The Trad Forum

De Ecclesia => Crisis & Controversies => Topic started by: Vinny Zee on February 03, 2018, 03:28:21 PM

Title: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 03, 2018, 03:28:21 PM
The Chair of Peter enjoyed Papal Infallibility long before it was dogmatized at the Council of Trent.

In the book The Ecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning (1808–1892) he explains the position of Saint Robert Bellarmine on Popes and heresy.  I am sure I am not saying anything here many of you have never read or discussed, but I would like to reiterate it here for I feel it is necessary for the purposes of my post. Bellarmine discusses four possible positions on the topic. Manning says the following:

“No better analysis can be found than that of Bellarmine which I will therefore simply transcribe. After saying that the Pontiff may be considered in four ways, (1) As a private person, (2) As a private Doctor, (3) As Pontiff alone with his counsellors, (4) As Pontiff with a General Council Bellarmine says ‘Both Catholics and heretics agree in two things that the Pontiff even as Pontiff and with his or even with a General Council may err in controversies as to particular facts which chiefly depend on the information and testimonies of men; secondly that the Pontilf as a private doctor may err even in questions of faith and morals and that from ignorance as at times happens to other doctors.’

Manning then continues with Bellarmine, “Next all Catholics agree in two other things not indeed with heretics but among themselves, First that the Pontiff with a General Council cannot err in framing decrees of faith or general precepts of morals. Secondly that the Pontiff alone or with his own private Council whether he may err or not in deciding anything in a dubious matter is nevertheless to be obediently listened to by all the faithful. These points so disposed of only four opinions remain”:

“The first is that the Pontiff even as Pontiff although he define a doctrine with a General Council may be a heretic himself and teach heresy. This is the opinion of all heretics especially of Luther and Calvin”

“The second that the Pontiff even as Pontiff may be a heretic and may teach heresy if he define without a General Council. This is the opinion of Nilus and the later Greeks of Gerson Almain and others.”

“The third that the Pontiff cannot in any way be heretical or publicly teach heresy even though he alone frame a definition which is the opinion of Pighius in book iv chap 3 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.”

“The fourth which lies between these extremes, is, that the Pontiff, whether personally he can be a heretic or no, cannot, in any event, define anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church. ‘This is the most common opinion of nearly all Catholics’ as S Thomas says.”

I am considering numbers 3 and 4.  Bellarmine dismissed the first as heretical and the second as, “altogether erroneous, and proximate to heresy”. Bellarmine thought the third as, “probable, but not certain.”  Bellarmine then termed the fourth position “most certain, and to be asserted.”  Bellarmine also stated, “Opinion implies uncertainty and we hold this judgment to be certain.”

I have not read every opinion, (R&R or otherwise which is why I bring it here) but it appears to me this fourth position is often misstated and/or misunderstood.  The fourth position is NOT that the Pope can fall into heresy, but cannot teach heresy.  It appears rather, the fourth position is asserted without answering the question as to whether or not the Pope can fall into heresy. Bellarmine stated, “The fourth position lies between the extremes” and he definitively says the Pope absolutely cannot define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church.  Manning also went on to say, “The words ex cathedra exclude all acts of the Pontiff as a private person or as a private Doctor, and confine the character of infallibility to those acts which are promulgated from the Chair of supreme authority as Universal Doctor of the Church in faith and morals.”

I DO NOT deny the infallibility of the Pope, as even Cardinal Manning explains, “For fourteen hundred years – the doctrine of the stability of the faith of Peter in his See and in his successor was in possession, by the immemorial and universal tradition of the Church. From this it follows that they who deny it are innovators; that they who affirm the infallibility of the Pontiff, speaking ex cathedra, to be a novelty recently introduced, are, in the form of their argument, fighting in rank with those who affirm the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be an innovation of the Council of Lateran, and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity an innovation of the Council of Nicaea.”

However, did the dogmatic declaration of the doctrine of infallibility ultimately lead to sedevacantism?  It is clear the church always held to the doctrine of papal infallibility, but without it being dogmatized there could be questions and debates as they appeared. My understanding has always been once something is dogmatically declared it cannot be questioned. Was the promulgation of this doctrine the catalyst to allow it to be hijacked and innovations to then be introduced under the guise of, “infallibility?”

If the infallibility of the Pope cannot be in question any longer, then the only possibility is sedevacantism when the Pope promulgates something questionable (i.e. Amoris Laetitia, etc). Without it as a defined dogma, it appears the church could have much easier navigated Vatican II and post Vatican II.  It seems to me that the promulgation of the dogma hamstrung a lot of people who better understood loyalty to the Chair of Peter than they did the documents of Vatican II or what came after.   

Is it possible all have held to the third position too closely, which Bellarmine said was, “Probable, but not certain,” i.e. “the Pontiff cannot in any way be heretical or publicly teach heresy even though he alone frame a definition?”  Have not all camps taken what Bellarmine said was, “probably, but not certain,” and used it to carve out their territory? 

Within 88 years after the promulgation of papal infallibility, it was alleged the chair was vacant.  The chair has since been vacant for 60 years.  Is it not troubling that within 148 years of the promulgation of this doctrine, the chair went vacant and remained that way? Does the doctrine of papal infallibility have anything to do with this or is it the church’s understanding of this doctrine in some way that contributes to this issue?

Police body cameras, microphones and dash cameras have revealed to us Police work is a very messy job, sometimes not well done and ultimately shocking to what the job really contains. Papal infallibility appears to have had this same effect. Like the police who have every movement of their shift recorded, we now hear a Pope speak all the time, act all the time, travel all the time. While he does this, we have the ringing of infallibility in our ears.  Like the police we want to so desperately trust in all their dealings, it shocks our consciences when we see a police video the had disturbing results.  Do we inevitably expect the pope’s infallibility to shine forth with an impeccability beyond what was intended?  Has the reality of infallibility lets us down over and over?

Individuals may attempt to draw a distinction today between the Pope in his private opinions, actions and beliefs vs. when he is speaking from the chair of Peter ex cathedra.  However, it seems to me the doctrine of infallibility no longer makes this possible. A police officer is understood to have his/her own life, be off duty, and enjoy the same freedoms we all enjoy when not wearing the uniform. The reality is that a police officer can never detach themselves from the image and title of police officer.  I do not think the Church (Sede or not) can detach themselves from the infallible nature of the Pope and see a Bishop or a sinner when the situation necessitates, much less can the Pope ever be detached from "infallibility."

So rather than, “Anything but Sedevacantism,” isn’t it actually, “Catholic, but sedevacantism is all that is left.”  So in reality, “Nothing left but sedevacantism?”
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: TKGS on February 03, 2018, 04:45:17 PM
So rather than, “Anything but Sedevacantism,” isn’t it actually, “Catholic, but sedevacantism is all that is left.”  So in reality, “Nothing left but sedevacantism?”

I don't think you'll find many sedevacantists who would disagree with this.  The phrase, "Anything but Sedevacantism", is a description of most R&R folks and conservative Novus Ordo folks and other Conciliarists. 

They hold most of the Catholic Faith, but they absolutely reject the doctrines concerning the nature of the Church and the papacy, which, of course, puts them, ipso facto, outside the Church since they manifestly proclaim heresy.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 03, 2018, 11:31:08 PM
So rather than, “Anything but Sedevacantism,” isn’t it actually, “Catholic, but sedevacantism is all that is left.”  So in reality, “Nothing left but sedevacantism?”

I don't think you'll find many sedevacantists who would disagree with this.  The phrase, "Anything but Sedevacantism", is a description of most R&R folks and conservative Novus Ordo folks and other Conciliarists. 

They hold most of the Catholic Faith, but they absolutely reject the doctrines concerning the nature of the Church and the papacy, which, of course, puts them, ipso facto, outside the Church since they manifestly proclaim heresy.

What are your thoughts on the other questions I raised? They were not facetious or rhetorical, but legitimate questions I have.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 04, 2018, 01:51:05 AM
It's good to be thinking about such serious and important questions.  Obviously, as Catholics we are morally bound to believe (and we do, else we would not be here on such forums as this) that the Pope is infallible, at least in his official capacity as Pope, and possibly in all his actions, as Pighius ventured.  Certainly, a gross and evident failure on the part of the man to be infallible, not only in his private capacity, but in his official capacity, and furthermore aggravated by a continuous and ongoing attempt to impose his errors and heresies on the whole Church, complete with even penalties and punitive measures for those who refuse to follow him into his errors and heresies, absolutely has to be evidence that the man is no Pope, no matter what anyone thinks, or how many think so.

Some see such a man's ability to do these things as being in and of themselves the reason or cause of his failure to be a real Catholic Pope.  Such a view of things conjures up a picture of a Pope, one day deciding to teach and impose heresy upon the Church, and the Church is just supposed to sense that this has happened and somehow pick up and continue without him.  Or else it conjures up a picture of the legitimate electors of the Church's next Pope choosing a raving heretic as the next Pope, the raving heretic nominally accepting the office to the complete satisfaction of said electors (cardinals or whoever) despite no real valid reason to believe he has accepted the role of being the infallible Successor of Peter to the whole Catholic Church.  These views just don't wash, for they imply a serious weakness in the structure of the Church, or in God's protection and guarantee and promises, as could (and certainly would) have destroyed the Church ages ago.  Has the Church (and all Catholics up until Vatican II) merely been terribly lucky for so long a period, only to have that luck finally run out and evaporate like a gambler's lucky streak?

Even worse, such a scenario merely but directly pits each and every Catholic against the Pope.  Suddenly, every Catholic must say to the Pope, "I'm right about this or that Church doctrine, and you are wrong; you are a heretic, your Holiness!" with the only difference from every heretic who has done the same thing being that known and documented Catholic truth is strangely and suddenly so totally and conclusively on our side for the very first time where before (for all the heretics down through the ages) it never was.  We are certain because we have and know what over 260 real and indisputable Catholic Popes have taught us over nearly twenty centuries to back us up, but then heretics before did have other things virtually as good:  the known and documented teachings of the ancient Church Fathers, Sacred Scripture, and so forth.  But of course, the heretics misunderstood and/or misrepresented the teachings of the ancient Church Fathers and Sacred Scripture, and so forth, whereas we rightly understand all of those things plus also the universal teachings of so very many Popes and all Ecumenical (and lesser) Councils (up until Vatican II, anyway).  Or at least it so legitimately seems to us; who is there to arbitrate between we real Catholics and "the Pope" in this case?  Who is there to come along and tell us officially in the name of the Church that "yes, you were correct to oppose and reject the Vatican II Popes and their teachings"?

Fortunately, we really do have a real advantage over the heretics; we have the antecedent and a priori departure of the Vatican leadership from the Papal office; we have the creation of the whole Novus Ordo apparatus in parallel to the real Catholic Church; we have the real Catholic Church, in the form of dozens of faithful bishops, hundreds of priests and consecrated religious, and laity in the millions continuing on faithful and indefectible, truly separate and distinct from the fallen Vatican apparatus, all things that Catholic theology tells us positively must exist as the Church must always exist, infallible, indefectible, and with all other marks and attributes of the Church.  The Sede Vacante finding is key to understanding our situation.  But it is true not merely because the Vatican leader fails to be a Pope, but because we who truly comprise the Church fail to have a Pope.  And the fact that the Vatican leaders have failed to be Popes from at least as far back as Vatican II onward is a fact which does not exist in isolation from everything else about the Church but part and parcel with a larger body of facts that begin with the Vatican organization not being the Catholic Church in any sense at all, no more than the Mormons or the Methodists, but that we traditional Catholics all taken together do comprise that Church today.

Such questions should lead one to study theology and ecclesiology and especially the doctrine pertaining to the nature and functioning of the Church.  These standard theological manuals will speak of the attributes and marks of the Church, that it is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, that it has Infallibility and Indefectibility and authority, and is the Mystical Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and all of what those things mean (and what they don't mean, as well).  If in reading all of this you try to picture all of that applying to "Francis" Bergoglio and the society he runs you scratch your head and go "wow, this just makes no sense at all!  Either these teachings are just not true anymore, or, ..." - what?  But if in reading all of this you picture all of that applying to we traditional Catholics, it all makes all the sense in the world and everything just falls so neatly into place.  It's like putting a puzzle together.  Mating today's Vatican apparatus to the ecclesiological doctrines of the Church is like jamming all the wrong pieces together, forcing things to kind-of sort-of semi-fit some of them together (though the colors will seldom match) in some random pattern which makes no sense and leaves many gaps and pieces left over with nowhere to go.  But mating the traditional Catholics to the ecclesiological doctrines of the Church is like putting them together the way they were all meant to fit; each one fits perfectly as if it were made for where it goes because it was so made, all of them fit perfectly with none missing and none extra, and the whole set as so put together forms a cohesive and unified picture worth looking at.  With that whole grand picture in view, so many questions are answered with the authority of the Church and every "mystery" pertaining to the nature of our current circumstance is easily seen to be solved.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 04, 2018, 01:53:12 AM
Your illustration about the police cameras is an interesting speculation.  But it doesn't fit the Pope situation since, even though most ordinary Catholics around the world were not exposed to the daily functioning of the Pope the way modern news media so enables us, but those in Rome and especially those working closely with the Pope on a daily basis would have been so exposed and had Popes been full of things the ordinary Catholic would rather not know, surely someone would have written of it.  And in fact some Popes who truly failed to live properly as Popes ought were so written up, but none of these critical writings of weak and corrupt Popes ever once accused any of them, even the worst, of actual heresy, a most surprising fact to contemplate.

And for that matter, police only wear their body cameras while on duty - sort of like a Pope's infallibility only being certain while teaching in his official capacity as Pope.

As for all that theology I talked about in my previous post, that is the whole point and value and purpose of my Sede Vacante! books.  Many people find pleasure in figuring out where some puzzle piece fits, how could any Catholic not equally, or far more in fact, find such pleasure in seeing how the theological/ecclesiological puzzle pieces all fit together even for today's situation?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 04, 2018, 10:39:06 AM
Your illustration about the police cameras is an interesting speculation.  But it doesn't fit the Pope situation ...

And for that matter, police only wear their body cameras while on duty - sort of like a Pope's infallibility only being certain while teaching in his official capacity as Pope.


I understand you feel the police analogy does not fit the Pope situation, but in some regard it does, doesn't it? As you stated, the police wearing their body cameras is analogous to the Pope's infallibility only being certain while in his official capacity.  Remember I did conclude with the following statement, "A police officer is understood to have his/her own life, be off duty, and enjoy the same freedoms we all enjoy when not wearing the uniform. The reality is that a police officer can never detach themselves from the image and title of police officer.  I do not think the Church (Sede or not) can detach themselves from the infallible nature of the Pope and see a Bishop or a sinner when the situation necessitates, much less can the Pope ever be detached from "infallibility."

A Police Officer should be allowed to go home and be a normal citizen like you or I, but the reality is that is not the case. The neighbors know who they are and the media will definitely know who they are if they make a mistake while off-duty in their "private capacity." This is how I also see what happens with the Pope. At what point do we (or anyone in the world) allow him to be Bishop and Private theologian? I think we do not, at least not any longer. We may consider him a private person if it is something we don't care about, i.e. he likes tuna sandwiches on Tuesdays for lunch. In that regard we don't mind him being a Bishop in his private capacity. However, if while in his private capacity, he is doing or saying something that is dear to us, we will immediately recognize it is not the Bishop doing or saying something, but the Pope.   
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 04, 2018, 11:15:03 AM
It's good to be thinking about such serious and important questions.  Obviously, as Catholics we are morally bound to believe (and we do, else we would not be here on such forums as this) that the Pope is infallible, at least in his official capacity as Pope, and possibly in all his actions, as Pighius ventured.

Bellarmine thought the third position as, “probable, but not certain.” If a doctor of the church has declared it as such, then I feel it is best for me to follow Dr. Bellarmine.  The entire point of my post was that because we tend to fall to the third position this inevitably creates the situation we are in. It is not just one camp, as I stated, all camps do it.  One camp, who sees the pope as infallible, blanket infallibility, just won't see anything wrong with him. They could never admit the pope sins or errs. Other camps apply infallibility to everything he does and says, "see, how could we follow such a man?"

Has the Church (and all Catholics up until Vatican II) merely been terribly lucky for so long a period, only to have that luck finally run out and evaporate like a gambler's lucky streak?

Is it possible that as the church has gained understanding of what exactly infallibility means it has become impossible for us to accept the reality of it now? Can you site any evidence anywhere where sedevacantism was given as a second option to a pope we can't stomach (i.e. allow to be infallible?) This option has been for the most part just created.  We are 60 years into an "interregnum." There are many sedes who take on the sede position, not because they're convinced the chair is actually vacant. They take on the sede position because they can't stomach Bergoglio. There are a whole let of new Sedes out there, who were quite content with Benedict XVI and JP II. This point leads to your next comment.

Even worse, such a scenario merely but directly pits each and every Catholic against the Pope.  Suddenly, every Catholic must say to the Pope, "I'm right about this or that Church doctrine, and you are wrong; you are a heretic, your Holiness!"

Yes, this I think is exactly what appears to be happening. "I know what infallibility really means now and I refuse to apply it to you, your holiness."  Why would anyone call a heretic, "Your Holiness?" All of the above statements are right out of the reformation. It is a terrible situation we find ourselves in today.

Fortunately, we really do have a real advantage over the heretics; we have the antecedent and a priori departure of the Vatican leadership from the Papal office; we have the creation of the whole Novus Ordo apparatus in parallel to the real Catholic Church; we have the real Catholic Church, in the form of dozens of faithful bishops, hundreds of priests and consecrated religious, and laity in the millions continuing on faithful and indefectible, truly separate and distinct from the fallen Vatican apparatus, all things that Catholic theology tells us positively must exist as the Church must always exist, infallible, indefectible, and with all other marks and attributes of the Church.  The Sede Vacante finding is key to understanding our situation.  But it is true not merely because the Vatican leader fails to be a Pope, but because we who truly comprise the Church fail to have a Pope.  And the fact that the Vatican leaders have failed to be Popes from at least as far back as Vatican II onward is a fact which does not exist in isolation from everything else about the Church but part and parcel with a larger body of facts that begin with the Vatican organization not being the Catholic Church in any sense at all, no more than the Mormons or the Methodists, but that we traditional Catholics all taken together do comprise that Church today.

Look at the Catholic Church now. They are left to argue and tussle over laicity of actions, the proper application of epikea, and the continuous monitoring of a counter fit church taking over, defining, and showing to the world “Catholicism.”   

The doctrine of papal infallibility is best left to those competent to actually employ its reality.  Is it possible to act as Pope and when so doing not to be acting with the air of infallibility? It appears from what I’ve read so far this is the divide. On one side, there is the argument, “yeah but the conciliar popes never said it was dogma” and on the other side there is the argument, “the pope promulgated it to the whole church, how could it not be considered as teaching authority?” One side appears to give latitude (believing they are following St. Bellarmine) and the other side gives almost no latitude (believing they are following St. Bellarmine.)

So when you say we have, "a priori departure of the Vatican leadership from the Papal office; we have the creation of the whole Novus Ordo apparatus in parallel to the real Catholic Church," do we have this because those who either never properly understood infallibility or misused it were able to create such an apparatus?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: TKGS on February 04, 2018, 12:59:56 PM
There has never been a time when Catholics contended that the pope cannot be a heretic.  Any person, even a pope, can secretly deny a Catholic doctrine and remain visibly within the Catholic Church.  But we are not talking about occult heresy in regards to the Conciliar popes (and I admit that there is disagreement among sedevacantists in regards to John XIII).  The post-Conciliar popes are manifest heretics.  And we have the magisterium's teachings that the heresy (and schism) are different from all other sins in that they separate the sinner from the body of the Church.

So, I would contend that sedevacantists today are in full agreement with St. Bellarmine in regards to the fourth opinion, in that we accept the opinion that the pope could be a heretic (at least, occultly) but could never define anything to be believed by the whole Church.  Thus, there can be no doubt about Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or Francis.  All of them have taught heresy in their official capacity.  There is evidence that John XIII and John Paul I were both ineligible candidates for the papacy as they had clearly defected from the faith prior to their election to the papacy.

[Note:  I will not here (or anywhere) enumerate the heresies of these men.  I am simply not articulate enough to do so and their heresies are easily discoverable by anyone who wishes to do so.]

In any case, in order to accept the teachings of the Conciliar popes, we are compelled to reject the teachings of the pre-Conciliar popes.  Thus, either God has changed Truth itself or the Conciliar popes are false popes.  The only third possibility is that Christianity itself is a false religion (which also invalidates Judaism and Islam) and the truth is either that we are mere animals with no soul (which makes all morality just plain silly) or......
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 04, 2018, 02:20:29 PM
I understand you feel the police analogy does not fit the Pope situation, but in some regard it does, doesn't it? As you stated, the police wearing their body cameras is analogous to the Pope's infallibility only being certain while in his official capacity.
I certainly don't mean to say that such a comparison is completely inappropriate.  Indeed, one has to wonder how much injury such a well-media-covered Alexander VI would have done through his personal depravity, decadence, dissolution, and dissipation would have wrought upon the Catholic Church.  Indeed, as limited as "media" were in his day, sufficient news of his nature proved to be something of a scandal throughout continental Europe, though the British Isles and other more remote regions heard nothing of this and were therefore unaffected.  That point must be well-taken, I certainly agree.

What doesn't work here (as relevant to the bringing about of sedevacantism question) is the implied claim that perhaps Popes have always been so flagrantly heretical before, only Catholics heard nothing of it lacking today's nature of media, whereas now a "Pope" cannot so much as burp without the whole world hearing about it.  Every instance that even remotely looked like a Pope in error is already well-known to history, and were each discussed in detail during Vatican I before going forth with that infallible declaration/teaching.

I think the more interesting question (which your initial post looks to be more asking, anyway) is whether such a high standard for the Papacy might have been setting up the Church for a Sede Vacante situation today.  Obviously, Vatican I did not have anywhere near the media coverage we have today, but at least those in Council, having worked closely with actual Popes on a day-to-day basis, would have had grave cause to refrain from allowing such a promulgation had their close association with real Popes so well-known to them personally given them cause for alarm in this direction.

As the teaching is infallibly true, I don't see how we Catholics can meaningfully dispute its factualness, only (at most) whether its promulgation was prudent, which in most respects it seems to have been.  Do you think it was imprudent to have promulgated that teaching, in view of what is seen today?  Seems to me it could be taken both ways, either as a call to accept the man as absolutely right no matter what he says or contradicts, even Catholic Dogmas themselves, or as a call to reject as Pope anyone who fails to live up to so stratospheric a standard of orthodoxy.  Suppose a Vatican II had come along without the infallibility of the Pope having been infallibly promulgated:  Would that have made real Catholics more "free" to ignore the Pope, especially in his new radical direction?  Or would it have made it more difficult for real Catholics to discern that the man is, somehow, not really a Catholic Pope (Sede Vacante)?

