cathedra.
Hardly the point. Vatican II published two "Dogmatic constitutions"
which contained no Dogma. The point was that DH, a pastoral
"declaration" never ever made this pretense.
Quote from: drew
Vatican II never defined
any doctrine and proposed it as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.
Dogma requires a formal definition on faith and/or morals with the intent
to bind all the faithful for all time.
Quote from: An even Seven
If the council declares that something is of divine revelation and has not been
defined up to that point, then yes, it intends to define. V II taught that
Religious Liberty is part of Divine Revelation. You’re ignoring this. You
merely give your canned answers that you learned from the “society”.
Quote from: drew
My complaint is that you
took a quotation from DH out of context to imply that the teaching for
Religious Liberty was from "divine Revelation." This is lie and
now reply by repeating the lie. You are an ass if think anyone has to listed to
your distortions.
Quote from: An even Seven
You better be careful. After this statement people might begin to see who you
really are.
The language is extremely clear in DH. Rel. Lib., according to the “council” is
of Divine Revelation.
Quote from: drew
Rather than reply again to
you, which is clearly wasted effort. I invite anyone else to compare your
claim with the actual text of paragraph nine. The declaration describes
what is means by "roots in divine Revelation" and that description
says explicitly that this novel doctrine is not taught in divine Revelation but
extrapolated from what is calls, "dignity of the human person in its full
dimensions."
Quote from: An even Seven
I invite anyone to do so also. I also hope that they will not ignore paragraph
12 like you have done. This is where is gives the meaning of what is said.
"In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is
following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives
support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man
and as being in accord with divine revelation."
Faithful to the TRUTH of the Gospel? In accord with DIVINE REVELATION? Uh
Oh…looks like V II is teaching to the entire “church” that Rel. Lib. can be
found in the Revelation of God and the Holy Ghost is the Author of it.
Quote from: drew
Those who say, as you have,
that DH claims that Religious Liberty is of divine Revelation are liars that
intentionally distort the text out of context to deceive others.
Quote from: An even Seven
Those who say, as you have,
that DH does not claim that Religious Liberty is of Divine Revelation either
haven’t read the text, are incapable of comprehension, or have as their motive
the destruction of souls.
Do you believe it’s the infallible teaching of the Church that Religious
Liberty is condemned?
Quote from: Dignitatis
Humanae, Pastoral Declaration on Religious Freedom, Vatican II
9. The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious
freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have
come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience.
What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for
this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously.
Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity
from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the
dignity of the human person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the
respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his
duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which
disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow. Thus further
light is cast upon the general principles upon which the doctrine of this
declaration on religious freedom is based. In particular, religious freedom in
society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.
12. In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is
following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives
support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man
and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages the Church
has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the
apostles. In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way
through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of
acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed
to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced
into faith has always stood firm.
Thus the leaven of the Gospel has long been about its quiet work in the minds
of men, and to it is due in great measure the fact that in the course of time
men have come more widely to recognize their dignity as persons, and the
conviction has grown stronger that the person in society is to be kept free
from all manner of coercion in matters religious.
No one is claiming that Vatican II did not teach heresy. What is denied
is that heresy was ever formally imposed as an object of divine and Catholic
faith and that any novelty was claimed to be part of the ordinary and universal
teaching of the Church. It is a repeated fact of history that any intent
to define or impose as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith
doctrine was denied by every single councilar principle before, during and
after the Council. All three of these are necessary to formulate DOGMA.
You have claimed that DH is equivalent to the Dogmatic declaration of
Pope Pius XII on the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
To defend this absurdity you took a quotation out of context from
paragraph 9 on three occasions. Now you add to your folly by taking a
quotation from paragraph 12.
In paragraph 9, what is claimed to "have its roots in divine
revelation" is the "dignity of the human person."
This is true and confirmed in scripture and tradition and the divine
liturgies in both East and West such as, "O God who hast wonderfully
formed man's exalted nature, and still more wonderfully restored it." From
the psalms, "Who hast made him (man) a little less than the Angels..."
The paragraph specifically says that "Revelation does not indeed affirm
in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters
religious." It affirms from the "dignity of the human
person" that "religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with
the freedom of the act of Christian faith." No novelty is
claimed to be grounded in divine revelation.
In paragraph 12, says, "In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the
Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she
recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting
the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation" and
concludes that, "nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one
is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm."
What is affirmed from apostolic tradition is that "no one is to be
coerced into the faith." This is the constant teaching of the Church
that no one can be forced to accept the Catholic faith. It is affirmed in the
document regarding the Jews which the Church applied all throughout the middle
ages, Sicut Judaeis non, published by St. Gregory the Great. No
one was to harm them, but they were not to be forced to convert, they were to
be given no positions of cultural influence, they were not permitted public
worship in Catholic lands.
The novelty of Religious Freedom is the doctrine that the dignity of the human
person is so great that he is entitled by God his creator to ignore His
revelation and disobey His commandments. That novelty is nowhere affirmed in
these citations and no claim to this novelty is made from divine revelation.
Nowhere in this citation it is affirmed that any person possesses a right
to practice a false religion.