As for me, I think it better for the truth to be out there, as formally promulgated as possible, despite the potential for that truth to be misunderstood or misapplied.  I believe one problem with their having rushed to pronounce on this question was a failure to take into account the role of the Papal electors (cardinals, or whoever served in that role before there were cardinals, and whoever must serve in that role in the ages to come if the Church is ever to have a Pope again) in securing and guarding his orthodoxy.  The following is from pages 129-130 of Sede Vacante! Part Two:
Quote
    St. Bellarmine writes in Book IV, chapter 9 of his books On the Roman Pontiff, page 187 (Ryan Grant translation) that:
Quote
Next, two years after the fall of Liberius, concerning which we spoke above, then the Roman Clergy abrogated Liberius from the pontifical dignity and conferred it upon Felix, whom they knew to be Catholic. From that time Felix began to be a true Pope. Although Liberius was not a heretic, still it was considered that, on account of the peace made with the Arians, that he was a heretic, and from that presumption his pontificate could rightly be abrogated. For men cannot be held to thoroughly search hearts; yet when they see one who is a heretic by his external works, then they judge simply and condemn him as a heretic.
    In context, St. Bellarmine goes on to mention that St. Jerome felt that the Roman Clergy betrayed a promise they had formerly made “never to admit another Pope while Liberius lived,” but in the face of an apparent fall into heresy (even though, as it ultimately turned out, not a real fall) the Roman Clergy had acted reasonably. Indeed, if anything appears to have marked the Roman Clergy as in any way different from all the other clergy all around the world (at the time of Liberius and Felix), it was their strict and careful scrutiny of the Pope, from close range, by which they legitimately, even though mistakenly, judged him as a heretic and “abrogated his pontificate.” In recent decades, even leading up to Vatican II and certainly thereafter, who in or near Rome has ever exhibited such close and careful standards? Pope Liberius was suspected of being a heretic merely on account of having made peace with the Arians, not that he was necessarily an Arian himself; can you imagine what such Romans would think of the typical Vatican leader of today who has made peace with every manner of heretic and heathen alike? Even what very few clerics as have refused to go along with the nonsense have hardly been outspoken about any desire (now more legitimate than ever) to “abrogate the pontificate” of the recent and current Vatican leadership. Who is there that will say, not merely of him, but to him, “You are in error, and have need to repent, and to recant the error, and if you do not then we shall abrogate your pontificate and elect another.”
    And this is not by any means the only example. For instance, in discussing Pope Vigilius, and in particular how he functioned while he was yet actually an antipope (Pope Silverius still being alive, albeit in exile), St. Bellarmine continued in the same work (pages 194-195, Ryan Grant translation), “Vigilius then was upon the very narrow straights that his ambition had thrown him. For if he openly professed heresy, he would fear the Romans, who were never seen to suffer a heretic to sit in the chair of Peter; if, on the other hand, he would profess the Catholic faith, he feared the heretical Empress, whose work had secured for him the Pontificate.” Note most importantly the comment that the Romans “were never seen to suffer a heretic to sit in the chair of Peter.” So “never” would at least apply clear up until Vigilius’ time, and possibly even to St. Bellarmine’s time. And recall the strenuous objections of the Roman clergy at John XXII’s unique views on the afterlife, such that towards the end of his life he recanted his error and died in the odor of sanctity. The Romans were above all those who were most vigilant for the orthodoxy of doctrine, and decidedly not the faceless bureaucratic yes-men who had come to populate the Roman Diocese by the time Vatican II occurred.
I go on to discuss how some, apparently concluding from the declaration of infallibility, somehow supposed that the quality resides exclusively within him (the man, the Pope, himself personally), in no wise to be guarded in any way by "the Romans" (cardinals, etc. in more recent centuries) as PART of how that infallibility exists.  Thus, the cardinals fell asleep at the switch, and became mere yes-men for whatever passed a Pope's lips.  I believe that inclusion of his staff (the cardinals/curia) can be taken as having been implied as being part of the formula (so Vatican I is in no wise wrong), but as no explicit statement was made to address the question of exactly "who" all constitutes the Papal office - the man himself personally or together with his cardinals/curial officers who, at least in the known case of John XXII, kept him in line.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 04, 2018, 03:36:52 PM
What doesn't work here (as relevant to the bringing about of sedevacantism question) is the implied claim that perhaps Popes have always been so flagrantly heretical before, only Catholics heard nothing of it lacking today's nature of media, whereas now a "Pope" cannot so much as burp without the whole world hearing about it.

That was not my insinuation and if that is what you took from it then perhaps I was not clear in how I was saying it. I was in no way saying popes have always been flagrantly heretical.  First, I think the doctrine of infallibility, and given today's climate to see and hear the pope constantly, have made us completely incapable of being able to discern if there was an error or not and if so, was it from the pope speaking ex cathedra or in his private capacity. Second, as the title of my post states, I used the word "inevitably." This implies something that is certain to happen or is unavoidable. I do know that certain uses of the word can also imply it is predictable. I don't want to give that meaning.  However, was it inevitable that the doctrine would be misused?

Cardinal Newman said, "It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine, the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law, and by the constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is civil society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and belonging to the domain of civil society."

So when Francis Francis declares “with magisterial authority that the [Novus Ordo] liturgical reform is irreversible,” he does so most likely believing it is because the Novus Ordo is tied up with divine revelation, limited by (or in conformity with) creeds already in existence and proceeding from the definition of the church. I understand you and many others can argue this is wrong, but there are billions who won't and will site the same resource, i.e. he is infallible to make such a declaration. 

I think this is where I was going with what became "inevitable."  Therefore perhaps they could not "refrain from allowing such a promulgation" because it seems likely they never envision such a drastic change, under the banner of infallibility, such as happened.

As the teaching is infallibly true, I don't see how we Catholics can meaningfully dispute its factualness, only (at most) whether its promulgation was prudent, which in most respects it seems to have been.  Do you think it was imprudent to have promulgated that teaching, in view of what is seen today?

Not imprudent, but for now as I see it, inevitable.  We are only 148 years removed from its promulgation and if sedevacantism is correct, the chair went vacant within 88 years and has remained thus for another 60.  I think there are some who would say the dogma itself has nothing to do with the defection and the current crisis.  However, there is quite the fuss over the language Paul VI used to solemnly declare and seal the documents at Vatican II. If Paul VI had the same authority then that Francis has today, then Vatican II's documents are as valid as Amoris Laetitia. Then why all the fuss? While Sedes may not accept Vatican II, or its documents, one can look upon history (if sedevacantism is correct) and see that billions did, from clergy down to laity and did so because one pope convened the council and one solemnly declared its documents and closed it.  In light of this infallibility, the entirety of the changes spoken at Vatican II either went into immediate effect or continue to be implemented today. 

Seems to me it could be taken both ways, either as a call to accept the man as absolutely right no matter what he says or contradicts, even Catholic Dogmas themselves, or as a call to reject as Pope anyone who fails to live up to so stratospheric a standard of orthodoxy.  Suppose a Vatican II had come along without the infallibility of the Pope having been infallibly promulgated:  Would that have made real Catholics more "free" to ignore the Pope, especially in his new radical direction?  Or would it have made it more difficult for real Catholics to discern that the man is, somehow, not really a Catholic Pope (Sede Vacante)?

Well, as with any dogma, prior to it being a dogma, it is still open for debate.  There was a lot of back and forth discussion on the Assumption of Mary. Not only are the previous conversations moot and future debate is moot. Why? Because it is now a dogma of the church.  Failure to believe the dogma is the same as the person falling completely out of the church.  This is the same as Papal Infallibility.  Now that it is dogma, you cannot debate it and you most certainly cannot disagree with it. So when you see popes doing what one thinks they should not be doing, you cannot fight against the dogma. If you do, you fall outside the church completely. So what is the option to stay in the church? The man must not be Pope. If the man is Pope and I disagree with the man AT ANY POINT where he has spoken infallibly, I fall completely away from the faith and outside the church. So it is much easier for me to stay in the church if the man, the infallible one, has ipso facto fallen away from the Church.

Now I am not attaching names or dogmas. My above statement is merely the formula that I see is being debated back and forth all over the place. So I think this dilemma would have been lessened, in light of Vatican II, without the dogma having been declared. 

As for me, I think it better for the truth to be out there, as formally promulgated as possible, despite the potential for that truth to be misunderstood or misapplied.  I believe one problem with their having rushed to pronounce on this question was a failure to take into account the role of the Papal electors (cardinals, or whoever served in that role before there were cardinals, and whoever must serve in that role in the ages to come if the Church is ever to have a Pope again) in securing and guarding his orthodoxy. 

Papal infallibility is the dividing line. Those who accept the conciliar Popes will continue to accept the lineage no matter what. You will never be able to convince them they will be with out a Pope, especially because he is guarded by infallibility and will protect them. I have serious doubts sedes will ever accept another Pope. I say this because Popes will only continue to come from the Post-Vatican II church.  No Sede will ever accept this. John XXIII and JP II have already been canonized! How will anyone ever convince those who elected and accepted Benedict XVI and Francis there is something deficient. There have been 6 popes since Vatican II. 33% of them (1/3) have already obtained Sainthood. This has occurred at the same time people in the church say there has not even been a Pope since Vatican II.

I have no idea how you bridge that gap, but I have a sinking feeling Papal Infallibility is wedge in this endeavor.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 04, 2018, 04:12:28 PM
That was not my insinuation and if that is what you took from it then perhaps I was not clear in how I was saying it. I was in no way saying popes have always been flagrantly heretical.
Well, I'm glad to hear that.  I hope you also see how easy it can be for one's statements to be misunderstood, even by a sympathetic audience.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 04, 2018, 04:45:40 PM
We are 60 years into an "interregnum." There are many sedes who take on the sede position, not because they're convinced the chair is actually vacant. They take on the sede position because they can't stomach Bergoglio. There are a whole let of new Sedes out there, who were quite content with Benedict XVI and JP II.
Sad, but true.  I have to wonder how many sedevacantist's sedevacantism is based on this mere being unable to stomach heresy.  That has to be the most ill-grounded basis for sedevacantism among the legitimate reasons one might be such.  It is like knowing that one's foot hurts without having any information as to what has happened to it, or worse, not being interested to learn whether it was smashed, burned, dissolved in acid, or etc., or even mere "phantom" pain due to some form of artificial nerve stimulation or even a spinal injury.

Those who would seek to claim that we had real popes until Francis however are in an odd, but ultimately fruitless position.  Who gave us Vatican II?  At least "Francis" Bergoglio cannot be blamed for that as he was to young to have been  involved with it.  They will go the same way of the "Santo Subito" group who lost interest within a couple years or so of the death of their "Saint John Paul II the Great"
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 04, 2018, 04:45:53 PM
Not imprudent, but for now as I see it, inevitable.  We are only 148 years removed from its promulgation and if sedevacantism is correct, the chair went vacant within 88 years and has remained thus for another 60.  I think there are some who would say the dogma itself has nothing to do with the defection and the current crisis.
Perhaps it was providential.  Without clear parameters for what is and is not possible to a Pope, how could the Church have responded even as well as we did once we started having supposed "Popes" who were blatant heretics?  Indeed, all the ecclesiological doctrines exist as parameters which tell us what is and what is not possible, so as to rule out all false alternatives, and whatever remains must be the truth.  If the man is promulgating heresy then he is not Pope, pure and simple, cut and dry.  We all know how "He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law, and by the constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is civil society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and belonging to the domain of civil society."  All of that being the case, it is not a legitimate question as to whether the Vatican leader is really an actual Successor to the Apostle Peter, except subjectively in the minds of those ill- and under-informed.
So when Francis declares “with magisterial authority that the [Novus Ordo] liturgical reform is irreversible,” he does so most likely believing it is because the Novus Ordo is tied up with divine revelation, limited by (or in conformity with) creeds already in existence and proceeding from the definition of the church. I understand you and many others can argue this is wrong, but there are billions who won't and will site the same resource, i.e. he is infallible to make such a declaration.
. . .
If Paul VI had the same authority then that Francis has today, then Vatican II's documents are as valid as Amoris Laetitia. Then why all the fuss? While Sedes may not accept Vatican II, or its documents, one can look upon history (if sedevacantism is correct) and see that billions did, from clergy down to laity and did so because one pope convened the council and one solemnly declared its documents and closed it.
If he does (assuming he actually understands the relevant concepts, which there is great reason to doubt), then he has signed his society's death warrant, and it would utterly cease to have any possibility of returning to the real Church (a wan enough hope before that) but are therefore irrevocably committed to their new schismatic non-Catholic direction.  As such it is impossible for any person elected by them to be a real Catholic Pope.

But in the end, what really matters and must (at least eventually triumph) is the truth.  The Novus Ordo is a house of cards, built on ever-shifting sands.  Despite the large numbers of persons fooled by them into supposing them to be "the Church," they are toppling and have nowhere to go but down into eventual nonexistence, however long that takes.  But the real Catholic Church (we traditionalists) are founded and rooted on Christ Himself and the Church He founded, on the Apostles and the Saints, on the (real) Popes and the (real) Ecumenical Councils, and on the truth.  We alone have God's promises of indefectibility and infallibility (now existing in a passive form among all traditional Catholics, the active form only possible to popes), all the marks and attributes of the Church, the divine promises of God's support, and even ultimately of divine and truly apostolic miracles.  We have nowhere to go but up, and we will, one day, have a real Pope, something I most earnestly pray to see in my own lifetime (and we all such have this prayer), though as things stand now from a human perspective it seems virtually impossible.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 04, 2018, 05:27:31 PM
Papal infallibility is the dividing line. Those who accept the conciliar Popes will continue to accept the lineage no matter what. You will never be able to convince them they will be with out a Pope, especially because he is guarded by infallibility and will protect them.
Don't be so ready to dismiss them.  Can you really believe none of them tire nor grow seasick from being tossed to and fro on "every wind of doctrine" trying to keep up with the latest abominations emanating from today's Vatican?  It is only a matter of time before Abortion becomes another Sacrament and priestesses can be married to each other and a "Rocky Horror Picture Mass" becomes passé for being too tame.  The angst of those who insist on thinking of the likes of "Francis" Bergoglio as being a Pope is palpable, a massive overthrow just waiting to happen once the proper "signal" happens, and provided we Catholics of the real Church have got our own act together so as to give them a clear and viable alternative to the foolishness they presently endure.
I have serious doubts sedes will ever accept another Pope. I say this because Popes will only continue to come from the Post-Vatican II church.  No Sede will ever accept this.
No one should accept this.  And the "Post-Vatican II church" has no power, either moral or political or canonical, to provide the real Catholic Church with a real Pope.  Rather, it is up to the Church (we traditionalists) to provide the Church with Her next real Pope, all Papally-appointed cardinals having passed away without electing a Pope.  Traditional Catholics will and must, at least eventually, accept and recognize another Pope, as God watches over His own Church as His own flesh, feeding it and nourishing it.  Traditional Catholics just need to step up to the plate and accept the responsibility which has fallen to our hands of doing what no other society can ever possibly have the means, let alone the right, to perform that function.
[/quote]
John XXIII and JP II have already been canonized! How will anyone ever convince those who elected and accepted Benedict XVI and Francis there is something deficient. There have been 6 popes since Vatican II. 33% of them (1/3) have already obtained Sainthood. This has occurred at the same time people in the church say there has not even been a Pope since Vatican II.
I have no idea how you bridge that gap, but I have a sinking feeling Papal Infallibility is wedge in this endeavor.
Only in the eyes of former Santo Subito followers, altogether irrelevant from every other possible standpoint.  Papal infallibility however is one of many doctrinal parameters which define the whole nature of our present ecclesial circumstance, and all of us taking the time to get to know and understand those parameters is the only source of substantial and meaningful unity possible to Catholics, in our own age or (for that matter) in any other.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 05, 2018, 08:57:45 PM
If the man is promulgating heresy then he is not Pope, pure and simple, cut and dry........

Does indefectible faith exist in one who admittedly cannot err in determining what others must believe (infallibility), yet this same person can still personally suffer error privately? You said he (and others since Vatican II, I assume) are not the Pope, pure and simple.  Thus, they ipso facto fell from the pontificate then, correct? Isn't it correct then they sank into heresy before losing power? 

In my OP, I posited, "The fourth position is NOT that the Pope can fall into heresy, but cannot teach heresy.  It appears rather, the fourth position is asserted without answering the question as to whether or not the Pope can fall into heresy. Bellarmine stated, “The fourth position lies between the extremes” and he definitively says the Pope absolutely cannot define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church.  Manning also went on to say, “The words ex cathedra exclude all acts of the Pontiff as a private person or as a private Doctor, and confine the character of infallibility to those acts which are promulgated from the Chair of supreme authority as Universal Doctor of the Church in faith and morals.” 

Neither Manning nor Bellarmine addressed whether the Pope could fall into private heresy.  Isn't it presumed the Pope retains infallibility in his private capacity?  Otherwise, isn't there then the possibility (and most likely the certainty) of the defectibility in the faith of the one with the duty to lead the faithful infallibly?

I do not understand how the Supreme Pontiff could ever be a heretic, even by losing faith internally.  The doctrine of infallibility must mean the pope can never become a heretic no matter what.  I do not see how it can be any other way. 

All of that being the case, it is not a legitimate question as to whether the Vatican leader is really an actual Successor to the Apostle Peter, except subjectively in the minds of those ill- and under-informed.
 
Despite the large numbers of persons fooled by them into supposing them to be "the Church," they are toppling and have nowhere to go but down into eventual nonexistence, however long that takes.

I am not aware of any Doctor of the Church who ever taught there would be a danger the church would be fooled into accepting a pope subjectively in their mind.  Do you have evidence to the contrary of this subjective acceptance through trickery? I will read the evidence if you have it. God cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate Pope. 

But the real Catholic Church (we traditionalists) are founded and rooted on Christ Himself and the Church He founded, on the Apostles and the Saints, on the (real) Popes and the (real) Ecumenical Councils, and on the truth.  We alone have God's promises of indefectibility and infallibility (now existing in a passive form among all traditional Catholics, the active form only possible to popes), all the marks and attributes of the Church, the divine promises of God's support, and even ultimately of divine and truly apostolic miracles.  We have nowhere to go but up, and we will, one day, have a real Pope, something I most earnestly pray to see in my own lifetime (and we all such have this prayer), though as things stand now from a human perspective it seems virtually impossible.

How do you fix a defection that already occurred? Didn't the Church that defected at the time leading into Vatican II have, "God's promises of indefectibility and infallibility?"  If you are the "real Catholic Church" (and I am not saying you are not), but if you are and a real Pope comes along and the pre-Vatican II church is restored to the indefectable church prior to Vatican II, then doesn't that also prove there was actually a defection first? 

I know you're not an R&R Traditionalist, but they claim the Vicar of Christ and the entire living magisterium led the entire Church into errors, heresy and apostasy at Vatican II and since.  This defeats the entire indefectibility of the church, papal infallibility (private and public).  They despise, mock, disobey and undermine what they also claim is the hierarchy. 

I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU PERSONALLY (despite what some here claim I do.) You (and a few others) are at least honest enough to state the reality to those in the Novus Ordo that would listen that if the Vatican II Church is the real Roman Catholic Church then a defection did happen.   You've endured more ridicule and attack from your own camp (tragically) that you ever will from me.  I appreciate your assertion that the traditional camp to which you belong alone has infallibility. However, given our discussion on what exactly that means from what Vatican I dogmatized and those here who vehemently disagree with you on a number of points; either they don't have it or you don't have it.  However, prior to Vatican II, the type of dissent that occurs against you who has this infallibility clearly and squarely put the dissenter outside the church. 
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 06, 2018, 07:34:56 PM
If the man is promulgating heresy then he is not Pope, pure and simple, cut and dry........

Does indefectible faith exist in one who admittedly cannot err in determining what others must believe (infallibility), yet this same person can still personally suffer error privately? You said he (and others since Vatican II, I assume) are not the Pope, pure and simple.  Thus, they ipso facto fell from the pontificate then, correct? Isn't it correct then they sank into heresy before losing power? 
That's one model of events which many sedevacantists seem to suppose, namely that the men just (somehow) fell into heresy, voiced that heresy (and imposed it upon the Church, etc.), and thereby fell from grace, and even from the papal office itself.  I don't believe that to be possible, or at least not what has happened as far as how we got to our present circumstance.  At most, I would say that such blatant and manifest and obstinate heresies comprise evidence that the man so doing cannot be a Pope, no matter what appearances may seem to be to the contrary.

Rather, I see the Catholic papacy as having been lost to the Vatican leadership before anything truly and absolutely impossible to a Pope ever took place.  Now the men (Roncalli and Montini) had clear histories of serious cause for alarm among Catholics, they may even have harbored within their darkened little hearts all manner of heresies, which at first they kept to themselves or at least mitigated to sufficient degree that they could not be formally accused of heresy.  For all I know, it may well be what God saw in their hearts which motivated Him to arrange matters in His Providence so as to remove them (or at least Paul VI anyway) from the pontificate before they bind the Church to some grave error.  Once so removed however, infallibility no longer applies to them; an "operation of error" (as St. Paul spoke of in Thessalonians) allowed them to then fall into all manner of their intended errors.

Really though, I cannot recommend the Sede Vacante! books highly enough.  In Part One this removal is empirically demonstrated; in Part Two a strong and credible theory to show precisely where and how this removal was effected, legally, canonically, and ontologically, is ventured.  It also goes on to demonstrate why it is that no one elected to serve after Paul VI in that capacity has in any way shown any characteristics of an infallible Pope, no matter what their interior dispositions.
In my OP, I posited, "The fourth position is NOT that the Pope can fall into heresy, but cannot teach heresy.  It appears rather, the fourth position is asserted without answering the question as to whether or not the Pope can fall into heresy. Bellarmine stated, “The fourth position lies between the extremes” and he definitively says the Pope absolutely cannot define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church.  Manning also went on to say, “The words ex cathedra exclude all acts of the Pontiff as a private person or as a private Doctor, and confine the character of infallibility to those acts which are promulgated from the Chair of supreme authority as Universal Doctor of the Church in faith and morals.” 

Neither Manning nor Bellarmine addressed whether the Pope could fall into private heresy.  Isn't it presumed the Pope retains infallibility in his private capacity?  Otherwise, isn't there then the possibility (and most likely the certainty) of the defectibility in the faith of the one with the duty to lead the faithful infallibly?
Interesting observation you make on that text!  Very good!  I like it when people read things closely enough to find things I somehow failed to notice.  Of course St. Bellarmine is kind of "sitting on the fence" about whether falling into heresy would even be possible to a Pope, carefully not saying whether it is possible or not.  Elsewhere he discusses that in his famous "5 opinions" but obviously he confines that question to that particular discussion.  And in the "5 opinions" he seems to favor that a Pope cannot fall into heresy, but acknowledges the possibility that it might be possible.
I do not understand how the Supreme Pontiff could ever be a heretic, even by losing faith internally.  The doctrine of infallibility must mean the pope can never become a heretic no matter what.  I do not see how it can be any other way. 
St. Bellarmine agreed, at least as his opinion, and I share that opinion (also as only an opinion) as well.  But if a person of secret bad faith somehow got elected, the Church would have to be protected somehow, either that he keeps it to himself and does little to nothing at all, or else that events maneuver his resignation in all Providence.
All of that being the case, it is not a legitimate question as to whether the Vatican leader is really an actual Successor to the Apostle Peter, except subjectively in the minds of those ill- and under-informed.
Despite the large numbers of persons fooled by them into supposing them to be "the Church," they are toppling and have nowhere to go but down into eventual nonexistence, however long that takes.
I am not aware of any Doctor of the Church who ever taught there would be a danger the church would be fooled into accepting a pope subjectively in their mind.  Do you have evidence to the contrary of this subjective acceptance through trickery? I will read the evidence if you have it. God cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate Pope. 
They would have to, for many followed the papal claimants of Avignon and Pisa, many fell into Photius' schism, and practically all of England was fooled into becoming Anglican by their bishops and priests all remaining exactly in place (with only the fewest of exceptions, one single bishop (St. John Fisher), and a few obscure priests).  Unfortunately there can be no guarantee that large numbers of persons cannot be deceived as has happened in those precedential circumstances, and therefore could happen now as indeed it obviously has.

But you do bring up a good point that the true Church would never accept a stranger instead of the true Shepherd, showing that those who do accept the stranger therefore indeed do not comprise the true Church.  But the true and faithful flock could never accept the voice of the stranger or the wolf, and seeing all the most truly serious and pious Catholics taking the right stand shows the passive infallibility of the true Church.
But the real Catholic Church (we traditionalists) are founded and rooted on Christ Himself and the Church He founded, on the Apostles and the Saints, on the (real) Popes and the (real) Ecumenical Councils, and on the truth.  We alone have God's promises of indefectibility and infallibility (now existing in a passive form among all traditional Catholics, the active form only possible to popes), all the marks and attributes of the Church, the divine promises of God's support, and even ultimately of divine and truly apostolic miracles.  We have nowhere to go but up, and we will, one day, have a real Pope, something I most earnestly pray to see in my own lifetime (and we all such have this prayer), though as things stand now from a human perspective it seems virtually impossible.

How do you fix a defection that already occurred? Didn't the Church that defected at the time leading into Vatican II have, "God's promises of indefectibility and infallibility?"  If you are the "real Catholic Church" (and I am not saying you are not), but if you are and a real Pope comes along and the pre-Vatican II church is restored to the indefectable church prior to Vatican II, then doesn't that also prove there was actually a defection first? 
I believe that what we had first was a bifurcation between the real Catholic Church (which exists to this day as we traditionalists, and as indefectible as ever) and a new parallel society (which is currently lead by "Francis" Bergoglio.  The divine promises apply quite specifically and exclusively to the Church and to no other society, hence that which is not the Church could then proceed and even quite promptly into defection, while the Church remains loyal and true.  If "a real pope comes along" this can be no mere random event, more importantly it cannot happen with the Vatican apparatus (that's part of what it means to say that it is not the Church, and its leader no Pope), but only the result of the real Catholic Church selecting a Pope, namely we traditionalists.
I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU PERSONALLY (despite what some here claim I do.) You (and a few others) are at least honest enough to state the reality to those in the Novus Ordo that would listen that if the Vatican II Church is the real Roman Catholic Church then a defection did happen.   You've endured more ridicule and attack from your own camp (tragically) that you ever will from me.  I appreciate your assertion that the traditional camp to which you belong alone has infallibility. However, given our discussion on what exactly that means from what Vatican I dogmatized and those here who vehemently disagree with you on a number of points; either they don't have it or you don't have it.  However, prior to Vatican II, the type of dissent that occurs against you who has this infallibility clearly and squarely put the dissenter outside the church.
All in all, I would actually have to say that you have been rather kind overall.  Your questions, as asked so far, seem sincere, and that is enough to make them worth answering.  There is a lot to learn, and everyone must start somewhere.  Our current circumstance has raised a great many questions, provoked a great many theories and hypotheses, and brought great confusion to many.  The amazing thing is how the Church has nevertheless managed to continue true and sure through such time, even as led by persons whose understanding of our circumstance is so flawed and imperfect one just has to marvel at how well they did even so, but it really is God who is at the helm, and not fallen, occasionally corrupt, and certainly confused, men.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 06, 2018, 11:00:14 PM
That's one model of events which many sedevacantists seem to suppose, namely that the men just (somehow) fell into heresy, voiced that heresy (and imposed it upon the Church, etc.), and thereby fell from grace, and even from the papal office itself.  I don't believe that to be possible, or at least not what has happened as far as how we got to our present circumstance.  At most, I would say that such blatant and manifest and obstinate heresies comprise evidence that the man so doing cannot be a Pope, no matter what appearances may seem to be to the contrary.

This was my exact concern in my OP.  Because of the doctrine of infallibility, which is a dogma, if he is the Pope and you say he speaks blatant and manifest and obstinate heresies, you fall outside the Church. In order to remain in the church, we must say it is him who is not the Pope due to blatant, manifest and obstinate heresies. Infallibility is the dividing line. Either he's out or I'm out. With infallibility comes indefectability. Kind of like the car comes with the warranty.  You have to prove schism and heresy to those you want to come home.  In order to do that, you have to show them they defected and continued in that defected. This will be very tough to show to a camp who also believes their side is indefectable.

Rather, I see the Catholic papacy as having been lost to the Vatican leadership before anything truly and absolutely impossible to a Pope ever took place.  Now the men (Roncalli and Montini) had clear histories of serious cause for alarm among Catholics, they may even have harbored within their darkened little hearts all manner of heresies, which at first they kept to themselves or at least mitigated to sufficient degree that they could not be formally accused of heresy.  For all I know, it may well be what God saw in their hearts which motivated Him to arrange matters in His Providence so as to remove them (or at least Paul VI anyway) from the pontificate before they bind the Church to some grave error.  Once so removed however, infallibility no longer applies to them; an "operation of error" (as St. Paul spoke of in Thessalonians) allowed them to then fall into all manner of their intended errors.

Based on what I've studied about the indefectibility of the Church, I do not see it even being remotely possible, not even the slightest bit possible the Papacy could be lost. Not to Vatican leadership, not to modernist, not to anyone.  If it is possible, then I may have to go the other way and say the church was defectable, not bound in perpetuity and not owing to infallibility.  Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam does not give me this feeling at all.  Many have told me that what happened to the papacy is so shocking it is hard for people to believe (and why they don't see it, i.e. "anything but sedevacantism.") That is not my fear. My fear is that if what you have stated in this statement is true, there was an actual true defection and there has to be a careful examination and investigation into indefectibility.  I appreciate your strong assertion it remains in the faithful Traditionalist Catholics.  However, Sedevacantism, in all it's truths and realities of defining the real church only came about because there was a defection first. If there was no defection, there would be no sedevacantism. If there is sedevacantism to hold the "true church" together, there had to be a defection to make that so. All well and good, but now we have an issue of defection or lack of indefectibility.  I can not accept as indefectible a church which must permit a partial, or in this case, a whole sale defection, of almost the entire Catholic Church to prove who the truly indefectible are.

That argument to me is like Calvinist who have been arguing that God permits some to be saved while leaving some to be damned. He saves some to show his kindness and damns others to show his justice. This would be a wholly capricious God who behaved like this and is why Calvinism has been condemned again and again. Now a similar issue is actually being argued. A God who permits some to defect and retains those who will not defect in order to show who the true indefectable Church was.   

Ubipetrus my friend, for now, this argumentation boggles my mind and I must reject it not of my own volition but because of what the church has taught us about indefectibility of the church.

It also goes on to demonstrate why it is that no one elected to serve after Paul VI in that capacity has in any way shown any characteristics of an infallible Pope, no matter what their interior dispositions.

A pope who lacks infallibility is no pope at all. God cannot permit the Church to accept a false Pope. However, in 1963, God allowed for this?

St. Bellarmine agreed, at least as his opinion, and I share that opinion (also as only an opinion) as well.  But if a person of secret bad faith somehow got elected, the Church would have to be protected somehow, either that he keeps it to himself and does little to nothing at all, or else that events maneuver his resignation in all Providence.

"The adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and Behold I am with you all days. To be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact, as will be still more clearly apparent in what is to be said later. By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected. But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope]. Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions." Cardinal Louis Billot, S.J., On the Legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff, 1927; (https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/)

But you do bring up a good point that the true Church would never accept a stranger instead of the true Shepherd, showing that those who do accept the stranger therefore indeed do not comprise the true Church.  But the true and faithful flock could never accept the voice of the stranger or the wolf, and seeing all the most truly serious and pious Catholics taking the right stand shows the passive infallibility of the true Church.

It appears, that due to the nature of the infallibility of the Pope and the indefectibility of the Church, God has guaranteed to the church (comprised of everyone else who does not enjoy infallibility) that he would not permit them to accept a false pope.  The sure sign there is a true Pope is the universal acceptance of the Pope as Bishop and head of the Church.  Otherwise, the Church could never know they acted correctly in accepting the Pope who was elected.  Remember I advocated that God will not allow the Pope to fall into heresy privately. Otherwise, how can we be sure, (a) he would not so fall and (b) he would be able to come out of his heresy to infallibly lead the Church? Similarly, how can God guarantee his flock would know they have a true Vicar and leader of the flock in the Chair of Peter without them having some confirmation they have done what he has asked them to do? This sure sign they have is that individual Catholics have the assurance the Church at large accepts the Papal election and the new Pope. 

I believe that what we had first was a bifurcation between the real Catholic Church (which exists to this day as we traditionalists, and as indefectible as ever) and a new parallel society (which is currently lead by "Francis" Bergoglio.)  The divine promises apply quite specifically and exclusively to the Church and to no other society, hence that which is not the Church could then proceed and even quite promptly into defection, while the Church remains loyal and true.  If "a real pope comes along" this can be no mere random event, more importantly it cannot happen with the Vatican apparatus (that's part of what it means to say that it is not the Church, and its leader no Pope), but only the result of the real Catholic Church selecting a Pope, namely we traditionalists.

You have advocated for a "bifurcated church," "a parallel society," and "a non Church proceeding into defection."  Remember earlier I asked, "How do you fix a defection that already occurred?" I think now my question is to whom do you need to prove this bifurcation, parallel society and a church marching off to defection? Wouldn't the gospel command you to pronounce this to those whom are thus going this way? How shall you show this to (arguably the Novus Ordo and maybe some R&R Traditionalists) without not also showing them defection?

As a Sedevacantist, if you are confident you can show this, then you will also be showing to those whom you must show this there was a defection. Why? Because you have to show them they defected away and must come back? This is why they will never admit to such evidence. When they do, they admit to defectibility, but I think in one regard you must also. You have to show them defection so they will come home. You will have to show them the church they were lead to believe was indefectible caused them to stumble and defect. This is quite the paradox.

I argue the Church that defected at the time leading into Vatican II had God's promises of indefectibility and infallibility? If not, then we must now explore at what point God removed it from those heading into Vatican II. If you say they lost it because they were being led to Vatican II by John XXIII, then we must go back and re-explore they did not have the sure sign of John XXIII being Pope, which exists in the universal church's acceptance of him as Pope. I believe this gets into the ground of all sorts of defection on too many directions and will be like trying to get the worms back into the can.

God love you Ubipetrus.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 07, 2018, 07:32:26 AM
VZ: I don't understand how what ubipetrus described here equals a "defected Church".  If true popes promulgated Vatican II, that would be a defected Church.  The fact that they were not true popes keeps the indefectibility of the Church intact.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 07, 2018, 07:52:10 AM
According to Archbishop Purcell (attendee at Vatican I), the issue of a heretic pope was raised and discussed at the Council:

https://novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council/

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.

(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago; underlining added.)


So, even at the First Vatican Council, it was believed that, although it has never happened before, a pope can become a heretic.  There was no concern that this would mean the Church would have defected.

In fact, isn't this quote exactly what sedevacantists have been asserting all along?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Matto on February 07, 2018, 09:30:57 AM
So, even at the First Vatican Council, it was believed that, although it has never happened before, a pope can become a heretic.  There was no concern that this would mean the Church would have defected.

In fact, isn't this quote exactly what sedevacantists have been asserting all along?
I can see why some would think sedevacantism posits a defection. The thesis basically says that not just the Pope, but pretty much the entire hierarchy of the Church fell into heresy and ceased to be the Church and that later on a few laymen realized it and got irregular orders first from Old Catholics and then from Thuc and Lefebvre and claimed to be the saviors of the Church. It is not just a heretical anti-pope. But the entire hierarchy followed the heretical anti-pope into heresy to the point that now there is not a single Bishop ruling a diocese that does not follow the heretical anti-pope or rejects Vatican II and all the heresies with it and subsequent to it (some sedes say there must be a hidden orthodox Bishop in the woods but nobody knows who he is). Nobody can point to a single non-heretical Bishop with OJ sent by a true Pope. None of the traditional Bishops were sent by a true Pope so how can they have authority from a true Pope so it seems to me they cannot be the hierarchy any more than I would be if I got myself ordained and consecrated by an old Catholic bishop like Francis Shuckardt. The situation talked about in your quote is not a defection because the Church realizes the heresy of the anti-pope and rejects it and him instead of following him into heresy. And if anyone wants to talk about the secrets of La Salette predicting this, I believe the popular secrets of La Salette promoted by traditionalists were condemned by the Church before Vatican II and placed on the index of forbidden books and it was commanded that Catholics not discuss those secrets and I do not think this condemnation was ever lifted by a true Pope so wouldn't it be wrong to read those condemned prophecies and promote them publicly?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 07, 2018, 10:38:48 AM
So, even at the First Vatican Council, it was believed that, although it has never happened before, a pope can become a heretic.  There was no concern that this would mean the Church would have defected.

In fact, isn't this quote exactly what sedevacantists have been asserting all along?
I can see why some would think sedevacantism posits a defection. The thesis basically says that not just the Pope, but pretty much the entire hierarchy of the Church fell into heresy and ceased to be the Church and that later on a few laymen realized it and got irregular orders first from Old Catholics and then from Thuc and Lefebvre and claimed to be the saviors of the Church. It is not just a heretical anti-pope. But the entire hierarchy followed the heretical anti-pope into heresy to the point that now there is not a single Bishop ruling a diocese that does not follow the heretical anti-pope or rejects Vatican II and all the heresies with it and subsequent to it (some sedes say there must be a hidden orthodox Bishop in the woods but nobody knows who he is). Nobody can point to a single non-heretical Bishop with OJ sent by a true Pope. None of the traditional Bishops were sent by a true Pope so how can they have authority from a true Pope so it seems to me they cannot be the hierarchy any more than I would be if I got myself ordained and consecrated by an old Catholic bishop like Francis Shuckardt. The situation talked about in your quote is not a defection because the Church realizes the heresy of the anti-pope and rejects it and him instead of following him into heresy. And if anyone wants to talk about the secrets of La Salette predicting this, I believe the popular secrets of La Salette promoted by traditionalists were condemned by the Church before Vatican II and placed on the index of forbidden books and it was commanded that Catholics not discuss those secrets and I do not think this condemnation was ever lifted by a true Pope so wouldn't it be wrong to read those condemned prophecies and promote them publicly?

Meanwhile the R&R posits an indefectible Church? No, it promotes a "Catholic" church that taught and continues to teach heresy to the entire "Catholic" Church.   
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Matto on February 07, 2018, 01:38:26 PM
Meanwhile the R&R posits an indefectible Church? No, it promotes a "Catholic" church that taught and continues to teach heresy to the entire "Catholic" Church.
I am not saying the R&R position is the true one. I honestly don't know what the truth is unlike some internet posters who seem to know all. But I was just trying to make clear a reason why I think many people are not sedevacantists. I do not think it is ill will for the most part.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 07, 2018, 02:24:11 PM
Meanwhile the R&R posits an indefectible Church? No, it promotes a "Catholic" church that taught and continues to teach heresy to the entire "Catholic" Church.
I am not saying the R&R position is the true one. I honestly don't know what the truth is unlike some internet posters who seem to know all. But I was just trying to make clear a reason why I think many people are not sedevacantists. I do not think it is ill will for the most part.

And I was making it clear that to choose R&R over sedevacantism makes no sense at all if their issue is that they believe that sedevacantism somehow leads to defection.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Matto on February 07, 2018, 02:27:38 PM
And I was making it clear that to choose R&R over sedevacantism makes no sense at all if their issue is that somehow sedevacantism leads to defection.
Then I would say that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. But I do not post with the signature of "ANYTHING but Recognize and Resist!" Nor do I say things like 99.99 percent of Catholics are SSPX supporters. (That one wasn't you).
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 07, 2018, 02:30:18 PM
And I was making it clear that to choose R&R over sedevacantism makes no sense at all if their issue is that somehow sedevacantism leads to defection.
Then I would say that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. But I do not post with the signature of "ANYTHING but Recognize and Resist!"

What is your problem?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Matto on February 07, 2018, 02:32:11 PM
What is your problem?
I only disagree with your position and your mocking of non-sedevacantists. I do not consider that a problem.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 07, 2018, 02:33:48 PM
And I was making it clear that to choose R&R over sedevacantism makes no sense at all if their issue is that somehow sedevacantism leads to defection.
Then I would say that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. But I do not post with the signature of "ANYTHING but Recognize and Resist!" Nor do I say things like 99.99 percent of Catholics are SSPX supporters.

Ah, edited that I see.  Wouldn't want to come off anti-sede and knock yourself off that fence of yours, now would you?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 07, 2018, 02:42:38 PM
What is your problem?
I only disagree with your position and your mocking of non-sedevacantists. I do not consider that a problem.

My signature is not mocking of non-sedes; it is my opinion of anti-sedes.  I have made that very clear here.  I don't have issues with NON-sedes.

Now if you would kindly stop  :wagfinger: while you sit on your high fence, I would appreciate it.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Matto on February 07, 2018, 02:47:17 PM
I see no point in further conversation about this 2Vermont. So I will leave it at that and will bow out now.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 07, 2018, 02:49:49 PM
I see no point in further conversation about this 2Vermont. So I will leave it at that and will bow out now.

No point?  You mean it's totally fine for you to make a false accusation about me and then leave?

Good riddance.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 07, 2018, 04:14:20 PM
Because of the doctrine of infallibility, which is a dogma, if he is the Pope and you say he speaks blatant and manifest and obstinate heresies, you fall outside the Church. In order to remain in the church, we must say it is him who is not the Pope due to blatant, manifest and obstinate heresies. Infallibility is the dividing line. Either he's out or I'm out. With infallibility comes indefectability. Kind of like the car comes with the warranty.  You have to prove schism and heresy to those you want to come home.  In order to do that, you have to show them they defected and continued in that defected. This will be very tough to show to a camp who also believes their side is indefectable.
"Either he's out or I'm out" - At least we wouldn't be alone, as we stand with every canonized saint of the Church.  If "Francis" Bergoglio really a Pope then every Saint, from John and Matthew and Paul and Mary (from the Bible), all the saints named in the Eucharistic Canon, all the saints who have ever been on the calendar, all the saints whose lives adorn the entire content of Butler's Lives of the Saints, would all be burning in Hell right now.  For he is openly against their religion (and that of Jesus Christ) and for ... - what?  From what I see, I don't think very many on "their side" even have any concept of what it would mean to be indefectible, or even know the word.  What many of them do know is that things are very unsatisfactory on their side, with the very value of everything supernatural being pooh-pooh'ed and no reason to bother with such a "religion" in the first place.
It might be simple to say, "The Pope will never teach heresy."  That is my own opinion, shared by many, but none of those who share it may dare to assert it dogmatically for it remains also a legitimate position to say "The Pope will never teach heresy, or else if ever he does then he promptly loses his pontificate in that very act."  Either way, "Pope" and "heresy" don't mix, and certainly never can.
Based on what I've studied about the indefectibility of the Church, I do not see it even being remotely possible, not even the slightest bit possible the Papacy could be lost. Not to Vatican leadership, not to modernist, not to anyone.
You have me wondering what in the world texts you must have been studying, and in particular why you would think the nature of the gain or loss of the papacy would have anything to do with the indefectibility of the Church, or would be found in such a text, specifically.  It is a well-established fact that a Pope loses his office upon either his death or his resignation.  Death is obvious and common enough as to require no explanation (although a permanent loss of the man's sanity could also be construed as a "death" as well - if a pope endured serious brain damage and entered into a coma that would equally end his pontificate as would literal bodily death).
Resignation is also possible, even to a Pope, and some about a dozen popes have resigned down through the ages (not counting the latter half of the twentieth Century onwards), either eleven or thirteen, depending upon whether Liberius and those following him accepted any pontifical acts of Felix II or not.  Here is the list:   Pontian, Martin I, Liberius, Felix II, John X, John XII, Leo VIII, Benedict V, Benedict IX (thrice), Sylvester III, Benedict X, Gregory XII, Celestine V.  Popes Pontian, Benedict IX (the second of his three times that he resigned), Gregory XII, and Celestine V resigned directly, basically by saying "I quit."  Martin I evidenced his resignation by recognizing pontifical acts of his successor Eugene I, and Liberius would also have to be counted if he accepted any pontifical act of his first successor Felix II.  In all other instances, the individual having proven gravely unworthy and being physically chased out, fled from and abandoned the office at least somewhat voluntarily (for even in exile or hiding a Pope could still retain his office by continuing to claim the title, rule the Church, continue contact with his papal court or bring it with him, etc., but these fellows when they fled into exile or hiding did none of these things and in that truly abandoned - thereby resigned from - the office).
In addition to an explicit "I quit," Canon 188 itemizes quite a list of other (tacit) means by which any officer of the Church can resign, all of which are visible acts which, when performed, directly remove the man from the office.  One of those means is that the person becomes a heretic.  Were that possible to a pope (which has not been ruled out), he too would lose his pontificate just as any other officer of the Church would equally lose his office, though the loss of office to a pope-become-heretic is rooted in something far deeper than mere Canon Law, namely divine revelation.  Another of the means by which a person (including pope) from that list would be that they transfer to a different and incompatible office, and the transfer is peacefully accepted.  By all evidences this seems to be the actual manner of loss of office, at least in the case of Paul VI.
But key to all of this is that a Pope losing his office does not signal an end or violation of the indefectibility of the Church.
If it is possible, then I may have to go the other way and say the church was defectable, not bound in perpetuity and not owing to infallibility.  Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam does not give me this feeling at all.  Many have told me that what happened to the papacy is so shocking it is hard for people to believe (and why they don't see it, i.e. "anything but sedevacantism.") That is not my fear. My fear is that if what you have stated in this statement is true, there was an actual true defection and there has to be a careful examination and investigation into indefectibility.
There is no need to "go" any way.  Bifurcation is much like a schism.  Once you have two separate societies (in a "bifurcation" there is or can be an overlap, such as that between the Synagogue and the Church during the first Century where some Christians - notably the congregation of St. James - also belonged to the Synagogue), only one of which is really the Church, the defection of the other has absolutely nothing to do with the Church, and in fact exists in God's Providence so as to demonstrate to all which side is not the Church, in case there could be any question.
I appreciate your strong assertion it remains in the faithful Traditionalist Catholics.  However, Sedevacantism, in all it's truths and realities of defining the real church only came about because there was a defection first. If there was no defection, there would be no sedevacantism. If there is sedevacantism to hold the "true church" together, there had to be a defection to make that so. All well and good, but now we have an issue of defection or lack of indefectibility.  I can not accept as indefectible a church which must permit a partial, or in this case, a whole sale defection, of almost the entire Catholic Church to prove who the truly indefectible are.
A defection is actually inevitable so that is no concern.  A fake church would of necessity need to defect.  They have to change stuff around so as to set themselves from the Catholic Church (always selling these "changes" as some sort of "improvements" over the Church, and therefore some sort of reason to go with them instead of staying with the Church.  If they kept everything exactly the same then people would have no reason to prefer the new sect over the Church since they could just get the same (and with believably more value) from the Church itself.  So such "change" and defection is intrinsically necessary.  The whole point of "the changes" of the 1960's and 1970's was so that everyone would know that they were not Catholics anymore, so this was not silent and unknown but out in plain sight.  Yet how many went with the changes rather than staying with the Church?  Tragic beyond belief!  But there were always those who stayed with the Church throughout that whole period, and it is to these we trace the real Catholic Church today among we traditionalists with all apostolic and canonical continuity.  We may not be numerous (in comparison to those who fell), but we have always been there, and remain there today, and shall remain until the end of time, for that is God's own promise, as much upheld today as in any other era.
That argument to me is like Calvinist who have been arguing that God permits some to be saved while leaving some to be damned. He saves some to show his kindness and damns others to show his justice. This would be a wholly capricious God who behaved like this and is why Calvinism has been condemned again and again. Now a similar issue is actually being argued. A God who permits some to defect and retains those who will not defect in order to show who the true indefectable Church was.   
Ubipetrus my friend, for now, this argumentation boggles my mind and I must reject it not of my own volition but because of what the church has taught us about indefectibility of the church.
I am not here to argue, but to instruct.  If one's only object is their own salvation (or that of their immediate family) it is enough to find a church which fits the description of any standard classical (pre-Vatican II) catechism (which only exists in traditional Catholic parishes, of whatever stripe), go there, and be blessed, or have their whole family go with them to be blessed.  But if one wishes to understand what is happening and how, that requires much study, and far too often people prefer to read the latest sensational book from some writer whose emphasis is often more on the latest Vatican scandals rather than a systematic investigation into the doctrinal aspects of our present circumstance (the Dimonds, for example are good at that) rather than spend time in solid classical theological sources.
But really, what has happened is surprisingly simple; it is only the full outworking of that and the careful and detailed and rigorous theological proof that requires much space and time to cover adequately.
A pope who lacks infallibility is no pope at all. God cannot permit the Church to accept a false Pope. However, in 1963, God allowed for this?
God has permitted error to spread to large numbers of people on many occasions, in His permissive will.  This is no different.  Prophecy indicates that such a large defection would also occur in the final age, while Antichrist stalks the earth.  And we all know of the historic event of the rise of Arianism which was also a large defection, so even the large scale of the defection today is hardly to be considered unprecedented or impossible.  Many saints have endured miserable conditions, and one could equally ask why God would permit such harm to come to those who love God so heroically.
St. Bellarmine agreed, at least as his opinion, and I share that opinion (also as only an opinion) as well.  But if a person of secret bad faith somehow got elected, the Church would have to be protected somehow, either that he keeps it to himself and does little to nothing at all, or else that events maneuver his resignation in all Providence.

"The adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and Behold I am with you all days. To be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact, as will be still more clearly apparent in what is to be said later. By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected. But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope]. Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions." Cardinal Louis Billot, S.J., On the Legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff, 1927; (https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/)

But you do bring up a good point that the true Church would never accept a stranger instead of the true Shepherd, showing that those who do accept the stranger therefore indeed do not comprise the true Church.  But the true and faithful flock could never accept the voice of the stranger or the wolf, and seeing all the most truly serious and pious Catholics taking the right stand shows the passive infallibility of the true Church.