You take citations clearly out of context to support you ideology. You
corrupt the Dogma of infallibility by denying the Dogmatic necessity for
definition of doctrine and Dogmatic intention to bind, and lastly you
corrupt the meaning of "magisterium" by conflating the
Ex-Cathedra declaration of Catholic Dogma of the Assumption with a
"pastoral declaration" which again evidences that you have no
idea what the word "magisterium" means.
This bizarre corruption can only be due to stupidity or malice. It
follows from making the pope the Rule of Faith. You belong to a church
that has no pope and will never get one, so you have lost your Rule of Faith
which is reduced to sedevacantist slogans which you repeat like a magical
mantra.
Drew
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #162 on: February 06, 2017, 02:37:25 AM »
Quote from: drew
Vatican II published two
"Dogmatic constitutions" which contained no Dogma. The point
was that DH, a pastoral "declaration" never ever made this pretense.
So…how does something being “pastoral” make it non-Dogmatic? There are no
Church Teachings on the Authority of something being pastoral. If you are
referring to what your “pope” John said, your argument fails.
John XXIII said that the magisterium is predominantly pastoral in character.
That hardly means that the V II Docs. were not intended to be infallible, just
the opposite.
Quote from: John XXIII
Opening Speech to the
Council: “In calling this vast assembly of bishops, the latest and humble
successor to the Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you intended to assert
once again the magisterium (teaching authority), which is unfailing and
perdures until the end of time, in order that this magisterium, taking
into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time,
might be presented in extraordinary form to all men throughout the world.”
“The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing,
and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must
be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being
measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is
predominantly pastoral in character.”
So as you can see, John was merely talking about how the DOCTRINE is to be
presented. The Magisterium, is pastoral according to him. Whatever that means
to him, it surely doesn’t mean it is fallible.
I encourage you to read his whole speech and you’ll see that it is clear from
the context that the “council” was definitely meant to be infallible. Whatever
pastoral means for you in regards to DH, it definitely can’t mean fallible.
Quote from: drew
Quote
Dignitatis Humanae,
Pastoral Declaration on Religious Freedom, Vatican II said:
9. The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious
freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies
have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of
experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in
divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it
all the more conscientiously. Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many
words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious.
It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full
dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the
freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and
it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to
adopt and continually follow. Thus further light is cast upon the general
principles upon which the doctrine of this declaration on religious freedom is
based. In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with
the freedom of the act of Christian faith.
12. In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is
following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives
support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of
man and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages the
Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and
from the apostles. In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim
way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a
way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even
opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be
coerced into faith has always stood firm.
Thus the leaven of the Gospel has long been about its quiet work in the minds
of men, and to it is due in great measure the fact that in the course of time
men have come more widely to recognize their dignity as persons, and the
conviction has grown stronger that the person in society is to be kept free
from all manner of coercion in matters religious.
In paragraph 9, what is claimed to "have its roots in divine
revelation" is the "dignity of the human person."
The Doc says that “Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right
of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does,
however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions.”
That’s all well and good. Revelation discloses the dignity of the person in its
full dimensions. This is why I say that the truth is not in you. You are being
deceptive. The Doc also says this: “…this doctrine of freedom has roots in
divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all
the more conscientiously”. The Doc, in #9 explains it through the context that
the Rel. Lib. has roots in the dignity of the human person and the dignity of
the human person has it’s roots in Divine Revelation. This is clear because
after that and in #12 it explicitly says that it has it’s roots in Divine
Revelation. In #12 it clarifies, if there was any doubt as to what it means
when it says: “the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of
man and as being in accord with divine revelation”. It says it befits the
diginity of man AND is in accord with Divine Revelation.
No matter how you look at it, if you can read, it is saying Religious Liberty
(Freedom) is a part of Divine Revelation.
In #2 of DH the "council" DECLARES exactly what this doctrine of Rel.
Lib. is.
Quote
# 2: “This Vatican synod
declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such
freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion
by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be
forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented
from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public,
within due limits… This right of the human person to religious freedom
should have such recognition in the regulation of society as to become a civil
right"
It's not just saying that a person can't be forced to be Catholic. It's saying
that a person has liberty of conscience, that they can't be prevented from
practicing their "religion" in public, and that this freedom should
be a civil right. This is totally against Church teaching. And DH claims it is
divinely revealed.
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.
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #163 on: February 07, 2017, 11:07:40 AM »
This video is very
informative and relevant.
Fr. Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15a18baebd9a18f3?projector=1
The
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Quote from: knish
SSPX
- I'm still yet to hear a coherent response to the question of indefectibility,
wrt the SSPX position. The Church is indefectible, but has provided evil
liturgy and magisterial teaching for 50 years -- that's impossible
FSSP/Indult - Perhaps the dumbest position. If there's nothing wrong with the
NO or Vatican II, why the heck do they exist? Why do they disturb the diocesan
model? If this is the correct response, why not just attend the NO, as
according to them, it nourishes the faith to the same degree the TLM does. Of
course, this isn't the practical position of the FSSP. They're essentially
cowardly SSPX.