It appears, that due to the nature of the infallibility of the Pope and the indefectibility of the Church, God has guaranteed to the church (comprised of everyone else who does not enjoy infallibility) that he would not permit them to accept a false pope.  The sure sign there is a true Pope is the universal acceptance of the Pope as Bishop and head of the Church.  Otherwise, the Church could never know they acted correctly in accepting the Pope who was elected.  Remember I advocated that God will not allow the Pope to fall into heresy privately. Otherwise, how can we be sure, (a) he would not so fall and (b) he would be able to come out of his heresy to infallibly lead the Church? Similarly, how can God guarantee his flock would know they have a true Vicar and leader of the flock in the Chair of Peter without them having some confirmation they have done what he has asked them to do? This sure sign they have is that individual Catholics have the assurance the Church at large accepts the Papal election and the new Pope. 

I believe that what we had first was a bifurcation between the real Catholic Church (which exists to this day as we traditionalists, and as indefectible as ever) and a new parallel society (which is currently lead by "Francis" Bergoglio.)  The divine promises apply quite specifically and exclusively to the Church and to no other society, hence that which is not the Church could then proceed and even quite promptly into defection, while the Church remains loyal and true.  If "a real pope comes along" this can be no mere random event, more importantly it cannot happen with the Vatican apparatus (that's part of what it means to say that it is not the Church, and its leader no Pope), but only the result of the real Catholic Church selecting a Pope, namely we traditionalists.

You have advocated for a "bifurcated church," "a parallel society," and "a non Church proceeding into defection."  Remember earlier I asked, "How do you fix a defection that already occurred?" I think now my question is to whom do you need to prove this bifurcation, parallel society and a church marching off to defection? Wouldn't the gospel command you to pronounce this to those whom are thus going this way? How shall you show this to (arguably the Novus Ordo and maybe some R&R Traditionalists) without not also showing them defection?

As a Sedevacantist, if you are confident you can show this, then you will also be showing to those whom you must show this there was a defection. Why? Because you have to show them they defected away and must come back? This is why they will never admit to such evidence. When they do, they admit to defectibility, but I think in one regard you must also. You have to show them defection so they will come home. You will have to show them the church they were lead to believe was indefectible caused them to stumble and defect. This is quite the paradox.

I argue the Church that defected at the time leading into Vatican II had God's promises of indefectibility and infallibility? If not, then we must now explore at what point God removed it from those heading into Vatican II. If you say they lost it because they were being led to Vatican II by John XXIII, then we must go back and re-explore they did not have the sure sign of John XXIII being Pope, which exists in the universal church's acceptance of him as Pope. I believe this gets into the ground of all sorts of defection on too many directions and will be like trying to get the worms back into the can.

God love you Ubipetrus.
It is clear you have a lot to think about, to pray over, to meditate about.  But real study does not have one going off in a zillion directions like so many worms escaping from a can, but rather provides one with a rather clear and unified result which makes sense, and everything truly does fall into place with stunning neatness and precision, even today.
I will keep you in my prayers.  Feel free to ask when you are ready for more.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 07, 2018, 04:39:29 PM
VZ: I don't understand how what ubipetrus described here equals a "defected Church".  If true popes promulgated Vatican II, that would be a defected Church.  The fact that they were not true popes keeps the indefectibility of the Church intact.

So, VZ, this actually was a sincere question even though others seem to have taken it otherwise.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 07, 2018, 04:40:23 PM
St. Bellarmine agreed, at least as his opinion, and I share that opinion (also as only an opinion) as well.  But if a person of secret bad faith somehow got elected, the Church would have to be protected somehow, either that he keeps it to himself and does little to nothing at all, or else that events maneuver his resignation in all Providence.

"The adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and Behold I am with you all days. To be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact, as will be still more clearly apparent in what is to be said later. By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected. But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope]. Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions." Cardinal Louis Billot, S.J., On the Legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff, 1927; (https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/)

I will address your other comments. However, I am quite disappointed that you chose to combine the entire end of my discussion with your previous comments and completely glossed over the quote of Cardinal Billot that I proposed in response to your comment about what would happen if someone of "bad faith" was elected. Therefore, I will parse this one out separately for you to address solely.  Concluding with, "I need to study more" is dismissive of my reply. I will await your reply in regards to what Cardinal Billot stated solely. Please do not combine it with any other comments.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 07, 2018, 04:47:06 PM
I think Ubi may have sensed that you weren't ready to go forward with the discussion.  I got the sense that you were basically done with the conversation because of your issue with defection.  That's why I only asked that one question regarding that point.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 07, 2018, 05:34:26 PM
VZ: I don't understand how what ubipetrus described here equals a "defected Church".  If true popes promulgated Vatican II, that would be a defected Church.  The fact that they were not true popes keeps the indefectibility of the Church intact.

So, VZ, this actually was a sincere question even though others seem to have taken it otherwise.

Yes, I know it was. I was in the midst of my discussion with ubipetrus and he provides long replies and I had to be sure I understood what he was writing. I took your question as serious and planned to respond.

First, if true popes promulgated Vatican II, and you (or I or anyone else) called them heretics, schismatics, false prophets, etc, based on the doctrine of infallibility you are outside the Church.  That is what the doctrine is. I do not know if you had a chance to read my OP, but this is what the basic premise of my question is exploring.  I think you provided this statement in reply to another person on this thread regarding Vatican I and what to do about a heretical pope, "The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself."

This was exactly my point in the OP about what Bellarmine was considering regarding the heretical Pope.  He discussed 4 possibilities (dismissed the first 2 as heretical, said the 3rd was not possible) and then stated, “The fourth which lies between these extremes, is, that the Pontiff, whether personally he can be a heretic or no, cannot, in any event, define anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church. ‘This is the most common opinion of nearly all Catholics’ as S Thomas says.”  Bellarmine then termed the fourth position “most certain, and to be asserted.” 

The fourth position is NOT that the Pope can fall into heresy, but cannot teach heresy.  It appears rather, the fourth position is asserted without answering the question as to whether or not the Pope can fall into heresy. Bellarmine stated, “The fourth position lies between the extremes” and he definitively says the Pope absolutely cannot define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church.  Manning also went on to say, “The words ex cathedra exclude all acts of the Pontiff as a private person or as a private Doctor, and confine the character of infallibility to those acts which are promulgated from the Chair of supreme authority as Universal Doctor of the Church in faith and morals.”  Neither Manning nor Bellarmine addressed whether the Pope could fall into private heresy.  The Pope retains infallibility in his private capacity.  Otherwise, it is certain he would defect from the faith and become a heretic. 

I understand you say this is exactly what happened, but as Vatican I declared, it never has because indefectibility means more than infallibility.  According to infallibility, this extends to when the Pope speaks from the chair of Peter on matters of faith and morals, but infallibility does not imply the papacy would continue always in this infallibility. This is what indefectibility is. Indefectibility declares the Church will continue always, to the end of the world, that she cannot err in these matters.

In "The Creed Explained" by the Rev. Arthur Devine (1897), (pp. 289-290) he stated the following, Section 5. Article IX on the Properties of the Church:

"Besides the four notes or marks, the Church has many other properties inherent in and essential to her. The principal of these are indefectibility in being or existence; infallibility in teaching; and authority or power in ruling or governing.  These three properties or attributes are denied by all non-Catholic sects, because otherwise they could not account for their existence, or assign any plausible reason for not belonging to the one true Church.  We have now to explain separately these properties or attributes."

In section 2 he states, "This is a property by which the Church cannot fail that by which she cannot either lose or have diminished of her divine qualities or gifts even for a short time. The doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church may comprised in the following propositions:

A. The whole Church is indefectible
B. One part of the Church namely the Apostolic is indefectible
C. The particular Church of this or that particular diocese or this or that particular nation may fail and fall away

"Perpetuity is included in indefectibility.  Although speaking unless God had ordained otherwise the Church could be perpetual without being in all respects  indefectible, ... Perpetuity imports continuation without interruption but indefectibility imports duration and immutability as well"

Finally, he states in section 3:

"Heretics in regard to the indefectibility of the Church err on two points":

1. As to the possibility of defection
2. As to the fact of defection

"They have held various opinions as to the possibility of defection":

A. Some have held that the whole Church can fail entirely for a time.
B. Some say the visible Church can fail but not the invisible Church as if these were two distinct Churches.
C. Others affirm that, although the Church cannot fail entirely, she can do so in part, at least for a time, and even always by losing this or that attribute or perfection, or retaining it but maimed and vitiated.

Finally, on the section, "As to the fact of defection" he states:

"All heretics of every sect hold that the Church has in some way or other failed otherwise as I have said they cannot assign any reason for their separation from her but as to the time of her defection they are not agreed .... Against all these errors Catholics hold the indefectibility of the Church as above explained and the proofs of it and of her infallibility may be said to be the same."

The mere fact Vatican II is termed a "defection" is itself proof of a defection. I am NOT saying you or any other sede is wrong in this regard. What I am saying is that Sedes state there was an actual defection from the body of the Church as happened at Vatican II and since.  If this is the case, there was a moment in time when an actual defection happened within the church deemed indefectible.  This presence of sedevacantism (and the call for the defected to come back to the church or for others to avoid the Vatican II Church) itself points to a defection. 
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 07, 2018, 05:40:39 PM
Ubi provides long responses?  Ummm...VZ....have you taken a look at your own?  ;)

I have to admit that I am confused by your reply (and I rarely do well with long replies anyway).  I will need more time to make sense of it.  I say this because sedes do NOT say a defection took place.  They say just the opposite.  They say a defection would have taken place if a true pope promulgated Vatican II. The fact that Vatican II is not Catholic proves that Paul VI could not possibly have been a true pope.

Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 07, 2018, 08:04:55 PM
It might be simple to say, "The Pope will never teach heresy."  That is my own opinion, shared by many, but none of those who share it may dare to assert it dogmatically for it remains also a legitimate position to say "The Pope will never teach heresy, or else if ever he does then he promptly loses his pontificate in that very act."  Either way, "Pope" and "heresy" don't mix, and certainly never can.

Remember Bellarmine stated, "Opinion implies uncertainty and we hold this judgment to be certain.” The judgment he held to be certain was that he definitively stated the Pope absolutely cannot define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church.  When anyone discussed what the consequence was to the Pope if he became a heretic or taught heresy, does not mean they actually thought it was a possibility. They could not because of the doctrine of infallibility and indefectibility.  It was like when Paul stated, "If Christ is not raised your faith is in vain." That was the consequence IF it were actually true. But Paul knew Christ had been raised and therefore our faith was not in vain. This is the same with the contemplation of, "What if the Pope becomes a heretic?" Well then he, "Ipso facto falls from the Church." However, those that contemplated this knew the Pope could not be a heretic and therefore he would not fall ipso facto out of the Church.

Canon 188 itemizes quite a list of other (tacit) means by which any officer of the Church can resign, all of which are visible acts which, when performed, directly remove the man from the office.  One of those means is that the person becomes a heretic.  Were that possible to a pope (which has not been ruled out), he too would lose his pontificate just as any other officer of the Church would equally lose his office, though the loss of office to a pope-become-heretic is rooted in something far deeper than mere Canon Law, namely divine revelation.

The Pope cannot become a heretic and the church is indefectible.  You can cite doctors of the church who have discussed the ramifications of what it meant if it actually happened. I am aware of the consequences of what would happen if he actually became one. However, this is now the second time I will be asking you to provide me the evidence (and I promise I will read it) of any Doctor of the Church or theologian who actually believed it would actually happen. 

There is no need to "go" any way.  Bifurcation is much like a schism.  Once you have two separate societies (in a "bifurcation" there is or can be an overlap, such as that between the Synagogue and the Church during the first Century where some Christians - notably the congregation of St. James - also belonged to the Synagogue), only one of which is really the Church, the defection of the other has absolutely nothing to do with the Church, and in fact exists in God's Providence so as to demonstrate to all which side is not the Church, in case there could be any question.

The Jews and the synagogue were never part of the Church. Your example is not a correct use of bifurcation. A bifurcation is the division of one into two parts. You even stated it yourself, "only one of which is really the Church" and "the other has nothing to do with the Church." If the synagogue and Church were never one, you can't have a bifurcation of it. Your position can be better examined when looking at what you have advocated came out of the aftermath of Vatican II. If what you are saying has happened that a remnant remains in Traditional Catholics, then this is a true bifurcation. Here is the reason why.  You cannot argue that prior to Vatican II there was something similar in the Catholic Church like what existed between the synagogue and Church.  If you do argue that, then you argue there had always existed a false church inside of the true church.  If so, this is completely contrary to the indefectible nature of the church.  Prior to Vatican II, there was One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that also had the marks of indefectibility and infallibility within her. So if you advocate that out of Vatican II came 2 churches, the real one and a counterfeit one then you have a bifurcation due to defection.  This is what is completely contrary to the indefectibility of the Church. 

A defection is actually inevitable so that is no concern.
 

In "The Creed Explained" by the Rev. Arthur Devine (1897), (pp. 289-290) he stated,

"Heretics in regard to the indefectibility of the Church err on two points":

1. As to the possibility of defection
2. As to the fact of defection

"They have held various opinions as to the possibility of defection":

1. Some have held that the whole Church can fail entirely for a time.
2. Some say the visible Church can fail but not the invisible Church as if these were two distinct Churches.
3. Others affirm that, although the Church cannot fail entirely, she can do so in part, at least for a time, and even always by losing this or that attribute or perfection, or retaining it but maimed and vitiated.

Finally, on the section, "As to the fact of defection" he states, "All heretics of every sect hold that the Church has, in some way or other, failed; otherwise as I have said, they cannot assign any reason for their separation from her; but as to the time of her defection they are not agreed .... Against all these errors, Catholics hold the indefectibility of the Church, as above explained, and the proofs of it, and of her infallibility, may be said to be the same."

God has permitted error to spread to large numbers of people on many occasions, in His permissive will.  This is no different.
   
Many saints have endured miserable conditions, and one could equally ask why God would permit such harm to come to those who love God so heroically.

The errors that have been permitted to spread are to those outside of God's church. If you argue he allowed this error to spread inside, this certainly undoes the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church and the Magisterium. The saints who endured miserable conditions were of the Church, suffering their persecution from those without.   

Please do not also forget to answer my other separate post in this thread in regards to what Cardinal Billot stated. Also, I request that you please not combine it with any other comments but leave it as its own thread.  Thank you.

God love you ubipetrus.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 08, 2018, 04:26:37 PM
OK, so I have now re-read your post and I am just not understanding your point.  Is it possible for you to make it in a couple of paragraphs?

The quote I gave from Vatican I shows that a pope can become a heretic (just that it has not happened before that time.....which of course flies in the face of the R&R followers who claim the Church has had heretic popes before... but I digress).  It also does not say that a pope must first teach heresy in order to be considered a heretic. 

I still do not see how Vatican II constitutes the defection of the Church UNLESS a true pope universally promulgated it.

Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 08, 2018, 05:50:24 PM
OK, so I have now re-read your post and I am just not understanding your point.  Is it possible for you to make it in a couple of paragraphs?

The quote I gave from Vatican I shows that a pope can become a heretic (just that it has not happened before that time.....which of course flies in the face of the R&R followers who claim the Church has had heretic popes before... but I digress).  It also does not say that a pope must first teach heresy in order to be considered a heretic. 

I still do not see how Vatican II constitutes the defection of the Church UNLESS a true pope universally promulgated it.

Ok. First, looking at the doctrine of infallibility, this includes indefectibility, immutability and perpetuity.  If a true pope promulgated Vatican II, you must be obedient to every last word, all of it, or else you are outside the church and no different than a heretic or schismatic.  This is what the doctrine of infallibility demands of everyone.

If they were true Popes at Vatican II (and someone concludes Vatican II was heretical) then this was my point about Bellarmine and his consideration of a heretical Pope.  Though he discussed it, did not mean he ever thought it would happen.  Bellarmine stated the Pope could never define anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church. Indefectibility means more than infallibility.  According to infallibility, this extends to when the Pope speaks from the chair of Peter on matters of faith and morals.  Indefectibility declares the Church will continue, always, to the end of the world, and that she cannot err.  If Vatican II was declared by a true pope one must be obedient.  If Vatican II was declared by a true pope, but it is "heretical," Bellarmine and indefectibility teach us the Pope could never teach something heretical to the church. 

Finally, I quoted from the book, "The Creed Explained" by the Rev. Arthur Devine (1897), (pp. 289-290).  If the Pope became a heretic before Vatican II to not only teach heresy, but lead others in the church into that heresy, this is contrary to what Devine (and others) have said about the indefectibility of the Church. According to Devine, inherent and essential to the Church were indefectibility in being or existence; infallibility in teaching; and authority or power in ruling or governing.  He stated those that deny this, do so only so as to explain how they still belong to the church.  Finally he concluded that heretics make one of two errors in regards to the indefectibility of the church, either they say there is the possibility of defection or they say there was a defection. 

1. Did a true Pope promulgate Vatican II? - Then according to infallibility every word of it must be believed.
2. Did a true Pope promulgate Vatican II, an Vatican II is full of heresy? - A true Pope could never teach heresy to the entire church.
3. Did the Pope become a heretic, teach heresy to the entire church causing some (or many) to defect? This is against the indefectibility of the Church.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 08, 2018, 05:58:09 PM
OK, so I have now re-read your post and I am just not understanding your point.  Is it possible for you to make it in a couple of paragraphs?

The quote I gave from Vatican I shows that a pope can become a heretic (just that it has not happened before that time.....which of course flies in the face of the R&R followers who claim the Church has had heretic popes before... but I digress).  It also does not say that a pope must first teach heresy in order to be considered a heretic. 

I still do not see how Vatican II constitutes the defection of the Church UNLESS a true pope universally promulgated it.

Ok. First, looking at the doctrine of infallibility, this includes indefectibility, immutability and perpetuity.  If a true pope promulgated Vatican II, you must be obedient to every last word, all of it, or else you are outside the church and no different than a heretic or schismatic.  This is what the doctrine of infallibility demands of everyone.

If they were true Popes at Vatican II (and someone concludes Vatican II was heretical) then this was my point about Bellarmine and his consideration of a heretical Pope.  Though he discussed it, did not mean he ever thought it would happen.  Bellarmine stated the Pope could never define anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church. Indefectibility means more than infallibility.  According to infallibility, this extends to when the Pope speaks from the chair of Peter on matters of faith and morals.  Indefectibility declares the Church will continue, always, to the end of the world, and that she cannot err.  If Vatican II was declared by a true pope one must be obedient.  If Vatican II was declared by a true pope, but it is "heretical," Bellarmine and indefectibility teach us the Pope could never teach something heretical to the church. 

Finally, I quoted from the book, "The Creed Explained" by the Rev. Arthur Devine (1897), (pp. 289-290).  If the Pope became a heretic before Vatican II to not only teach heresy, but lead others in the church into that heresy, this is contrary to what Devine (and others) have said about the indefectibility of the Church. According to Devine, inherent and essential to the Church were indefectibility in being or existence; infallibility in teaching; and authority or power in ruling or governing.  He stated those that deny this, do so only so as to explain how they still belong to the church.  Finally he concluded that heretics make one of two errors in regards to the indefectibility of the church, either they say there is the possibility of defection or they say there was a defection. 

1. Did a true Pope promulgate Vatican II? - Then according to infallibility every word of it must be believed.
2. Did a true Pope promulgate Vatican II, an Vatican II is full of heresy? - A true Pope could never teach heresy to the entire church.
3. Did the Pope become a heretic, teach heresy to the entire church causing some (or many) to defect? This is against the indefectibility of the Church.

The sedevacantist position does not believe #1 nor #2 since it does not hold that Paul VI was a true pope.  The fact that a heretic pope is no pope at all (again, the sedevacantist position) precludes #3.  A true pope can not teach heresy to the entire church.

So, once again, the sedevacantist position holds up the indefectibility of the Catholic Church.  It is the Recognize and Resist position that does not.

Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 08, 2018, 10:54:37 PM

The sedevacantist position does not believe #1 nor #2 since it does not hold that Paul VI was a true pope.  The fact that a heretic pope is no pope at all (again, the sedevacantist position) precludes #3.  A true pope can not teach heresy to the entire church.

So, once again, the sedevacantist position holds up the indefectibility of the Catholic Church.  It is the Recognize and Resist position that does not.

I will agree with you on the R&R point. In part I will agree a heretic pope would be no pope at all, but where I will disagree is that though it was discussed as to what would happen if a pope did become a heretic, it was also taught the pope never would.  No one holds up the indefectibility of the Church. It was declared by Christ alone and is found only in Peter, his successors and the see of Rome as declared by Vatican I.

However for now, I would like to just ask a few serious questions.

1. If neither John XXIII nor Paul VI were popes, did the Roman Catholic Church show up at Vatican II at the call of John XXIII and remain there until Paul VI concluded the council? 
2. If you believe the Roman Catholic Church went to the second Vatican council, why did the Church (the entire magisterium) follow the voice of a wolf when they knew in fact a true pope cannot teach heresy and that a heretic pope is no pope at all?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 09, 2018, 04:47:11 AM
I will return to the quote I gave .... it states that a pope never became a heretic.  It did NOT state that those at Vatican I believed that it could never happen.  Otherwise, it would not have gone on to explain what would happen after such a thing did happen.  It would have stated a pope never became a heretic AND can never become a heretic.  Period.  End of story.  No need to go on with the rest of the quote.  But that's not what it states.

I have to get ready for work, so I will have to come back to this later.  Maybe someone else can respond further to your post in the meantime.

Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on February 09, 2018, 07:28:27 AM
VZ: I don't understand how what ubipetrus described here equals a "defected Church".  If true popes promulgated Vatican II, that would be a defected Church.  The fact that they were not true popes keeps the indefectibility of the Church intact.

So, VZ, this actually was a sincere question even though others seem to have taken it otherwise.

Yes, I know it was. I was in the midst of my discussion with ubipetrus and he provides long replies and I had to be sure I understood what he was writing. I took your question as serious and planned to respond.

First, if true popes promulgated Vatican II, and you (or I or anyone else) called them heretics, schismatics, false prophets, etc, based on the doctrine of infallibility you are outside the Church.  That is what the doctrine is. I do not know if you had a chance to read my OP, but this is what the basic premise of my question is exploring.  I think you provided this statement in reply to another person on this thread regarding Vatican I and what to do about a heretical pope, "The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself."

This was exactly my point in the OP about what Bellarmine was considering regarding the heretical Pope.  He discussed 4 possibilities (dismissed the first 2 as heretical, said the 3rd was not possible) and then stated, “The fourth which lies between these extremes, is, that the Pontiff, whether personally he can be a heretic or no, cannot, in any event, define anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church. ‘This is the most common opinion of nearly all Catholics’ as S Thomas says.”  Bellarmine then termed the fourth position “most certain, and to be asserted.” 

The fourth position is NOT that the Pope can fall into heresy, but cannot teach heresy.  It appears rather, the fourth position is asserted without answering the question as to whether or not the Pope can fall into heresy. Bellarmine stated, “The fourth position lies between the extremes” and he definitively says the Pope absolutely cannot define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church.  Manning also went on to say, “The words ex cathedra exclude all acts of the Pontiff as a private person or as a private Doctor, and confine the character of infallibility to those acts which are promulgated from the Chair of supreme authority as Universal Doctor of the Church in faith and morals.”  Neither Manning nor Bellarmine addressed whether the Pope could fall into private heresy.  The Pope retains infallibility in his private capacity.  Otherwise, it is certain he would defect from the faith and become a heretic. 

I understand you say this is exactly what happened, but as Vatican I declared, it never has because indefectibility means more than infallibility.  According to infallibility, this extends to when the Pope speaks from the chair of Peter on matters of faith and morals, but infallibility does not imply the papacy would continue always in this infallibility. This is what indefectibility is. Indefectibility declares the Church will continue always, to the end of the world, that she cannot err in these matters.

In "The Creed Explained" by the Rev. Arthur Devine (1897), (pp. 289-290) he stated the following, Section 5. Article IX on the Properties of the Church:

"Besides the four notes or marks, the Church has many other properties inherent in and essential to her. The principal of these are indefectibility in being or existence; infallibility in teaching; and authority or power in ruling or governing.  These three properties or attributes are denied by all non-Catholic sects, because otherwise they could not account for their existence, or assign any plausible reason for not belonging to the one true Church.  We have now to explain separately these properties or attributes."

In section 2 he states, "This is a property by which the Church cannot fail that by which she cannot either lose or have diminished of her divine qualities or gifts even for a short time. The doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church may comprised in the following propositions:

A. The whole Church is indefectible
B. One part of the Church namely the Apostolic is indefectible
C. The particular Church of this or that particular diocese or this or that particular nation may fail and fall away

"Perpetuity is included in indefectibility.  Although speaking unless God had ordained otherwise the Church could be perpetual without being in all respects  indefectible, ... Perpetuity imports continuation without interruption but indefectibility imports duration and immutability as well"

Finally, he states in section 3:

"Heretics in regard to the indefectibility of the Church err on two points":

1. As to the possibility of defection
2. As to the fact of defection

"They have held various opinions as to the possibility of defection":

A. Some have held that the whole Church can fail entirely for a time.
B. Some say the visible Church can fail but not the invisible Church as if these were two distinct Churches.
C. Others affirm that, although the Church cannot fail entirely, she can do so in part, at least for a time, and even always by losing this or that attribute or perfection, or retaining it but maimed and vitiated.

Finally, on the section, "As to the fact of defection" he states:

"All heretics of every sect hold that the Church has in some way or other failed otherwise as I have said they cannot assign any reason for their separation from her but as to the time of her defection they are not agreed .... Against all these errors Catholics hold the indefectibility of the Church as above explained and the proofs of it and of her infallibility may be said to be the same."

The mere fact Vatican II is termed a "defection" is itself proof of a defection. I am NOT saying you or any other sede is wrong in this regard. What I am saying is that Sedes state there was an actual defection from the body of the Church as happened at Vatican II and since.  If this is the case, there was a moment in time when an actual defection happened within the church deemed indefectible.  This presence of sedevacantism (and the call for the defected to come back to the church or for others to avoid the Vatican II Church) itself points to a defection.

What about Bellarmine's Fifth opinion, the true one?

I read your OP and then got distracted before I could ask the obvious question.

Bellarmine cites FIVE opinions, not four. The first four, including that of Cajetan, he dismisses to varying degrees.

Quote
The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. 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, c. 3), 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 the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

It is the Fifth opinion that Bellarmine holds to be true.

Quote
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction...
http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html

In your OP the questions you raise refer only to the first four opinions which Bellarmine dismissed and omit the Fifth opinion which Bellarmine held to be true.

How does Bellarmine's Fifth and true opinion affect your questions?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 09, 2018, 02:00:46 PM

What about Bellarmine's Fifth opinion, the true one?

I read your OP and then got distracted before I could ask the obvious question.

Bellarmine cites FIVE opinions, not four. The first four, including that of Cajetan, he dismisses to varying degrees.

The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended.[/b] 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, c. 3), 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 the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

First off AC, this quote has absolutely nothing to do with my OP, but I'm not surprised at the attempt to confuse my words to try and change the argument.  What Bellarmine is talking about here is that Cajetan argued that the heretical pope does NOT ipso facto fall, but must be deposed. Bellarmine's reply is that the heretical pope ipso facto falls. That is the discussion between them and has nothing to do with my OP.

In my OP, I quoted from "The Ecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff" written by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning (1808–1892) who was at Vatican I.  As much as we all love Bellarmine, and he is a Doctor of the Church, he wrote before Vatican I and when Papal Infallibility was dogmatized.  Manning is quoting Bellarmine to show that the Pontificate can be described in 4 ways and does not even talk about the debate between Bellarmine and Cajetan.  Manning is not talking at all about whether a heretical pope ipso facto falls. He is addressing the infallibility of the Pope and this is the issue I raised in my OP.   

So let's get back to what I stated in my OP:

Of the 4 ways of describing the Pope, Bellarmine stated the first of those two I cited in my OP were heretical, the third was uncertain and the fourth was, “Most certain, and to be asserted.”  What was the 4th opinion on how to describe the Pontificate? “The fourth which lies between these extremes, is, that the Pontiff, whether personally he can be a heretic or no, cannot, in any event, define anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church. ‘This is the most common opinion of nearly all Catholics’ as S Thomas says.”  Bellarmine also stated, “Opinion implies uncertainty and we hold this judgment to be certain.”

What did Bellarmine hold to be certain? In this comment, the fourth position is asserted without answering the question as to whether or not the Pope can fall into heresy. Bellarmine stated, “The fourth position lies between the extremes” and he definitively says the Pope absolutely cannot define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church.  Manning also went on to say, “The words ex cathedra exclude all acts of the Pontiff as a private person or as a private Doctor, and confine the character of infallibility to those acts which are promulgated from the Chair of supreme authority as Universal Doctor of the Church in faith and morals.”

The entire rest of the thread since my OP (which I'm assuming you did not read) has been about the indefectibility of the Church, because it is indefectibility that guarantees the church and the papacy would continue on in infallibility.  I am sorry to come off harsh as this is not my intent! It is that I would not start an entire thread so as to discuss whether a heretical pope ipso facto falls. I think everyone here is clear on what Bellarmine asserted in regards to this against the opinion of Cajetan.  The "fourth opinion" I was talking about was a completely different "opinion."

Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction...

http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html

I've read the CMRI page, it is irrelavant to this discussion and thread. While we're on this topic, can you show me where St. Bellarmine (or any other Doctor) ever stated the Pope would become a heretic? I promise I will read every word of the evidence! Please notice my stress on requesting the citation or document of a Doctor of the Church saying it would happen; especially any evidence it would actually happen after infallibility was dogmatized after Vatican I?

In your OP the questions you raise refer only to the first four opinions which Bellarmine dismissed and omit the Fifth opinion which Bellarmine held to be true.

How does Bellarmine's Fifth and true opinion affect your questions?

It doesn't. See the first reply above please. You misinterpreted my OP.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 09, 2018, 02:09:09 PM
I will return to the quote I gave .... it states that a pope never became a heretic.  It did NOT state that those at Vatican I believed that it could never happen.  Otherwise, it would not have gone on to explain what would happen after such a thing did happen.  It would have stated a pope never became a heretic AND can never become a heretic.  Period.  End of story.  No need to go on with the rest of the quote.  But that's not what it states.

I have to get ready for work, so I will have to come back to this later.  Maybe someone else can respond further to your post in the meantime.

Actually I am just glad we were able to have an amicable discussion for a few consecutive posts. So I will take that instead of either one of us trying to prove a point.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 09, 2018, 06:00:15 PM
I've read the CMRI page, it is irrelavant to this discussion and thread. While we're on this topic, can you show me where St. Bellarmine (or any other Doctor) ever stated the Pope would become a heretic? I promise I will read every word of the evidence! Please notice my stress on requesting the citation or document of a Doctor of the Church saying it would happen; especially any evidence it would actually happen after infallibility was dogmatized after Vatican I?


The opinions that Awkward is referring to comes from St Bellarmine's writings (book?) called De Romano Pontifice....specifically in the 30th Chapter of Book II.  This chapter is entitled "Whether a Heretical Pope Can Be Deposed?"  This title already shows that St Bellarmine believed that a pope could become a heretic.  He wouldn't be considering the deposition of a heretical pope if there was no heretical pope to depose.

Have you ever read through it?

https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/



Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 09, 2018, 06:20:50 PM
I will return to the quote I gave .... it states that a pope never became a heretic.  It did NOT state that those at Vatican I believed that it could never happen.  Otherwise, it would not have gone on to explain what would happen after such a thing did happen.  It would have stated a pope never became a heretic AND can never become a heretic.  Period.  End of story.  No need to go on with the rest of the quote.  But that's not what it states.

I have to get ready for work, so I will have to come back to this later.  Maybe someone else can respond further to your post in the meantime.

Actually I am just glad we were able to have an amicable discussion for a few consecutive posts. So I will take that instead of either one of us trying to prove a point.

As am I.  I would just suggest that you do some more investigating regarding what happened at Vatican II.  One can not say that "the entire Magisterium" followed the wolf.  And I would imagine that many of those that did follow the wolf were deceived...just as so many today are deceived.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 09, 2018, 06:55:24 PM
I will return to the quote I gave .... it states that a pope never became a heretic.  It did NOT state that those at Vatican I believed that it could never happen.  Otherwise, it would not have gone on to explain what would happen after such a thing did happen.  It would have stated a pope never became a heretic AND can never become a heretic.  Period.  End of story.  No need to go on with the rest of the quote.  But that's not what it states.

I have to get ready for work, so I will have to come back to this later.  Maybe someone else can respond further to your post in the meantime.

Actually I am just glad we were able to have an amicable discussion for a few consecutive posts. So I will take that instead of either one of us trying to prove a point.

As am I.  I would just suggest that you do some more investigating regarding what happened at Vatican II.  One can not say that "the entire Magisterium" followed the wolf.  And I would imagine that many of those that did follow the wolf were deceived...just as so many today are deceived.

What I meant by follow the wolf, was that if John XXIII or Paul VI were not popes at all, then when John XXIII called the council, those that showed up followed a wolf to a council. They responded to the voice of a non-pope to go to the Vatican and conduct a council. Then after John XXIII died, they "elected" Paul VI (another non-Pope) and then let him continue running the council and dispersed after a non pope told them to depart and go back to their homes.  This is what I mean. If a non pope called it and another non pope oversaw and then concluded it, the infallible, indefectible, immutable Church allowed themselves to be led around by non-popes.  This is problematic if it is the case.

God love you. 
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 09, 2018, 07:00:23 PM
I've read the CMRI page, it is irrelavant to this discussion and thread. While we're on this topic, can you show me where St. Bellarmine (or any other Doctor) ever stated the Pope would become a heretic? I promise I will read every word of the evidence! Please notice my stress on requesting the citation or document of a Doctor of the Church saying it would happen; especially any evidence it would actually happen after infallibility was dogmatized after Vatican I?


The opinions that Awkward is referring to comes from St Bellarmine's writings (book?) called De Romano Pontifice....specifically in the 30th Chapter of Book II.  This chapter is entitled "Whether a Heretical Pope Can Be Deposed?"  This title already shows that St Bellarmine believed that a pope could become a heretic.  He wouldn't be considering the deposition of a heretical pope if there was no heretical pope to depose.

Have you ever read through it?

https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/

Not the entire book, but I am familiar with it. I am familiar with Bellarmine's argument. My reply to Awkward Customer was that was not the point of my OP. I was not asking what would happen if a pope became a heretic. I am familiar with what Bellarmine's argument is if the pope did become one. However, I think Bellarmine was aware of the consequences to the Pope if he became one, but I am not convinced Bellarmine thought a Pope would become one. He believed in the indefectibility and immutability of the Church. Either way, what AC brought up had nothing to do with this particular thread. 
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 09, 2018, 08:48:42 PM
In "The Creed Explained" by the Rev. Arthur Devine (1897), (pp. 289-290) he stated the following, Section 5. Article IX on the Properties of the Church:

"Besides the four notes or marks, the Church has many other properties inherent in and essential to her. The principal of these are indefectibility in being or existence; infallibility in teaching; and authority or power in ruling or governing.  These three properties or attributes are denied by all non-Catholic sects, because otherwise they could not account for their existence, or assign any plausible reason for not belonging to the one true Church.  We have now to explain separately these properties or attributes."

In section 2 he states, "This is a property by which the Church cannot fail that by which she cannot either lose or have diminished of her divine qualities or gifts even for a short time. The doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church may comprised in the following propositions:

A. The whole Church is indefectible
B. One part of the Church namely the Apostolic is indefectible
C. The particular Church of this or that particular diocese or this or that particular nation may fail and fall away

"Perpetuity is included in indefectibility.  Although speaking unless God had ordained otherwise the Church could be perpetual without being in all respects  indefectible, ... Perpetuity imports continuation without interruption but indefectibility imports duration and immutability as well"

Finally, he states in section 3:

"Heretics in regard to the indefectibility of the Church err on two points":

1. As to the possibility of defection
2. As to the fact of defection

"They have held various opinions as to the possibility of defection":

A. Some have held that the whole Church can fail entirely for a time.
B. Some say the visible Church can fail but not the invisible Church as if these were two distinct Churches.
C. Others affirm that, although the Church cannot fail entirely, she can do so in part, at least for a time, and even always by losing this or that attribute or perfection, or retaining it but maimed and vitiated.

Finally, on the section, "As to the fact of defection" he states:

"All heretics of every sect hold that the Church has in some way or other failed otherwise as I have said they cannot assign any reason for their separation from her but as to the time of her defection they are not agreed .... Against all these errors Catholics hold the indefectibility of the Church as above explained and the proofs of it and of her infallibility may be said to be the same."

The mere fact Vatican II is termed a "defection" is itself proof of a defection. I am NOT saying you or any other sede is wrong in this regard. What I am saying is that Sedes state there was an actual defection from the body of the Church as happened at Vatican II and since.  If this is the case, there was a moment in time when an actual defection happened within the church deemed indefectible.  This presence of sedevacantism (and the call for the defected to come back to the church or for others to avoid the Vatican II Church) itself points to a defection.
You need to come to comprehend what has happened, the full sequence of events.  Until you do you will just keep going around in circles contemplating the defection of the indefectible Church until you go bonkers.

The sequence, stripped of the confusing disguises as have been put on it, is quite simple, has happened a great many times in Church history, and goes like this:

1)  A schism occurs - in particular some group of former Catholics separates itself from the Church and form a new society in parallel to the Church; typically because they have some new ideas with which they can improve upon the Church.
2)  The new and parallel schismatic society defects, falls into errors and heresies, grows more and more corrupt over time as the planned improvements, now finally carried out, prove to be actually inferior to that which God set forth.
3)  The Church from which the particular group separated itself from remains pristine pure, undefected, as always.
4)  Sometimes, large numbers of persons have difficulty discerning which side is the Church and which is in schism/heresy, especially when just starting out and the difference is very slight, and all the more so when those separating from the Church form a larger group of persons than those remaining in the Church.

And there it is, the whole thing, in a very tight nutshell.  It happened with the Gnostics, the Manicheans, the Arians, the Modalists, the Nestorians, the Muslims, the Eastern Schismatics, the Protestants, the Gallicans (of the Council of Pistoia), the Rationalists, the Old Catholics (of Utrecht), the Liberals, the Modernists, and the Novus Ordo (of Vatican II).

The "whole Church" did not fall into error (or defect), and we know this because if it had then there would be no traditionalists; everyone would have simply gotten in step with the new program, the new religion, and the new blasphemy.  That a large majority did fall in line with the new religion means nothing; the same thing happened in England when all bishops (but one) and nearly all priests and ordinary lay parishioners one and all accepted the King of England as their Pope.  Do we say the Church in England failed, or defected, because so many fell away?  Or do we accept that the Church remained, even in England, albeit far smaller in numbers (a single bishop, rapidly killed off in the tower, some tiny handful of priests, and a tiny minority of recusant laity who mostly went unnoticed), yet having plainly not defected but kept the Faith pure and unadulterated.  Vatican II is just the same thing repeated all over the world.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 09, 2018, 10:05:05 PM
The Jews and the synagogue were never part of the Church. Your example is not a correct use of bifurcation. A bifurcation is the division of one into two parts. You even stated it yourself, "only one of which is really the Church" and "the other has nothing to do with the Church." If the synagogue and Church were never one, you can't have a bifurcation of it. Your position can be better examined when looking at what you have advocated came out of the aftermath of Vatican II. If what you are saying has happened that a remnant remains in Traditional Catholics, then this is a true bifurcation. Here is the reason why.  You cannot argue that prior to Vatican II there was something similar in the Catholic Church like what existed between the synagogue and Church.  If you do argue that, then you argue there had always existed a false church inside of the true church.  If so, this is completely contrary to the indefectible nature of the church.  Prior to Vatican II, there was One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that also had the marks of indefectibility and infallibility within her. So if you advocate that out of Vatican II came 2 churches, the real one and a counterfeit one then you have a bifurcation due to defection.  This is what is completely contrary to the indefectibility of the Church. 
Up until the founding of the Church at Pentecost, the Synagogue (and Temple with its animal sacrifices) WAS, in effect, "the Church" of God.  That is one real difference between then and now (one of the problems with analogies is that while things will be similar enough to make the point, it is a rare analogy which does not fall apart at some point if pursued into all of its details.  The thing here is that a "bifurcation" as I use the word allows for persons to be members of both societies simultaneously.  During most of the First Century, Christians could also be Jews (or not, as in the case of Gentile converts directly to the Church).  But when the Church was founded, all of it, or at least virtually all of it, consisted of Jews, whether from Israel, or else Jewish proselytes coming from all over the ancient world to sacrifice at the Temple as was the Mosaic Law regarding the Feast of Pentecost.  So those 120 people in the upper room, or again the 3,000 who were baptized that day at Peter's preaching, were all or at least virtually all Jews, whether as blood descendants of Abraham or as Gentile converts to Judaism.  The congregation of St. James was Jews who were also Christians.  St. Paul preached in the Synagogues for quite some time (though he no longer drew his spiritual guidance from them) until they booted him out.  Only later, as Gentile converts to Christianity were not being obliged to be circumcised before being baptized, did the Gentile membership of the Church overtake the Jewish membership, until the two finally had to be ruled mutually exclusive.

A new Covenant had been inaugurated; the Mosaic Law had been abrogated in favor of the New Law of Christ.  A truly faithful Jew would become a Christian.  The rest, cut off from God's support, soon found themselves having to get by without the Temple (once it was destroyed), its offerings, its attached Levitical priesthood, and the theocratic nation of Israel, and thus are far from keeping anywhere near their requisite 613 laws (as they count them).  So though the parallels to our situation are not perfect, they are striking nevertheless.  The bifurcation decreed at Vatican II also allowed for a membership overlap between the Church and the new schismatic society (which, technically speaking, was never a "church" per se, but rather the secular aspects of the Church now operating as a distinct and new secular nation which was in the process of changing its State Religion from Catholicism to Novus Ordoism.  As with Christians as Jews at the first Pentecost, virtually all Catholics were also members of the new society at its outset, but as things changed Catholics came to be forced to leave the new society (as Christians gradually had to leave off their membership in the Synagogue, until some point at which whoever was left was formally obliged to leave).  Judaism itself was gradually changing from what it had been before Christ to what it is today, just as the new organization's religion gradually changed from the Catholicism it accidently inherited to the new religion it was forging at Vatican II and ever since.

But even when every Christian was also a Jew, Christianity (and the Church) existed as a separate and distinct society from the Synagogue and Temple and Nation of Israel.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 09, 2018, 10:16:09 PM
So let's get back to what I stated in my OP:

Of the 4 ways of describing the Pope, Bellarmine stated the first of those two I cited in my OP were heretical, the third was uncertain and the fourth was, “Most certain, and to be asserted.”  What was the 4th opinion on how to describe the Pontificate? “The fourth which lies between these extremes, is, that the Pontiff, whether personally he can be a heretic or no ["no" here being the third opinion], cannot, in any event, define anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church. ‘This is the most common opinion of nearly all Catholics’ as S Thomas says.”  Bellarmine also stated, “Opinion implies uncertainty and we hold this judgment to be certain.”
This 4th opinion was rendered certain by encompassing both the third opinion and the alternative(s) thereto, whichever the case may be, as possibilities.  But as it is certain (and I have not questioned it at any point), the fallible actions of Paul VI and those after him require the explanation that he and the successors in his new role (of heresiarch) are not Catholics popes, and were not as they began teaching their errors and heresies.

Again, the sequence is crucial.  First the man (as, presumably, Pope), resigns.  When a Pope resigns he loses all the prerogatives that come with the Papacy, including (most especially) his infallibility.  Infallibility is not like some permanent sacramental mark, as of baptism, confirmation, or each degree of Holy Orders, which places an indelible mark upon the soul of the recipient, but like a juridical office which, once stepped out of or ejected therefrom, a person loses their authority and all the prerogatives of that office.  An ex-pope (one who has resigned) is fully as fallible as any other shade of non-pope.  As such he most certainly would have the ability to "define anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church" since infallibility no longer applies to him, but correspondingly, neither has the Church any obligation to follow him (whether into error or not) nor to obey him as an authority in anything, unless pertaining to some lesser office as he might transfer to (as one means of losing his office of the pontificate).
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 10, 2018, 07:35:24 AM
I will return to the quote I gave .... it states that a pope never became a heretic.  It did NOT state that those at Vatican I believed that it could never happen.  Otherwise, it would not have gone on to explain what would happen after such a thing did happen.  It would have stated a pope never became a heretic AND can never become a heretic.  Period.  End of story.  No need to go on with the rest of the quote.  But that's not what it states.

I have to get ready for work, so I will have to come back to this later.  Maybe someone else can respond further to your post in the meantime.

Actually I am just glad we were able to have an amicable discussion for a few consecutive posts. So I will take that instead of either one of us trying to prove a point.

As am I.  I would just suggest that you do some more investigating regarding what happened at Vatican II.  One can not say that "the entire Magisterium" followed the wolf.  And I would imagine that many of those that did follow the wolf were deceived...just as so many today are deceived.

What I meant by follow the wolf, was that if John XXIII or Paul VI were not popes at all, then when John XXIII called the council, those that showed up followed a wolf to a council. They responded to the voice of a non-pope to go to the Vatican and conduct a council. Then after John XXIII died, they "elected" Paul VI (another non-Pope) and then let him continue running the council and dispersed after a non pope told them to depart and go back to their homes.  This is what I mean. If a non pope called it and another non pope oversaw and then concluded it, the infallible, indefectible, immutable Church allowed themselves to be led around by non-popes.  This is problematic if it is the case.

God love you.

I think when the actual non-pope comes into play is something that is not certain.  Some would say that Paul VI did not lose the papacy until he actually promulgated the Vatican II documents ....which makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 10, 2018, 07:47:59 AM
I've read the CMRI page, it is irrelavant to this discussion and thread. While we're on this topic, can you show me where St. Bellarmine (or any other Doctor) ever stated the Pope would become a heretic? I promise I will read every word of the evidence! Please notice my stress on requesting the citation or document of a Doctor of the Church saying it would happen; especially any evidence it would actually happen after infallibility was dogmatized after Vatican I?


The opinions that Awkward is referring to comes from St Bellarmine's writings (book?) called De Romano Pontifice....specifically in the 30th Chapter of Book II.  This chapter is entitled "Whether a Heretical Pope Can Be Deposed?"  This title already shows that St Bellarmine believed that a pope could become a heretic.  He wouldn't be considering the deposition of a heretical pope if there was no heretical pope to depose.

Have you ever read through it?

https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/

Not the entire book, but I am familiar with it. I am familiar with Bellarmine's argument. My reply to Awkward Customer was that was not the point of my OP. I was not asking what would happen if a pope became a heretic. I am familiar with what Bellarmine's argument is if the pope did become one. However, I think Bellarmine was aware of the consequences to the Pope if he became one, but I am not convinced Bellarmine thought a Pope would become one. He believed in the indefectibility and immutability of the Church. Either way, what AC brought up had nothing to do with this particular thread.

Yes, I agree that what AC brought up wasn't the opinions you were referring to...I noticed that as soon as I started reading her post.

Why would Bellarmine teach on the fact that a pope could become a heretic if he didn't think that it was possible? If we used your logic (that he personally didn't believe it would happen), isn't he also teaching that it is possible for the Church to defect?  Why in the world would he even imply that?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: TKGS on February 10, 2018, 11:40:16 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but I am confused by how this topic has progressed.  Did Bellarmine prove the first four propositions are not valid?  It seems that he did.  If so, why is there a debate about the four propositions demonstrated to be false?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 10, 2018, 12:16:33 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but I am confused by how this topic has progressed.  Did Bellarmine prove the first four propositions are not valid?  It seems that he did.  If so, why is there a debate about the four propositions demonstrated to be false?

I think there is much confusion in this thread because Vinny is using a different set of opinions from Bellarmine than the ones we typically speak of on these forums.  I think that the ones Vinny is speaking of focuses on whether a pope can teach heresy.  I think the other opinions (the ones we typically debate....normally known as being FIVE not FOUR) answers the question of whether a heretical pope can be deposed. 

I think Vinny thinks that Bellarmine believes that a pope can not fall into heresy based on his comments on the former FOUR opinions, but I do not think that Bellarmine is attempting to answer the question of whether a pope can fall into heresy here.  In fact, he can't be doing this because Bellarmine also speaks of whether a heretical pope can be deposed in those other FIVE opinions.  This latter discussion proves that he does think a heretical pope is possible.  One can not look at the former opinions on their own....one must also take into account the latter to get the full expression of Bellarmine's opinion on the matter of a heretical pope.