Sedevacantism - Seems wonderful at first, but there are holes -- big holes. How
is the Church one? How is there still apostolicity when there isn't one Bishop
who isn't a heretic with ordinary jurisdiction? How do we get a new Pope?
Normie V2 Catholic - No explanation necessary
Eastern Orthodoxy - Not one or catholic
So, what is it? What's the solution to the crisis? I'm all out of guesses.
Consider looking at the problem of
Indefectibility from another perspective.
St. Pius X in Pascendi says “every society needs a directing authority to guide
its members toward the common end, to foster prudently the elements of
cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship; hence, the
triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, Dogmatic and liturgical”
(emphasis his). Note that the purpose of the “directing authority” (i.e.
disciplinary) is to direct the Church “toward the common end” which are
“doctrine” (Dogmatic) and “worship” (liturgical). This “triple authority”
corresponds directly to the three attributes of the Church: Authority,
Infallibility and Indefectibility. An attribute is a specific kind of
property that belongs to the essence of a thing without which the thing would
not be what it is. The “marks of the Church” (one, holy, catholic and
apostolic) are properties but not attributes. A property, as
distinguished from an accident, is always found in a particular kind of thing
but may not be always evident without the thing ceasing to be what it is.
The attribute of Authority possessed by the Church cannot be used validly to
corrupt doctrine or pervert worship. The attribute of Infallibility is the
power to teach the purity of truth without the possibility of error. The
attribute of Indefectibility of the Church pertains primarily to her power to
worship God and sanctify the faithful, that is, the liturgy which is her public
worship of God carried out by the Mystical Body by and through Jesus Christ as
its head and secondarily, the sanctification of that Body with and through this
worship and sacraments.
The purity of liturgical worship is protected in the “received and approved
rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments” which is
a Dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, and not as many believe,
a matter of simple discipline or, as some say, mere “ecclesiastical faith.”
There has always been a remnant of faithful Catholics since the time of Vatican
II who have preserved the “received and approved rites” and our other
immemorial ecclesiastical traditions by which alone the faith can be known and
communicated to others. The worship of God and the sanctification of the
faithful have continued and it is in this that the Indefectibility of the
Church lies. This is the evidence of the Church’s Indefectibility.
The nature of a thing is known by the end to which it is directed. The
Church cannot legitimately and validly exercise any authority that corrupts
doctrine or perverts worship. It does not possess the power to injure the
faith. The fact that churchmen do this is not the essential matter.
The essential matter is that the universal Church has not and will not
accept it. Indefectibility is an attribute of the Church and not of churchmen.
If Indefectibility were an attribute of churchmen then sedevacantism or
FSSP’s acceptance of the Novus Ordo would be the expected responses.
This also explains why the SSPX has failed to defend the faith. The SSPX
regards liturgy as a matter of mere Church discipline subject to the free and
independent will of the legislator and not as formal object of and necessary
attribute to the faith. They hold the liturgy as a matter of simple “ecclesiastical
faith” which the churchmen have given and therefore churchmen can take away.
The other reason for the failure of the SSPX is because they do not regard Dogma
as Dogma. They corrupt Dogma in its very essence and this has been
shown in many posts regarding their belief that a “good” Jew as a Jew, Muslim
as a Muslim, Protestant as a Protestant, Hindu as a Hindu, etc., etc., etc.,
can be in the state of grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church
and obtain salvation. This belief is only possible if Dogma is regarded
as a general theological guide line, an axiom, or truism and not as a formal
object of divine and Catholic faith.
Lastly, the pope is not the “Rule of Faith.” Many believe that the
promise of our Lord to St. Peter in Luke 22: 31-32: “And the Lord said: Simon,
Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once
converted, confirm thy brethren,” was a grace granted not only to St. Peter but
also granted to and possessed by all future popes. They believe the pope
possesses by virtue of his office a “never failing faith” and therefore his
personal faith is the “rule” to which all faithful Catholics must conform.
But the faith of any person can only be known by what he does in the
external forum so the conformity to the pope’s faith must be mean conformity to
whatever the pope does that makes his faith evident. Therefore, if the
pope’s personal faith was the “Rule of Faith,” it would have to extend to all
heresy both material and formal. This historically is untenable.
This opinion of “never failing faith” is directly addressed by Rev. Cornelius a
Lapide in his Great Commentary which references the Church fathers and
other great scriptural scholars. He states specifically that the gift of
never failing faith is a personal gift to St. Peter alone and not to his
successors. The grace granted to the successors of St. Peter is that they
would be protected from teaching error by virtue of the attribute of
infallibility given to the Church. Also, in St. Thomas’ Catena Aurea
commentary on this scriptural passage the belief of a never failing personal
faith of each pope is not even mentioned.
The “Rule of Faith” is the magisterium of the Church expressed in its
extra-ordinary or ordinary and universal mode which is always infallible and to
which it can be invariably said, “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” The
most important “Rule of Faith” is Dogma. When Dogma, the formal object of
divine and Catholic faith, is not regarded as the “Rule of Faith,” than any
error is doctrine or corruption of worship is possible.
Drew