Then again, maybe I'm just as confused.....?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 10, 2018, 12:39:24 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but I am confused by how this topic has progressed.  Did Bellarmine prove the first four propositions are not valid?  It seems that he did.  If so, why is there a debate about the four propositions demonstrated to be false?
Don't confuse the "four opinions" listed at the outset of this thread with the "five opinions" regarding whether a Pope can fall into heresy and if so what happens, as awkw did.  The "five opinions" are well-known within discussions of this sort, but are a different subject matter than that of this thread, which refers to a different set of opinions (only four), to wit:
“The first is that the Pontiff even as Pontiff although he define a doctrine with a General Council may be a heretic himself and teach heresy. This is the opinion of all heretics especially of Luther and Calvin”

“The second that the Pontiff even as Pontiff may be a heretic and may teach heresy if he define without a General Council. This is the opinion of Nilus and the later Greeks of Gerson Almain and others.”

“The third that the Pontiff cannot in any way be heretical or publicly teach heresy even though he alone frame a definition which is the opinion of Pighius in book iv chap 3 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.”

“The fourth which lies between these extremes, is, that the Pontiff, whether personally he can be a heretic or no, cannot, in any event, define anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church. ‘This is the most common opinion of nearly all Catholics’ as S Thomas says.”
The fourth of these opinions is true.  The third is possible, as one of more possibilities possible given the truthfulness of the forth.  There is no fifth opinion in this different list.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 10, 2018, 01:04:39 PM
I think there is much confusion in this thread because Vinny is using a different set of opinions from Bellarmine than the ones we typically speak of on these forums.  I think that the ones Vinny is speaking of focuses on whether a pope can teach heresy.  I think the other opinions (the ones we typically debate....normally known as being FIVE not FOUR) answers the question of whether a heretical pope can be deposed. 

I think Vinny thinks that Bellarmine believes that a pope can not fall into heresy based on his comments on the former FOUR opinions, but I do not think that Bellarmine is attempting to answer the question of whether a pope can fall into heresy here.  In fact, he can't be doing this because Bellarmine also speaks of whether a heretical pope can be deposed in those other FIVE opinions.  This latter discussion proves that he does think a heretical pope is possible.  One can not look at the former opinions on their own....one must also take into account the latter to get the full expression of Bellarmine's opinion on the matter of a heretical pope.

Then again, maybe I'm just as confused.....?
Looks to me like you have sorted it out fairly well.  The only slight variation I would venture is that St. Bellarmine (per his FIVE opinions in that other list of opinions which this thread is not talking about) really does think that a heretical pope is not possible, but admits that "it cannot be ruled out" that a heretical pope might be possible.  Other than that you are absolutely on the money.  No need to feel confused.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 10, 2018, 01:08:18 PM
I think there is much confusion in this thread because Vinny is using a different set of opinions from Bellarmine than the ones we typically speak of on these forums.  I think that the ones Vinny is speaking of focuses on whether a pope can teach heresy.  I think the other opinions (the ones we typically debate....normally known as being FIVE not FOUR) answers the question of whether a heretical pope can be deposed. 

I think Vinny thinks that Bellarmine believes that a pope can not fall into heresy based on his comments on the former FOUR opinions, but I do not think that Bellarmine is attempting to answer the question of whether a pope can fall into heresy here.  In fact, he can't be doing this because Bellarmine also speaks of whether a heretical pope can be deposed in those other FIVE opinions.  This latter discussion proves that he does think a heretical pope is possible.  One can not look at the former opinions on their own....one must also take into account the latter to get the full expression of Bellarmine's opinion on the matter of a heretical pope.

Then again, maybe I'm just as confused.....?
Looks to me like you have sorted it out fairly well.  The only slight variation I would venture is that St. Bellarmine (per his FIVE opinions in that other list of opinions which this thread is not talking about) really does think that a heretical pope is not possible, but admits that "it cannot be ruled out" that a heretical pope might be possible.  Other than that you are absolutely on the money.  No need to feel confused.

Wowza.  Thanks. 

As for Bellarmine really does think that a heretical pope is not possible, but admits that "it cannot be ruled out" that a heretical pope might be possible....

Could this just be his way of saying that a TRUE POPE can't be heretical?  Which, of course, is what sedes say? 

Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Troubled Teen on February 10, 2018, 02:34:17 PM
Could this just be his way of saying that a TRUE POPE can't be heretical?  Which, of course, is what sedes say?

No.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 10, 2018, 02:58:38 PM
Could this just be his way of saying that a TRUE POPE can't be heretical?  Which, of course, is what sedes say?

No.

Could you give me more than that?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 10, 2018, 05:40:53 PM
As for Bellarmine really does think that a heretical pope is not possible, but admits that "it cannot be ruled out" that a heretical pope might be possible....
Could this just be his way of saying that a TRUE POPE can't be heretical?  Which, of course, is what sedes say?
I am sure he has stated as much in many ways, including his affirmation of the fourth opinion of those listed at the outset of this thread.

Heresy and the Pope do not mix.  Either a (real) Pope cannot be heretical at all (per his first opinion of the five which Bellarmine evidently favors), or a (real) Pope cannot be heretical, though if he were then he would promptly lose his pontificate (which he also acknowledges that the Church has not dogmatically ruled on, hence his exploration of opinions #2 through #5, of which he concludes that if #1 is not correct, then it must be #5).  He rejects opinions #3 and #4 (of the five) because each entail a heretic retaining the Papacy for however long, for that would be the Pope being a heretic - the Church having a heretic Pope, until he converts or leaves the office some other way (#3) or until the Church removes him (#4).  Opinion #2 would raise quite a different problem irrelevant to this discussion.

So feel free to tell Troub, "Yes."
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 11, 2018, 09:20:41 AM
Why would Bellarmine teach on the fact that a pope could become a heretic if he didn't think that it was possible? If we used your logic (that he personally didn't believe it would happen), isn't he also teaching that it is possible for the Church to defect?  Why in the world would he even imply that?

Very good point and observation.  I see Bellarmine's discussion on the topic akin to Paul discussing, "If Christ is not raised, your faith is in vain." This is true ... if Christ did not raise from the dead then yes, all of us, our faith in a risen Christ and as Christians is in vain because Christ is still in the grave. However, Paul says, "Christ has been raised." He is the first fruit. So Paul gives us the reality of what it would mean for us if Christ did not raise, but he (over and over again) assures us he has and why we are Christians.

This is the same thing Bellarmine did. He gives us very clearly the reality of what happens to a heretical Pope. He, "Ipso, Facto falls from the papacy." He does not need to be deposed or there does not need to be any other judgment. However, I find no where else in Bellarmine that he actually thought it was the reality it would happen. Especially after Vatican I, I do not find any other theologian talking about a heretical Pope being a reality (prior to Vatican II.) So to your question of whether he thought, because the Pope would not fall, the Church would, I respond, "No." This is because the Pope is the visible head of the Church.  Remember earlier on I discussed we've been taught by the church, over and over, the indefectibility of the of the papacy and the church is indelibly tied to the papacy. You cannot have an indefectible/Infallible Pope whose church is crumbling around him. You cannot have an indefectible/Infallible Church whose head is heretical and crumbling.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 11, 2018, 09:28:41 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but I am confused by how this topic has progressed.  Did Bellarmine prove the first four propositions are not valid?  It seems that he did.  If so, why is there a debate about the four propositions demonstrated to be false?

Can you please clarify? I am not sure if you are replying on what Awkward Customer brought up or not.

Awkward Customer brought up the 5 opinions of Cajetan, that Bellarmine responded to. My reply to AC was that discussion had nothing to do with my OP. My OP discussed the 4 ways of describing the papacy that Cardinal Manning used by quoting Bellarmine.

So AC, perhaps inadvertently, confused the Bellarmine/Cajetan discussion with what I quoted in my OP. My OP had nothing to do with the Bellarmine/Cajetan discussion. So basically, please disregard anything AC brought to the table as it is irrelevant to this thread. I am not saying you relied on that, but I am not sure what your question is? So if you could clarify, I would appreciate it. Thanks. 
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 11, 2018, 09:30:36 AM
Yes, I agree.  It is impossible for a true pope to be a heretic. The man who falls into heresy is no longer pope...or was never a pope to begin with.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 11, 2018, 09:34:01 AM

I think there is much confusion in this thread because Vinny is using a different set of opinions from Bellarmine than the ones we typically speak of on these forums.  I think that the ones Vinny is speaking of focuses on whether a pope can teach heresy.  I think the other opinions (the ones we typically debate....normally known as being FIVE not FOUR) answers the question of whether a heretical pope can be deposed. 

I think Vinny thinks that Bellarmine believes that a pope can not fall into heresy based on his comments on the former FOUR opinions, but I do not think that Bellarmine is attempting to answer the question of whether a pope can fall into heresy here.  In fact, he can't be doing this because Bellarmine also speaks of whether a heretical pope can be deposed in those other FIVE opinions.  This latter discussion proves that he does think a heretical pope is possible.  One can not look at the former opinions on their own....one must also take into account the latter to get the full expression of Bellarmine's opinion on the matter of a heretical pope.

Then again, maybe I'm just as confused.....?

Just a point of clarity. I agree with what Bellarmine stated (that I think we all agree with) which is that if a Pope becomes a heretic, he ipso facto falls. Cajetan's argument was that the heretical pope needed to be deposed first. I think this is also the R&R position? Anyway, to clarify, the heretical pope, all by himself, falls from the papacy.

My OP deals with Vatican I, the dogma of papal infallibility and after. 
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 11, 2018, 10:30:01 AM
I am sure he has stated as much in many ways, including his affirmation of the fourth opinion of those listed at the outset of this thread.

Heresy and the Pope do not mix.  Either a (real) Pope cannot be heretical at all (per his first opinion of the five which Bellarmine evidently favors), or a (real) Pope cannot be heretical, though if he were then he would promptly lose his pontificate (which he also acknowledges that the Church has not dogmatically ruled on, hence his exploration of opinions #2 through #5, of which he concludes that if #1 is not correct, then it must be #5).  He rejects opinions #3 and #4 (of the five) because each entail a heretic retaining the Papacy for however long, for that would be the Pope being a heretic - the Church having a heretic Pope, until he converts or leaves the office some other way (#3) or until the Church removes him (#4).  Opinion #2 would raise quite a different problem irrelevant to this discussion.

So feel free to tell Troub, "Yes."

I was traveling all weekend, so I am going to try to work back on some of your posts to me.. However, I wanted to address this one real quick. Please be patient with me if I am slow in getting to the others, but it is my intent to.

Even if we were to look at the Text of Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law):

Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...(4.) Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith. 

Therefore, this means, in effect, no one, unless he profess the Catholic Faith, can hold any office — that is, lay valid claim to authority in the Catholic Church. Defection itself from the Catholic Faith constitutes resignation.

I think we can all say this applies to the Pope all the way down. I hope we've established this point by now.  However, I hope we can now, and going forward, discuss the fact that this is not the point of my OP.  From all I've read, research, etc, I cannot find that the doctors of the Church, theologians and especially after Vatican I, ever held this would actually happen to the pope. Merely discussing the reality of what it means if a Pope became a heretic does not constitute formal declarations anyone ever said it was so or would be so. 

Discussing Bellarmine, ad nauseam, on this particular topic does not help because Bellarmine wrote before Vatican I.  Theologians and doctors of the church were free to discuss the Assumption of Mary, whether she died or not or was assumed or not, until they were blue in the face until Pius XII made it a dogma of the church. That was it! Once Pius XII made a dogmatic declaration of the assumption, discussion on the fact of it was over. You either believe Mary was Assumed or, "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

Returning to the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff defined at Vatican I. It was declared, "So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." What I am discussing here is in 2 parts, not only the infallibility of the pope, but more importantly the church's definition of the indefectibility of the church which automatically attaches to the infallible teaching office of the papacy. I do not find anywhere it was taught the pope was infallible yet defectible. I have provided quotes to this in the thread. I did not notice a response either to what Cardinal Billot declared.

I keep being told the church is in tact, there was no defection and the chair is vacant all at the same time, while in fact segments of the church went into heresy after Vatican II, but this is not a defection but some other circumstance. I have yet to make a statement to disagree that what happened at Vatican II is exactly what sedevacantists say it is. As I have discussed, if what happened at Vatican II is in fact what you say it is, then we have a clear cut defection and we have to now discuss the indefectibility of the Church and papacy. Simply saying there are traditionalists still around and this shows the church is indefectible simply won't cut it when considering indefectibility. Where did the rest of the church go? Simply saying there are a few traditionalists priest around and a few bishops around with orders won't cut it when considering indefectibility? Where did all the Cardinals and especially the pope go?

If you are going to make the argument to me that this is an extended "interregnum" then you have to also show to me there was tacit and widespread, blatant heresy in other interregnums as Sedevacantists claim is happening in this interregnum.  There was a real Pope in the great Western Schism, the church just needed to decide upon it. However ALL of the laity and clergy held to the Catholic Faith! They just needed to decide upon the Papacy. What you are claiming now is that this interregnum is also marked by tacit, world wide, abominable apostasy and heresy.  So to say this is not a defection, but just a mere interregnum I think is disingenuous. To say there has been no defection I think is disingenuous. To say the church is without a doubt still infallible and indefectible because a few thousand traditionalists still meander around the world I think is completely contrary to what Vatican I had in mind of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the indefectibility, immutability and infallibility of the Papacy and the church and is disingenuous.   

So please, no more discussion on the ipso facto falling of a heretical pope. I think this issue is solved on probably more than one sedevacantist board and website. Please let us now discuss indefectibility, immutability, perpetuity and infallibility at Vatican I and since (as it was meant to be declared and understood.)
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: TKGS on February 11, 2018, 11:46:11 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but I am confused by how this topic has progressed.  Did Bellarmine prove the first four propositions are not valid?  It seems that he did.  If so, why is there a debate about the four propositions demonstrated to be false?

Can you please clarify?

ubipetrus explained it for me.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 11, 2018, 01:00:47 PM
You need to come to comprehend what has happened, the full sequence of events.  Until you do you will just keep going around in circles contemplating the defection of the indefectible Church until you go bonkers.

The sequence, stripped of the confusing disguises as have been put on it, is quite simple, has happened a great many times in Church history, and goes like this:

1)  A schism occurs - in particular some group of former Catholics separates itself from the Church and form a new society in parallel to the Church; typically because they have some new ideas with which they can improve upon the Church.

I'm going to stop you right at number 1. No one at Vatican II was a "former Catholic." Those were Catholic Bishops and Cardinals. There were between 2100 to 2300 Bishops at any one time at that council and they were not former Catholics. 

You are going to have to show evidence, even if it is from a media source, that indicated a group of officials, who were formerly Catholic, went to the Vatican and put on a Catholic council for several years.  Until you do otherwise, plain and simple, those were Catholics, from the Roman Catholic Church who were at Vatican II.

All the rest of the argument is smoke and mirrors.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 11, 2018, 01:16:16 PM

2)  The new and parallel schismatic society defects, falls into errors and heresies, grows more and more corrupt over time as the planned improvements, now finally carried out, prove to be actually inferior to that which God set forth.
3)  The Church from which the particular group separated itself from remains pristine pure, undefected, as always.
4)  Sometimes, large numbers of persons have difficulty discerning which side is the Church and which is in schism/heresy, especially when just starting out and the difference is very slight, and all the more so when those separating from the Church form a larger group of persons than those remaining in the Church.

Defection is the key word here. I know you see it. Doesn't schism in and of itself mean defection? What do you prove by advocating for a schismatic group that also defected? Every one of your points here talks about a separated group. The Catholic Church, not that I've ever read, ever worried about whether a schismatic or separated group could also defect.  When they labeled it schismatic or separated, those words alone solved the equation. So to try and argue for a separated/schismatic group that also defected is pointless. The logic does not follow.

"The "whole Church" did not fall into error (or defect)

Fall into error is the operative word phrase here. So then you argue that "some of the church" did? If so, there is one explanation, it is called defection. Otherwise I would have expected your reply to be that, "None of the Church" fell into error.

We know this because if it had then there would be no traditionalists

Because there are traditionalists proves there was a defection, the traditionalists realized this and are trying to save the church from herself (for lack of a better way to put it.) Prior to Vatican II, when a group became Schismatic, you don't find the fathers of the church lamenting they are the only traditionalists who held the church together. They were with the Pope, he was the supreme head and they were the Church and the group outside were the schismatics. This is NOT what you are advocating. You are trying to prove a group holding on within the church, while also saying there was no defection of those that went outside. Whether you call it heresy, schism or defection, it came from the clergy of the Church (all of them if I've understood your other arguments). 

everyone would have simply gotten in step with the new program, the new religion, and the new blasphemy.

What is the old blasphemy?   

That a large majority did fall in line with the new religion means nothing

Wrong. It means everything. Those who understood what happened, refused to defect from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith as did the others. It means everything sir!

The same thing happened in England when all bishops (but one) and nearly all priests and ordinary lay parishioners one and all accepted the King of England as their Pope.

It is not the same thing, the Catholic Church still had the pope. He was there before Englands schism, during and after. This is quite different than what you've advocated for before Vatican II, during Vatican II and after. I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

Do we say the Church in England failed, or defected, because so many fell away?  Or do we accept that the Church remained, even in England, albeit far smaller in numbers (a single bishop, rapidly killed off in the tower, some tiny handful of priests, and a tiny minority of recusant laity who mostly went unnoticed), yet having plainly not defected but kept the Faith pure and unadulterated.  Vatican II is just the same thing repeated all over the world.

The church in England happened because a King refused to accept the decision of a Pope ... a real Pope. Vatican II had 2100-2300 Catholic bishops at it. Not the same thing. What happened in England was the same thing repeated all over the world. What happened at Vatican II had never been seen before (or had it?)
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 11, 2018, 01:58:11 PM
The thing here is that a "bifurcation" as I use the word allows for persons to be members of both societies simultaneously.

Sir, it does not matter what your terminology allows for. By the time of Vatican I, there was no language among the fathers or popes that allowed for one to be a simultaneous member of two societies, (i.e. Catholic and a non-Catholic group.) Isn't this exactly what the rub is with Vatican II's ecumenism? The notion one could not be Catholic and somehow still belong to the Catholic Church? The ends of your arguments just are not meeting. 

So though the parallels to our situation are not perfect, they are striking nevertheless.  The bifurcation decreed at Vatican II also allowed for a membership overlap between the Church and the new schismatic society (which, technically speaking, was never a "church" per se, but rather the secular aspects of the Church now operating as a distinct and new secular nation which was in the process of changing its State Religion from Catholicism to Novus Ordoism.  As with Christians as Jews at the first Pentecost, virtually all Catholics were also members of the new society at its outset, but as things changed Catholics came to be forced to leave the new society (as Christians gradually had to leave off their membership in the Synagogue, until some point at which whoever was left was formally obliged to leave).  Judaism itself was gradually changing from what it had been before Christ to what it is today, just as the new organization's religion gradually changed from the Catholicism it accidently inherited to the new religion it was forging at Vatican II and ever since.

But even when every Christian was also a Jew, Christianity (and the Church) existed as a separate and distinct society from the Synagogue and Temple and Nation of Israel.

This is the most preposterous argument I've ever heard from a Sedevacantist. How could non-popes allow for membership overlaps in the Catholic Church (to which you belong) and the church to which you say they belong? If it was never a church, per se, it cannot transact business inside of, on behalf of or in place of the Church. Isn't this the entire reason why you reject Vatican II in the first place?

Catholicism to Novus Ordoism is, as you appear to say was something akin to the early, "Christians as Jews at the first Pentecost." Then you stated, "virtually all Catholics were also members of the new society at its outset, but as things changed Catholics came to be forced to leave the new society (as Christians gradually had to leave off their membership in the Synagogue, until some point at which whoever was left was formally obliged to leave)." Sir, if the Vatican II sect is a sect, is not Catholic, is blasphemy (or the new blasphemy), heretical, etc and "all Catholics were members of this society at its outset" and then had to leave, etc; I just don't think I could use words any stronger than you have to show there was clearly and unequivocally a defection.

You have stated the entire Catholic Church was part of "new society" from which they were "forced" to leave. I don't know what more can be said that advocates a defection at Vatican II.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: TKGS on February 11, 2018, 02:36:57 PM
Returning to the topic title, "Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?"

It seems to me that the doctrine of papal infallibility would only inevitably bring about sedevacantism if the papal claimant started to act in ways that contradicted Catholic doctrine.  Since this has indeed happened, that is, in order to accept the teachings of Conciliar popes as infallibly true, one must necessarily reject the teachings of pre-Conciliar popes who "also" taught infallibly.  In other words, one must reject reason--which is, itself, infallibly taught as necessary to the Faith. 

As long as the papal claimants did not act in ways that contradicted Catholic doctrine, the doctrine of papal infallibility would inevitably, or (perhaps a better word) necessarily, preclude sedevacantism.

Please note that I fully accept that one can question the status of Pope Roncalli.  I, however, defer to the Church's current living magisterium who are virtually unanimous in the opinion that Roncalli was not a valid pope.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on February 11, 2018, 03:15:31 PM
What brought about Sedevacantism was a succession of heretical conciliar 'popes'.

Keep it simple.

Also, there's no way of knowing how many Bishops at the Council were Catholic. The Modernists were already "in the bosom of the Church" plotting "Her downfall" when Pope Pius X wrote 'Pascendi' in 1907.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 12, 2018, 12:06:05 AM
Returning to the topic title, "Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?"

It seems to me that the doctrine of papal infallibility would only inevitably bring about sedevacantism if the papal claimant started to act in ways that contradicted Catholic doctrine.

Since this has indeed happened, that is, in order to accept the teachings of Conciliar popes as infallibly true, one must necessarily reject the teachings of pre-Conciliar popes who "also" taught infallibly.  In other words, one must reject reason--which is, itself, infallibly taught as necessary to the Faith.
   
As long as the papal claimants did not act in ways that contradicted Catholic doctrine, the doctrine of papal infallibility would inevitably, or (perhaps a better word) necessarily, preclude sedevacantism.

Please note that I fully accept that one can question the status of Pope Roncalli.  I, however, defer to the Church's current living magisterium who are virtually unanimous in the opinion that Roncalli was not a valid pope.


It is really crafty how you drafted your response. You lessen the blow of claiming a true pope could become a heretic by mentioning, "Papal claimants who act contrary to Catholic dogma as a reason for sedevacantism." What exactly is that sentence saying? Do you believe a true pope can become a true heretic? Bellarmine never took up the issue of, "A Pope Acting contrary." He (and others cited in this thread) took up the issue of a true pope committing heresy.  Heresy is most certainly a reason to say they fall or to reject them. Your statement about acting contrary is ambiguous.

You haven't actually said what, "Indeed happened." Unless you are saying a true Catholic Pope contradicted the Catholic Faith?  You prove nothing to your position by ever using the Vatican II Popes as examples, because you reject them as rightful claimants to the papacy. You never end up proving your point by citing them as reasons for your position. What one accepts is not the basis of the doctrine. 

If the conciliar Popes are Popes, the Church has to also accept his teachings as infallible. If the conciliar popes are anti-popes, they wouldn't even be in the church, let alone require one to give assent to any of their teachings. You lean on reason for why you reject the conciliar popes in favor of the long held magisterium of the church prior to Vatican II. What is there to reason? You reject the conciliar popes by your previous admissions. Why would you be expected to use reason when Francis, Benedict or any other pope spoke? Do you have some questions they may actually be real popes and you have to rely on reason to say that is not so?

If the conciliar popes are not popes, why would the church need to reject the pre-concilar popes and their teachings? What you stop short of saying is that Papal Infallibility inevitably brought about a heretical pope. Instead you say it brought about sedevacantism. These are two quite different statements. What is it that you really believe?

Papal infallibility precludes sedevacantism because of the indefectibility and immutability of the church. Can you please show me where it was taught that the doctrine of infallibility would "eventually" lead to sedevacantism? Even if you believed Bellarmine taught it somehow by saying a heretical pope ipso facto falls, or that he believed it could happen, there is nothing in Bellarmine that suggested he thought it would be what you claim we have today; one anti-pope after another ascending to the chair.  I provided the evidence I felt Bellarmine showed he never believed a Pope would fall into heresy.  However, even if he did, it is clear he stated the heretical Pope was ipso facto deposed and I believe this statement alone is evidence to the fact he would have expect another to go into his place. This is quite different then what Sedevacatnists argue. I just find no one in and around Vatican I who ever said a pope would fall. You argue it has been 60 years of one anti-pope after another. You are pointing to quite a different problem. You are pointing to an outright defection (as did Ubipetrus). 

The doctrine of papal infallibility (and thus indefectibility) is not some fluid situation, as if the papal claimant(s) could waffle in and out of the doctrine at will and the faithful would have to pan for gold to see if the papal claimant had remained infallible of not. You have to (perhaps unwittingly) allow for wide latitude in regards to understanding the dogma of infallibility and interpreting it with the help of reason, where as I have a feeling you take a much more strict view of other dogmas such as the assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception or the Trinity. Are you also saying if one reasons there is no way Mary was immaculately conceived this is okay for them to reject the dogma? I am just asking for a clarification of consistency in understanding what your view is on the defined dogmas of the church.

Well either way, because you declared "since this has happened" I will take to mean an out right defection like Vatican II happens despite the doctrine of infallibility and indefectibility. 

I have many citations I've made in this thread contrary to your view on this.  If you will allow me a little bit of reason, I personally find it unreasonable to merely call what Sedevacantists have been pointing out for 60 years has been happening with the papacy as an "interregnum." You will reject the next conclave because it will come from the same Vatican, of the same non Cardinals that Sedevacantists have been rejecting for 60 years. This is fine. The level of rejection you espouse is due to a defection in the church. I am not taking issue with your sedevacantist position, I am taking issue with the refusal to call the outright heresy you espouse happened at and after Vatican II a defection. 

I mean NO ill will toward you.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 12, 2018, 01:13:55 AM
What brought about Sedevacantism was a succession of heretical conciliar 'popes'.

Keep it simple.

Also, there's no way of knowing how many Bishops at the Council were Catholic. The Modernists were already "in the bosom of the Church" plotting "Her downfall" when Pope Pius X wrote 'Pascendi' in 1907.

I think keeping it "simple" is part of your issue. What is simple about anything Sedevacantists advocate? An Empty Chair for 60 years, council heresies, modernism, etc. If you think all of that is simple, have at it.

A succession of heretical conciliar popes is really an oxymoron, but worse is very ambiguous. Even if you believed Bellarmine taught there could ever be a heretical pope, then we know the heretical pope ipso facto falls.  However, even if he believed it could happen, there is nothing in Bellarmine that suggested he thought it would be what you claim we have today; one anti-pope after another ascending to the chair.  I provided the evidence I felt Bellarmine showed he never believed a Pope would fall into heresy.  However, even if he did and thus believed the heretical Pope was ipso facto deposed, I believe there is strong evidence to suggest the fact he would have expect another Pope to be elected and go into his place. This is quite different then what you are advocating.

If you are telling me it is a continuous, "succession of heretical conciliar 'popes'" then we have something far greater happening here, which is clearly a defection by the indefectible Church.  Perhaps your admission of this is what will make the discussion a lot more simple?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on February 12, 2018, 06:47:59 AM
I think keeping it "simple" is part of your issue. What is simple about anything Sedevacantists advocate? An Empty Chair for 60 years, council heresies, modernism, etc. If you think all of that is simple, have at it.

What's complicated about it?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 12, 2018, 07:42:32 AM
I think keeping it "simple" is part of your issue. What is simple about anything Sedevacantists advocate? An Empty Chair for 60 years, council heresies, modernism, etc. If you think all of that is simple, have at it.

What's complicated about it?

I gave you just a few examples of what is complicated about it. Seeing that you say it is simple, why don't you explain what is so simple about it.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on February 12, 2018, 10:59:34 AM
I think keeping it "simple" is part of your issue. What is simple about anything Sedevacantists advocate? An Empty Chair for 60 years, council heresies, modernism, etc. If you think all of that is simple, have at it.

What's complicated about it?

I gave you just a few examples of what is complicated about it. Seeing that you say it is simple, why don't you explain what is so simple about it.

But you didn't say why the issues you listed aren't simple. You just stated that they weren't.

Again, what is complicated about an empty Papal Chair for 60 years, for example, or the other issues you raised?

And also again, what's your response to 2Vermont's point that Bellarmine wouldn't have addressed the issue of a manifestly, or occultly, heretical 'pope' if he hadn't thought a heretical 'pope' was possible?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: TKGS on February 12, 2018, 12:03:19 PM
It is really crafty how you drafted your response. You lessen the blow of claiming a true pope could become a heretic by mentioning, "Papal claimants who act contrary to Catholic dogma as a reason for sedevacantism." What exactly is that sentence saying? Do you believe a true pope can become a true heretic?

I have not considered the issue, nor do I think it important to consider.  Since great theologians through history have been split on the issue and there is evidently no magisterial teaching on the matter, it is clearly a matter that can continue to be debated by those qualified to do so.  I am not one of those individuals.

However, those men did, indeed, claim the papacy so they are papal claimants whether they ever attained the office of the papacy or not.  All anti-popes are, by definition, papal claimants or they wouldn't be anti-popes.  In any event, whether any of them were ever valid popes or not is not truly relevant to the question of sedevacantism today.  All that is relevant is that one may positively know a person is not a Catholic (and therefore not a pope) when one publicly defects from the faith by proclaiming heresy.

The remainder of your post simply makes no sense.  I truly don't know what you're saying unless you are trying to say that what was taught before Vatican 2 is completely compatible with what has been taught since Vatican 2 in which case, we have absolutely no common ground on which to discuss any of this.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: annamack on February 12, 2018, 01:14:20 PM

The remainder of your post simply makes no sense. 

They rarely do  ;)
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 12, 2018, 01:33:12 PM
If you are going to make the argument to me that this is an extended "interregnum" ...
It has been satisfactorily shown that we indeed have an extended interregnum.  But it is also shown that our present circumstance is no "mere" extended interregnum, as there are a great many other things also going on, the creation of a new and parallel society, the gradual corruption (defection) of that society away from the Catholic Faith, the leader of this alien new society being mistaken for a Pope (one really has to wonder how in the world that could have happened, that so many could be so easily fooled, but obviously indeed they were for that lays before our very eyes for everyone to see).
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 12, 2018, 01:35:47 PM
You are going to have to show evidence, even if it is from a media source, that indicated a group of officials, who were formerly Catholic, went to the Vatican and put on a Catholic council for several years.  Until you do otherwise, plain and simple, those were Catholics, from the Roman Catholic Church who were at Vatican II.
You need me to prove to you that Vatican II happened as a historical event?  This has descended into madness.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 12, 2018, 01:46:48 PM
Defection is the key word here. I know you see it. Doesn't schism in and of itself mean defection?
No, it doesn't.  Not necessarily in every case.  During that First Great Western Schism there was no defection on any side.  You would get the exact same Catholic Faith in all of its details no matter which claimant you went with as Pope.  Had any one of them deviated the other two would have pounced on him and denounced his heresies (and loss of any right to being even a claimant to the papacy) right away.  Furthermore, you would not have canonized saints on all sides (as indeed the Church does so recognize), for had any side vanished into heresy any person loyal to that side (once heretical) would also be convicted as a heretic.

Defection consists of an actual departure from the Faith, of changes to doctrine (heresy, proper), to morals (also heresy, proper), liturgy, and/or disciplines (by creating such as are measurably destructive to faith or morals).  The Eastern schismatics deviated from the Faith, in their denial of the office of Peter, and in their denial that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son (as well as the Father, which neither the Church nor the Eastern schismatics denied).  That was a defection.  They also excommunicated the Pope without cause, something that as inferiors (in rank) they had no right or power to do, and furthermore even as equals to the Pope (per their own mistaken perception of things) which again would be something they have no right  or power to do.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 12, 2018, 01:50:46 PM
"The "whole Church" did not fall into error (or defect)

Fall into error is the operative word phrase here. So then you argue that "some of the church" did? If so, there is one explanation, it is called defection. Otherwise I would have expected your reply to be that, "None of the Church" fell into error.
The "whole Church" remained pristine.  Neither the Church as a whole, nor any part of it CONTINUING AS PART OF IT fell into error.  Those who schismatically separated themselves from it however rapidly also then fell into error and heresy.  Sorry if my phraseology was less than clear.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: annamack on February 12, 2018, 02:27:40 PM
"The "whole Church" did not fall into error (or defect)

Fall into error is the operative word phrase here. So then you argue that "some of the church" did? If so, there is one explanation, it is called defection. Otherwise I would have expected your reply to be that, "None of the Church" fell into error.
The "whole Church" remained pristine.  Neither the Church as a whole, nor any part of it CONTINUING AS PART OF IT fell into error.  Those who schismatically separated themselves from it however rapidly also then fell into error and heresy.  Sorry if my phraseology was less than clear.



Your "phraseology" wasn't unclear at all - VZ simply doesn't understand what "defection" means.  Perhaps you ought to go back to basics.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 12, 2018, 02:33:59 PM
THIS IS JUST ABSOLUTELY TWISTED!
Because there are traditionalists proves there was a defection...
?!?!?  You might as well have stated that "The faithfulness of Jesus Christ proves that there is no God," or "The Creation of the World proves that there is no God."

(Need I state the obvious?)  The presence of traditionalists proves the existence of the Church, for we traditionalists ARE, ALONE, the Church, whole and entire.  If (per impossible, and I do maintain dogmatically that it is impossible) we traditionalists were to have all disappeared, then the Church will have disappeared.  When the last member of a family (with no heirs) dies, then the family has died.

There are still millions (and once close to a billion) who all (at least nominally) believed and practiced and worshipped precisely as we traditionalists still do (back in the days before Vatican II), but now no longer; that is what constitutes a defection.  They left the Church and then vanished into heresy.
the traditionalists realized this and are trying to save the church from herself (for lack of a better way to put it.)
Just so much more "?!?!?"  The Church saving Herself from Herself?  Unworthy of refutation.
Prior to Vatican II, when a group became Schismatic, you don't find the fathers of the church lamenting they are the only traditionalists who held the church together. They were with the Pope, he was the supreme head and they were the Church and the group outside were the schismatics.
Of course they do!  The loss of anyone is cause for lamenting, for only those who remain hold the Church together (or more precisely, comprise the Church which God holds together through His Will).  Luckily for them in the past, they also had a living Pope with them to pronounce on the situation and take (and lead the Church in) the requisite action.  They also had the luxury of vast numbers, at least around the world overall if not within some localized region where a schism into heresy occurred, alive on their side.  Today, the relatively few remaining authorities in the Church, and without a Pope to lead, guide, and coordinate them, have to struggle as best as they can to take the requisite action.  And the only "numbers" we have on our side are those of history, namely the fact that despite all the heresies and schisms down through the ages, and even the massive departure of the Novus Ordo Vatican apparatus and their followers, there have been at least five times as many traditional Catholics as there have been all other manners of "Christian" put together.
This is NOT what you are advocating. You are trying to prove a group holding on within the church, while also saying there was no defection of those that went outside. Whether you call it heresy, schism or defection, it came from the clergy of the Church (all of them if I've understood your other arguments). 
Have you even read a word I have said?  Such a statement as this gives me sound basis to believe you have not.  "no defection of those that went outside" ?!?!?  It is precisely those that went outside who then defected.  "it came from the clergy of the Church (all of them...)" ?!?!?  Most heresies have indeed come from the clergy, but never all of them, for that would equal the defection of the Church.  Those from whom heresies came indeed did defect in the generation of their heresies, but those who did not originate heresies nor go along with them remained faithful and retained their status as being of the Church, and able to speak (authoritatively) for the Church.  At Vatican II there were some about 250 faithful prelates (Coetus Internationalis Patrum) who resisted and opposed the whole direction of Vatican II, but were mocked, silenced, and outvoted by the plotters and the suckers who perpetrated or went along with its alien new directions.  Archbishops Thục and Lefebvre and bishops de Castro-Meyer and Mendez were among them (though Mendez was out sick for most of that council and returned only near the end when he found they had become a roomful of Protestants).
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 12, 2018, 02:49:02 PM
Keep it simple.
What has happened is actually rather simple.  It is fairly easy to see or picture.  It is somewhat more complicated and tedious to explain it in mere ordinary words, and especially in a manner comprehensible to persons coming from a variety of perspectives and assumptions.  And what it takes to PROVE what has happened in a full and properly rigorous and theological manner is far more substantial, takes a whole book  or two, hence my Sede Vacante! volumes.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 12, 2018, 02:55:59 PM
I have come to the conclusion that I am indeed confused. I have no idea what VZ's point is in this thread.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 12, 2018, 03:37:59 PM
I have come to the conclusion that I am indeed confused. I have no idea what VZ's point is in this thread.
I think the original question was an interesting one, but it has been answered to the uttermost degree, so I for one see little purpose for the continuance of this thread.  But a host of other topics have come up and some of these latest posts of Vinn are very disturbing in their bizarreness, e.g.:  "He:  How many children do you have?  She:  Tomato soup."
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: TKGS on February 12, 2018, 06:20:28 PM
Prior to Vatican II, when a group became Schismatic, you don't find the fathers of the church lamenting they are the only traditionalists who held the church together. They were with the Pope, he was the supreme head and they were the Church and the group outside were the schismatics.

Of course they do!

I would note that there are numerous statements of pre-Conciliar popes calling upon heretics and schismatics to return to the bosom of the Church.  Pope Pius IX invited the Orthodox and Protestants to come to the Vatican Council and be reconciled to the Church. 

I can't identify which specific encyclicals, exhortations, etc., they were, but I've read plenty of them.  Perhaps someone who knows these documents better than I can identify them.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 12, 2018, 07:59:25 PM
It has been satisfactorily shown that we indeed have an extended interregnum.  But it is also shown that our present circumstance is no "mere" extended interregnum, as there are a great many other things also going on, the creation of a new and parallel society, the gradual corruption (defection) of that society away from the Catholic Faith, the leader of this alien new society being mistaken for a Pope (one really has to wonder how in the world that could have happened, that so many could be so easily fooled, but obviously indeed they were for that lays before our very eyes for everyone to see).

We are in agreement, and this is really all I've asked. I do not see it as an interregnum. Even though you do, you also recognize the new and parallel society as a defection. I was never trying to trap you (or anyone else) into a corner. Vatican II was a defection. I think we've solved that.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 12, 2018, 08:00:01 PM
You are going to have to show evidence, even if it is from a media source, that indicated a group of officials, who were formerly Catholic, went to the Vatican and put on a Catholic council for several years.  Until you do otherwise, plain and simple, those were Catholics, from the Roman Catholic Church who were at Vatican II.
You need me to prove to you that Vatican II happened as a historical event?  This has descended into madness.

No, this was not what I asked. We'll let this one go so the conversation is not side tracked.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 12, 2018, 08:02:50 PM

Defection consists of an actual departure from the Faith, of changes to doctrine (heresy, proper), to morals (also heresy, proper), liturgy, and/or disciplines (by creating such as are measurably destructive to faith or morals). 

Yes. We are in agreement again. I never said this didn't happen at Vatican II. If anyone has proved it had, it is the sedevacantists.

The issue I have been taking up, (which maybe it will require its own thread) is that now we have to deal with the indefectible church defecting. You say it is so. I say it is so. Therefore, we must now discuss what defection means in the church we were promised was indefectible.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 12, 2018, 08:05:06 PM
The "whole Church" remained pristine.  Neither the Church as a whole, nor any part of it CONTINUING AS PART OF IT fell into error.  Those who schismatically separated themselves from it however rapidly also then fell into error and heresy.  Sorry if my phraseology was less than clear.

I neither, ever, claimed the entire church fell into heresy. My point was that if even some did, that would constitute a defection. I have never made any disparaging comments to any traditionalists either in this thread. The only point was that the mere fact you have traditionalists on one said saying to the Vatican II "apparatus", "No." And the Novus Ordo in existence, proved there was a defection at some point.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 12, 2018, 08:10:06 PM

(Need I state the obvious?)  The presence of traditionalists proves the existence of the Church, for we traditionalists ARE, ALONE, the Church, whole and entire.  If (per impossible, and I do maintain dogmatically that it is impossible) we traditionalists were to have all disappeared, then the Church will have disappeared.  When the last member of a family (with no heirs) dies, then the family has died.

There are still millions (and once close to a billion) who all (at least nominally) believed and practiced and worshipped precisely as we traditionalists still do (back in the days before Vatican II), but now no longer; that is what constitutes a defection.  They left the Church and then vanished into heresy.

I never said you weren't. You will find no where in this thread I said traditionalists are not who you say they are. My point was that the existence of traditionalists and Novus Ordo post-Vatican II proves a defection at Vatican II. What you affirmed in this statement is what I had been saying all along. The defection you just described is the defection I had been describing.

The next discussion that needs to be had is about the defection of the indefectible church.

Have you even read a word I have said?  Such a statement as this gives me sound basis to believe you have not.  "no defection of those that went outside" ?!?!?  It is precisely those that went outside who then defected. 

Sir, I have read every word you have ever written. We are in agreement, yes, it is those that went outside that defected.

I was not trying to stir madness, or craziness or whatever you called it. Before you said it was a defection in this post and in your last three posts, please go back and read the earlier threads where this is exactly what I had been saying happened.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 12, 2018, 08:12:35 PM
I have come to the conclusion that I am indeed confused. I have no idea what VZ's point is in this thread.

My point is now available on the last few between me and Ubipetrus.  I have been saying there was a clear defection at Vatican II and he has said the same thing.

Therefore, the next issue is why the indefectible church defected?

I sorry if you were confused. I have reason to believe that Ubipetrus and I are on the same page regarding defection now. 
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 12, 2018, 08:13:44 PM
I have come to the conclusion that I am indeed confused. I have no idea what VZ's point is in this thread.
I think the original question was an interesting one, but it has been answered to the uttermost degree, so I for one see little purpose for the continuance of this thread.  But a host of other topics have come up and some of these latest posts of Vinn are very disturbing in their bizarreness, e.g.:  "He:  How many children do you have?  She:  Tomato soup."

We've come to an agreement on the fact Vatican II was a defection. So perhaps you are right and we'll have to move on?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 12, 2018, 10:07:41 PM

I have not considered the issue, nor do I think it important to consider.  Since great theologians through history have been split on the issue and there is evidently no magisterial teaching on the matter, it is clearly a matter that can continue to be debated by those qualified to do so.  I am not one of those individuals.

However, those men did, indeed, claim the papacy so they are papal claimants whether they ever attained the office of the papacy or not.  All anti-popes are, by definition, papal claimants or they wouldn't be anti-popes.  In any event, whether any of them were ever valid popes or not is not truly relevant to the question of sedevacantism today.  All that is relevant is that one may positively know a person is not a Catholic (and therefore not a pope) when one publicly defects from the faith by proclaiming heresy.

The remainder of your post simply makes no sense.  I truly don't know what you're saying unless you are trying to say that what was taught before Vatican 2 is completely compatible with what has been taught since Vatican 2 in which case, we have absolutely no common ground on which to discuss any of this.

"The adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and Behold I am with you all days. To be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact, as will be still more clearly apparent in what is to be said later. By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected. But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope]. Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions." - Cardinal Louis Billot, S.J., On the Legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff, 1927; (https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/)

Due to the fact you do not know what an anti-pope actually is you keep calling all the popes after John XXIII "anti-popes." As you mentioned in an earlier post there is dispute about the legitimacy of John XXIII, and therefore there is dispute as to whether he was actually elected (I assume you meant as to whether it was Siri instead.) So in that case, if it was Siri who was elected, then one can make the argument John XXIII became an anti-pope. You throw around the term anti-pope quite loosely in regards to everyone after John XXIII. If Paul VI is an anti-pope, who was validly elected instead? If JP1 is an anti-pope who was validly elected instead? If JP II is an anti-pope who was validly elected instead? If Benedict XVI was an anti-pope who was validly elected instead? In the Great Western Schism you had real popes and then papal claimants, i.e. anti-popes. You apply the term to the conciliar popes you don't accept. You not accepting them does not prove them as anti-popes. 

This is another reason you accuse me of not making sense. You are confused about the terms you use and sometime I wonder if you even understand them. Here is one such example. On February 4, 2017, in reply #7 you wrote, "So, I would contend that sedevacantists today are in full agreement with St. Bellarmine in regards to the fourth opinion, in that we accept the opinion that the pope could be a heretic (at least, occultly) but could never define anything to be believed by the whole Church." I missed it if Bellarmine taught somewhere the Pope could be an occult heretic. As I stated in my OP, "The fourth position is NOT that the Pope can fall into heresy, but cannot teach heresy.  It appears rather, the fourth position is asserted without answering the question as to whether or not the Pope can fall into heresy."  You said you were in agreement with Bellarmine the pope could become a heretic (even if occultly.) Where did Bellarmine say this? This is what spurned the entire debate about infallibility and indefectibility and whether the Pope would remain infallible even in his private capacity.  Otherwise, it was sure he would definitely fall into heresy. Apparently you say without a doubt he would. I have stood against this position and stated no it was not possible the Pope would fall privately (even occultly) or publicly.

Rather than attempt to at least have an honest conversation, you dismiss me with feigning complete bewilderment at my comments so you can just dismiss them and act as though there is no common ground. Fine dismiss me, but please deal with the comment of Cardinal Billot above please.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 13, 2018, 04:29:17 AM

Defection consists of an actual departure from the Faith, of changes to doctrine (heresy, proper), to morals (also heresy, proper), liturgy, and/or disciplines (by creating such as are measurably destructive to faith or morals). 

Yes. We are in agreement again. I never said this didn't happen at Vatican II. If anyone has proved it had, it is the sedevacantists.

The issue I have been taking up, (which maybe it will require its own thread) is that now we have to deal with the indefectible church defecting. You say it is so. I say it is so. Therefore, we must now discuss what defection means in the church we were promised was indefectible.

Wrong. NONE of us are saying that the Catholic Church defected. You are saying it has.  I think you believe that Vatican II has to mean that the Catholic Church has defected.  We have never said that.  We have shown in many ways why it hasn't, yet you still believe that we are agreeing with you.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: TKGS on February 13, 2018, 06:28:44 AM
Due to the fact you do not know what an anti-pope actually is...

Then why don't define the term for me.  I'll start by noting the definition from Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote
A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.

The way I have been using it, however, would delete the second half of this definition since an anti-pope remains anti-pope even if a canonically elected pontiff does not reign.  Thus, I have been using the term to mean:  A false claimant of the Holy See.

If you like, simply replace any time I use "anti-pope" with "a false claimant of the Holy See".

I do not subscribe to the so-called "Siri Thesis."

Frankly, I am not the one confused.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 13, 2018, 07:00:35 AM
Due to the fact you do not know what an anti-pope actually is...

Then why don't define the term for me.  I'll start by noting the definition from Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote
A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.

The way I have been using it, however, would delete the second half of this definition. 

So it is as I stated, you use the term incorrectly. Whether you use the term "anti-pope" or "false claimant (of the Holy See)" it is the exact same terminology. To have an anti-pope, i.e. a "false claimant" you have to have someone either currently holding that position or there was a valid election/appointment etc. to that position and the false claimant takes it instead. I only pointed to the Roncalli/Siri situation, because that is perhaps the only point where you could apply "anti-pope." This is due to the fact you've stated in the past Pius XII was the last valid pope. After his death, and the see was vacant, there was an election. If and ONLY IF, Siri was elected, but Roncalli went to the chair as John XXIII then I would argue one could then apply the term "anti-pope" or "false claimant." After that, however, you can no longer use the term, because with Paul VI, JPI, JPII and Benedict XVI, there is no argument someone else was validly elected but these men ascended to the papacy. So after John XXIII, anti-pope is no longer a term you can use. (Granted some have tried to say Benedict XVI never resigned and Francis was installed; this is doubtful, but a separate topic altogether.)

You cannot just "delete" the second half of a definition and still claim to accurately use the definition.

Do you have any intentions on dealing with the quote from Cardinal Billot in response to your understanding of "anti-pope" and canonical elections?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 13, 2018, 07:02:26 AM

Defection consists of an actual departure from the Faith, of changes to doctrine (heresy, proper), to morals (also heresy, proper), liturgy, and/or disciplines (by creating such as are measurably destructive to faith or morals). 

Yes. We are in agreement again. I never said this didn't happen at Vatican II. If anyone has proved it had, it is the sedevacantists.

The issue I have been taking up, (which maybe it will require its own thread) is that now we have to deal with the indefectible church defecting. You say it is so. I say it is so. Therefore, we must now discuss what defection means in the church we were promised was indefectible.

Wrong. NONE of us are saying that the Catholic Church defected. You are saying it has.  I think you believe that Vatican II has to mean that the Catholic Church has defected.  We have never said that.  We have shown in many ways why it hasn't, yet you still believe that we are agreeing with you.

But you could agree in this thread now that it is Ubipetrus and I who are saying this. By the way, he is the one who said he still belongs to the infallible church as a traditionalist Catholic so in essence I have the infallible church in my camp regarding defection.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 13, 2018, 10:01:06 AM

Defection consists of an actual departure from the Faith, of changes to doctrine (heresy, proper), to morals (also heresy, proper), liturgy, and/or disciplines (by creating such as are measurably destructive to faith or morals). 

Yes. We are in agreement again. I never said this didn't happen at Vatican II. If anyone has proved it had, it is the sedevacantists.

The issue I have been taking up, (which maybe it will require its own thread) is that now we have to deal with the indefectible church defecting. You say it is so. I say it is so. Therefore, we must now discuss what defection means in the church we were promised was indefectible.

Wrong. NONE of us are saying that the Catholic Church defected. You are saying it has.  I think you believe that Vatican II has to mean that the Catholic Church has defected.  We have never said that.  We have shown in many ways why it hasn't, yet you still believe that we are agreeing with you.

But you could agree in this thread now that it is Ubipetrus and I who are saying this. By the way, he is the one who said he still belongs to the infallible church as a traditionalist Catholic so in essence I have the infallible church in my camp regarding defection.

No, I could not because that is not what he said.  It is what you think he said.  Iḿ just not sure if thatś because you just misunderstood him or if this is what you want him to say.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: TKGS on February 13, 2018, 12:12:52 PM
You cannot just "delete" the second half of a definition and still claim to accurately use the definition.

In that case, so that you can understand what I have written, simply change any time I have used the term "anti-pope" (in every post I have ever written) with "false claimant to the papacy".

Can you understand what I have written now?

I didn't think so.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: annamack on February 13, 2018, 12:34:15 PM

Sir, I have read every word you have ever written. We are in agreement, yes, it is those that went outside that defected.


Ooh!  You've kind of grasped (although apparently without realising that you'd grasped it  :confused: ) - you said it yourself: "it is those that went outside that defected".  So... if it was those who went outside who defected... (I'm typing slowly here)...  it wasn't the Church that defected!!!

Geddit??!

Hurrah!!!

Well done!!!

 :party:
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: annamack on February 13, 2018, 12:35:06 PM

Sir, I have read every word you have ever written. We are in agreement, yes, it is those that went outside that defected.


Ooh!  You've kind of grasped (although apparently without realising that you'd grasped it  :confused: ) - you said it yourself: "it is those that went outside that defected".  So... if it was those who went outside who defected... (I'm typing slowly here)...?  it wasn't the Church that defected!!!

Geddit??!

Hurrah!!!

Well done!!!

 :party:
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 13, 2018, 02:53:52 PM
I have never made any disparaging comments to any traditionalists either in this thread. The only point was that the mere fact you have traditionalists on one said saying to the Vatican II "apparatus", "No." And the Novus Ordo in existence, proved there was a defection at some point.
Yes, or to be more precise, the Novus Ordo in existence itself IS itself the defection.
You will find no where in this thread I said traditionalists are not who you say they are. My point was that the existence of traditionalists and Novus Ordo post-Vatican II proves a defection at Vatican II. What you affirmed in this statement is what I had been saying all along. The defection you just described is the defection I had been describing.
Good to get that straight.
We are in agreement, yes, it is those that went outside that defected.
Good to get that straight.  Maybe we just put it down to you were just having a bad day and not typing in what you meant to say.  Bygones, etc.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 13, 2018, 03:26:07 PM
The next discussion that needs to be had is about the defection of the indefectible church.
Oh no, here we go again.  The Church never defected.  A significant number (99% or so) of churchmen, cleric religious and lay, left the Church, and having left then defected in their conversion to an alien religion.
It is just possible (theoretically, or at least hypothetically) that a person separated from the Church could maintain the Faith whole and entire (though separated from the Church it is of no benefit unless the separation be a result of events outside the control of the person, e. g. being stranded on a desert island).  But defection, at least to some degree (East Orthodox), and often typically to a considerable degree (Protestants), always seems to be the result.

For comparison, when all English bishops but one and nearly all priests signed the Declaration or Royal Supremacy, and when nearly all of the general run of the laity went along with them (and religious orders were dissolved), a newly minted Church OF England formally entered a state of schism.  But the Church IN England, now reduced to a relatively tiny remnant, did not defect at all.  Though King Henry VIII attempted to prevent the defection of the Church OF England (other than his own ability to procure annulments as easy as Novus Ordo annulments today) by preserving as much else as possible, he could not stop the looting of the religious houses, and once he was no longer in power those who followed him (other than good queen Mary) led the Church OF England into a full scale defection.  They (who left) defected, not we (romanists then, traditionalists now, who remained), as we did not defect, and the Church we comprised did not defect at all.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 13, 2018, 03:29:51 PM
We've come to an agreement on the fact Vatican II was a defection. So perhaps you are right and we'll have to move on?
"Move on," yes I like that.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 13, 2018, 03:43:45 PM
"The adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and Behold I am with you all days. To be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact, as will be still more clearly apparent in what is to be said later. By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected. But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope]. Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions." - Cardinal Louis Billot, S.J., On the Legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff, 1927; (https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/)
Questions were raised even in the days of John XXIII.  Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner first raised doubts about the election of Roncalli who was already known to her and the Vatican curial officials she was close to as being a rather shady character, and who furthermore visited a Masonic Lodge on the eve of his election to the Papacy.  But she did not (at least at the time) doubt the lawful or canonical validity of the election, just the prudence thereof.  However, a fellow in Oklahoma named Tom Costello also published some statements about Roncalli as John XXIII, expressing doubts (or even denials) of his papal claims, and even managed to garner some attention for himself.  I believe he was acquainted with Hutton Gibson, and that he had published a "yellow sheet" paper of some sort which was the first claim of Sede Vacante, proper, and the only during the reign of John XXIII.  And that is literally all that I know about him.  But without any access to these papers I cannot know the basis for his complaints and claims so as to evaluate them.
Real (and vastly substantiated) criticisms arose during the most particularly odious career of Montini as Paul VI, particularly on the basis of many known and specific heresies on his part, so even if these observations were not yet widely known that is sufficient to affirm that "the Universal Church" most certainly DID NOT "adhere" to Paul VI.  Some realized that such a heretic cannot be Pope.  Others, feeling no competence to "judge a Pope" merely recused themselves from his teachings and mandates, perhaps doubting that they really came from him at all but rather from his "handlers" and the like, not claiming competence to pronounce on anything save the wickedness of the new directives themselves.  Thus has been the case ever since; the Church does not adhere to heretical Vatican leaders.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 13, 2018, 03:54:43 PM
Quote
A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.\
The way I have been using it, however, would delete the second half of this definition since an anti-pope remains anti-pope even if a canonically elected pontiff does not reign.  Thus, I have been using the term to mean:  A false claimant of the Holy See.
I think the choice of the word "antipope" to describe the recent and current Vatican leadership may have been a bit unfortunate.  Unfortunately, it has acquired frequent usage, which many of us just unconsciously and accidently picked up.  Two problems with that:  (1) "antipope" seems to at least suggest the presence of a real Pope, or at least the immediate means for a real Pope to bring a usual papal vacancy to a naturally and commonly prompt close, (2) an "antipope" can, on many or even most occasions, be nevertheless a real Catholic.  Of all the 41 ancient historical antipopes, only Novatian was clearly a heretic, and Vigilius soft on the Monophysite heresy owing to his dependence upon the heretical Empress who arranged for his claims to the papacy.  But other than that all have been thoroughly orthodox Catholics, as reliable for Faith and Doctrine as real Popes have been, and even included such saints as St. Hippolytus.

One nefarious consequence of this confusion has been that since some of these antipopes have appointed bishops to sees and those bishops simply been accepted as such by the real Church, some have attempted to claim that episcopal appointments made by Vatican heresiarchs might therefore have legal value (appointments by heretics never can; those antipopes whose bishops have been accepted as such by the Church were all fully orthodox Catholics).
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 13, 2018, 03:56:48 PM
But you could agree in this thread now that it is Ubipetrus and I who are saying this.
But I do not say the Church defected.  Individuals, whether alone or in groups, defected from the Church, but the Church itself remains always pristine.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 13, 2018, 03:59:47 PM
You cannot just "delete" the second half of a definition and still claim to accurately use the definition.

In that case, so that you can understand what I have written, simply change any time I have used the term "anti-pope" (in every post I have ever written) with "false claimant to the papacy".

Can you understand what I have written now?

I didn't think so.

No, there is nothing to understand. I already explained in my reply, "Whether you use the term "anti-pope" or "false claimant (of the Holy See)" it is the exact same terminology." You're not getting it. To say there is a "false claimant to the papacy" there has to be a legitimate election of a legitimate pope and the "false claimant" takes it regardless. This is why I used the Roncalli/Siri analogy, it is the only time since Pius XII where that may be appropriate. After that, how can you call, for example, Paul VI an anti-pope/false claimant? Please tell me who was canonically and validly elected to which Paul VI usurped and took the chair?

Do you have any intentions on dealing with the quote from Cardinal Billot or are you going to keep deflecting?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 13, 2018, 04:09:56 PM

Defection consists of an actual departure from the Faith, of changes to doctrine (heresy, proper), to morals (also heresy, proper), liturgy, and/or disciplines (by creating such as are measurably destructive to faith or morals). 

Yes. We are in agreement again. I never said this didn't happen at Vatican II. If anyone has proved it had, it is the sedevacantists.

The issue I have been taking up, (which maybe it will require its own thread) is that now we have to deal with the indefectible church defecting. You say it is so. I say it is so. Therefore, we must now discuss what defection means in the church we were promised was indefectible.

Wrong. NONE of us are saying that the Catholic Church defected. You are saying it has.  I think you believe that Vatican II has to mean that the Catholic Church has defected.  We have never said that.  We have shown in many ways why it hasn't, yet you still believe that we are agreeing with you.

But you could agree in this thread now that it is Ubipetrus and I who are saying this. By the way, he is the one who said he still belongs to the infallible church as a traditionalist Catholic so in essence I have the infallible church in my camp regarding defection.

No, I could not because that is not what he said.  It is what you think he said.  Iḿ just not sure if thatś because you just misunderstood him or if this is what you want him to say.

Really? Then please explain to me what he is saying in reply #85? Ubietrus stated the following:

"There are still millions (and once close to a billion) who all (at least nominally) believed and practiced and worshipped precisely as we traditionalists still do (back in the days before Vatican II), but now no longer; that is what constitutes a defection. 

What constitutes this defection according to Ubipetrus in #85? "They left the Church and then vanished into heresy."

Please explain to me again what I did not understand about this comment being a defection?
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 13, 2018, 04:20:47 PM
It's quite fitting that I have a splitting (migraine?) headache today.  :facepalm:

I think I'll leave it to Ubipetrus to set you straight VZ. Again, I'm just not sure whether you want to be set straight.  I think you have decided that the Church defected at Vatican II; therefore, regardless of what Ubi writes, you take it to mean what you have decided it to mean.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 13, 2018, 04:23:47 PM
Quote
A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.\
The way I have been using it, however, would delete the second half of this definition since an anti-pope remains anti-pope even if a canonically elected pontiff does not reign.  Thus, I have been using the term to mean:  A false claimant of the Holy See.
I think the choice of the word "antipope" to describe the recent and current Vatican leadership may have been a bit unfortunate.  Unfortunately, it has acquired frequent usage, which many of us just unconsciously and accidently picked up.  Two problems with that:  (1) "antipope" seems to at least suggest the presence of a real Pope, or at least the immediate means for a real Pope to bring a usual papal vacancy to a naturally and commonly prompt close, (2) an "antipope" can, on many or even most occasions, be nevertheless a real Catholic.  Of all the 41 ancient historical antipopes, only Novatian was clearly a heretic, and Vigilius soft on the Monophysite heresy owing to his dependence upon the heretical Empress who arranged for his claims to the papacy.  But other than that all have been thoroughly orthodox Catholics, as reliable for Faith and Doctrine as real Popes have been, and even included such saints as St. Hippolytus.

One nefarious consequence of this confusion has been that since some of these antipopes have appointed bishops to sees and those bishops simply been accepted as such by the real Church, some have attempted to claim that episcopal appointments made by Vatican heresiarchs might therefore have legal value (appointments by heretics never can; those antipopes whose bishops have been accepted as such by the Church were all fully orthodox Catholics).

I used to use anti-pope (and probably fall back into that habit on occasion), but I typically say false pope now.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 13, 2018, 04:27:48 PM
Oh no, here we go again.  The Church never defected.  A significant number (99% or so) of churchmen, cleric religious and lay, left the Church, and having left then defected in their conversion to an alien religion.
It is just possible (theoretically, or at least hypothetically) that a person separated from the Church could maintain the Faith whole and entire (though separated from the Church it is of no benefit unless the separation be a result of events outside the control of the person, e. g. being stranded on a desert island).  But defection, at least to some degree (East Orthodox), and often typically to a considerable degree (Protestants), always seems to be the result.

There would be no point in starting another thread and having another discussion. I think we know it is probably not possible. For one reason. I say that 99% of churchmen, cleric, religious and lay, left the church in a defection at Vatican II.  You say they left. Then after they left they defected. You don't have a term for their leaving other than they just left.

What would dancing on the head of the needle accomplish at this point.

For comparison, when all English bishops but one and nearly all priests signed the Declaration or Royal Supremacy, and when nearly all of the general run of the laity went along with them (and religious orders were dissolved), a newly minted Church OF England formally entered a state of schism.  But the Church IN England, now reduced to a relatively tiny remnant, did not defect at all.  Though King Henry VIII attempted to prevent the defection of the Church OF England (other than his own ability to procure annulments as easy as Novus Ordo annulments today) by preserving as much else as possible, he could not stop the looting of the religious houses, and once he was no longer in power those who followed him (other than good queen Mary) led the Church OF England into a full scale defection.  They (who left) defected, not we (romanists then, traditionalists now, who remained), as we did not defect, and the Church we comprised did not defect at all.

We already dealt with the church of England issue and how it was different than what happened at Vatican II in replies #49 and #69.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 13, 2018, 04:32:37 PM
It's quite fitting that I have a splitting (migraine?) headache today.  :facepalm:

I think I'll leave it to Ubipetrus to set you straight VZ. Again, I'm just not sure whether you want to be set straight.  I think you have decided that the Church defected at Vatican II; therefore, regardless of what Ubi writes, you take it to mean what you have decided it to mean.

Because it means that there actually was a defection. How ridiculous to say 99% of the entire hierarchy and laity left the church, but this is just a simple leaving of the church. The defection is devastating for, well everyone. I can see why you're reticent to accept what has been presented. I can see why a catastrophic defection like this would cause you a headache.

You hang around for some reason. You could've bowed out pages ago. Don't worry, I am more than willing to talk it out.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 13, 2018, 04:37:49 PM
It's quite fitting that I have a splitting (migraine?) headache today.  :facepalm:

I think I'll leave it to Ubipetrus to set you straight VZ. Again, I'm just not sure whether you want to be set straight.  I think you have decided that the Church defected at Vatican II; therefore, regardless of what Ubi writes, you take it to mean what you have decided it to mean.

Because it means that there actually was a defection. How ridiculous to say 99% of the entire hierarchy and laity left the church, but this is just a simple leaving of the church. The defection is devastating for, well everyone. I can see why you're reticent to see what has been presented. I can see why a catastrophic defection like this would cause you a headache.

You hang around for some reason. You could've bowed out pages ago. Don't worry, I am more than willing to talk it out.

Well, I am taking a Lenten break.  But it appears that the reason you're hanging around is to assert that the CATHOLIC CHURCH has defected.  This is heresy.  You should be banned if you don't recant.  I still wonder whether you aren't really Eastern Orthodox after all.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 13, 2018, 04:49:27 PM
It's quite fitting that I have a splitting (migraine?) headache today.  :facepalm:

I think I'll leave it to Ubipetrus to set you straight VZ. Again, I'm just not sure whether you want to be set straight.  I think you have decided that the Church defected at Vatican II; therefore, regardless of what Ubi writes, you take it to mean what you have decided it to mean.

Because it means that there actually was a defection. How ridiculous to say 99% of the entire hierarchy and laity left the church, but this is just a simple leaving of the church. The defection is devastating for, well everyone. I can see why you're reticent to see what has been presented. I can see why a catastrophic defection like this would cause you a headache.

You hang around for some reason. You could've bowed out pages ago. Don't worry, I am more than willing to talk it out.

Well, I am taking a Lenten break.  But it appears that the reason you're hanging around is to assert that the CATHOLIC CHURCH has defected.  This is heresy.  You should be banned if you don't recant.  I still wonder whether you aren't really Eastern Orthodox after all.

Ahh, it only took #118 posts to finally be called a schismatic. All without ever having leveled one attack against the Sedevacantists or Traditionalists or anyone else.

I need to recant for saying the Pope can't defect or be a heretic? I should be banned for saying there was a defection at Vatican II?

Also there goes you and I having a few amicable posts together. I knew it was too good to be true.

May God love you and bless you this lenten and Easter season.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 13, 2018, 04:58:00 PM
Oh stop with the predictable role of victim.  You have clearly stated on more than one occasion that THE CHURCH defected.    You have been told repeatedly that no one here is saying that.  ANYONE who pushes heresy on this site should be banned unless they recant.  You do not recant. 
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: TKGS on February 13, 2018, 04:59:59 PM
Well, I am taking a Lenten break.  But it appears that the reason you're hanging around is to assert that the CATHOLIC CHURCH has defected. This is heresy.  You should be banned if you don't recant.  I still wonder whether you aren't really Eastern Orthodox after all.

Ahh, it only took #118 posts to finally be called a schismatic. All without ever having leveled one attack against the Sedevacantists or Traditionalists or anyone else.

I need to recant for saying the Pope can't defect or be a heretic? I should be banned for saying there was a defection at Vatican II?

Also there goes you and I having a few amicable posts together. I knew it was too good to be true.

May God love you and bless you this lenten and Easter season.

No.  You were not called a schismatic, she only wonders if you are schismatic.  She called you a heretic, since you have been spouting heresy on this topic and trying to get the Catholics on this forum to agree with your heresy. 
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Geremia on February 13, 2018, 06:19:39 PM
No, but sin did.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 13, 2018, 07:39:09 PM
You don't have a term for their leaving other than they just left.
Schism?  Bifurcation?  Parallel (and new) society?  The departure was communal, in that many persons left, not individually but as a group of many who left in order to enter a particular sect (the Novus Ordo).  The indefectibility of the Church was evidenced in those of us who did not so leave but remained faithful.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 13, 2018, 08:03:54 PM
Well, I am taking a Lenten break.  But it appears that the reason you're hanging around is to assert that the CATHOLIC CHURCH has defected. This is heresy.  You should be banned if you don't recant.  I still wonder whether you aren't really Eastern Orthodox after all.

Ahh, it only took #118 posts to finally be called a schismatic. All without ever having leveled one attack against the Sedevacantists or Traditionalists or anyone else.

I need to recant for saying the Pope can't defect or be a heretic? I should be banned for saying there was a defection at Vatican II?

Also there goes you and I having a few amicable posts together. I knew it was too good to be true.

May God love you and bless you this lenten and Easter season.

No.  You were not called a schismatic, she only wonders if you are schismatic.  She called you a heretic, since you have been spouting heresy on this topic and trying to get the Catholics on this forum to agree with your heresy.

Heresy? You stated you were in full agreement with St. Bellarmine in regards to the fourth opinion, in that you accepted the opinion that the pope could be a heretic (at least, occultly).  When pressed for proof where Bellarmine said he would become one, you provided none and dodged the question. In fact, you completely misstated Bellarmine.  So what is left on the table is you saying the Pope would become an occult heretic. I made no such statement, but I promote heresy?

Yes, I am the reason you do not know what an anti-pope is or how to correctly apply the term and you are one of the apprentices on this website.

You dodge every question put to you, yet you accuse me of heresy. This entire website should be shutdown, particularly if one who is an apprentice can't deal with a simple quote from a pre-Vatican II Cardinal or know the basic definition of what an anti-pope is and yet purports to accurately represent the correct way of dealing with the Vatican II situation. You are a danger to yourself. It is not worth getting into the danger you pose to others.   
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 13, 2018, 08:11:50 PM
Oh stop with the predictable role of victim.  You have clearly stated on more than one occasion that THE CHURCH defected.    You have been told repeatedly that no one here is saying that.  ANYONE who pushes heresy on this site should be banned unless they recant.  You do not recant.

No friend, I am not the victim, you are. You are not my victim. You are a victim of the Vatican II apparatus and its magisterium that did what it always did. It called a council, it decreed documents, it ratified those documents and decreed them to the church. They make you their victim by reviling you and pushing you aside and belittling you for even calling them into question (kind of similar to what you do to me) but only worse, because to them you are a heretic. To me you are not. I actually sympathize with your traditionalist position and can put aside my own biases to hear what your side presents. I didn't say Vatican II was a defection. I came to this conclusion by listening to more than one sedevacantist point it out. Therefore, it was a conclusion I was forced to come to.  However, I am not the victim (well maybe inadvertently). Tragically it is you too. However, you will say Vatican II is heresy called by heretical popes.

So when I try to ask an honest question of where we would be given heretical popes (and all the other issues I raised here, especially regarding indefeasibility and immutabililty) the only reply I get is what I always get; i.e. I am the heretic or the schismatic. What a shame we have come to this in the face of what is happening today.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Vinny Zee on February 13, 2018, 08:15:50 PM
You don't have a term for their leaving other than they just left.
Schism?  Bifurcation?  Parallel (and new) society?  The departure was communal, in that many persons left, not individually but as a group of many who left in order to enter a particular sect (the Novus Ordo).  The indefectibility of the Church was evidenced in those of us who did not so leave but remained faithful.

I enjoyed the discussion. Thank you. Have a blessed Lent and Easter.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: tmw89 on February 13, 2018, 08:51:44 PM
Speaking of having a blessed Lent and Easter, I've banned Vinny Zee, given the heretical content of his posts.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Voxxkowalski on February 14, 2018, 06:10:00 PM
What a ridiculous over reaction. Banned for being mistaken at worse...misunderstood for sure. My2cents.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: tmw89 on February 14, 2018, 06:40:37 PM
The topic of this thread is "Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?"

Now that administrative action has been taken to bring the thread back on track, let's keep it on track.

Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: ubipetrus on February 15, 2018, 12:02:48 PM
I have to admit that Vinn was beginning to tax my patience.  Sometimes he would seem to be almost getting it, and then, no, not at all, not even close.

As to the original question, for its own merits, it does seem to be a little like asking "Does making murder illegal cause murder to occur?"  Perhaps murders might take place without being recognized as such if it weren't illegal, who knows?  If we did not know (have it defined infallibly as a dogma) that the Pope is infallible, might we have been able to accept as "Pope" the recent and current heretical leaders of the Vatican organization?  Seems to me that would have resulted in a very fuzzy and blurry "Christianity" if Popes did not have to be infallible.  The alternative to that fuzzy and blurry "Christianity" is that heretics cannot be Popes and Popes cannot be heretics, as indeed taught by the Church.

It seems to be true that the bare application of a standard must imply the potential for the standard not to be met.  Need that of itself be inevitable?  It is inevitable that we as sinners burdened with Original Sin will sin, and that Popes, also being like us in this sinfulness will also sin, but would (or even could) a Pope sin in that matter of particularly violating the standard?  We all know the story of being told not to think about elephants, and so what is the first thing we think about?  Or it's the lure of the forbidden.  Something we blissfully might have simply never happened to do (or even done but innocently and naïvely) becomes something we must expressly put forth some effort to avoid, something which we are denied, and could gain interest and fascination in our minds merely for being so forbidden.  Even here I see no inevitability that a Pope would necessarily have to fall into error.

And in point of fact (from my own standpoint), I fail to see than any actual Pope, as such, became a heretic, but rather having departed from the Catholic Papacy by other means (or else having failed to attain it in the first place), then of course no actual Popes, as such, and remaining as such, are in heresy or ever have been in heresy.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: annamack on February 15, 2018, 01:24:41 PM
What a ridiculous over reaction. Banned for being mistaken at worse...misunderstood for sure. My2cents.

I'm not sure that you would say that had you read through every one of VZ's interminable posts...  My tuppence ha'penny...
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: Voxxkowalski on February 16, 2018, 10:02:05 AM
Seems to me none of the answers given satisfied him. Hardly a sin. And its hard to fathom he was deliberatly being heretical. But hey dont bring mead to a Bud Light Party. Dilly Dilly.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: annamack on February 16, 2018, 11:23:24 AM
Seems to me none of the answers given satisfied him. Hardly a sin. And its hard to fathom he was deliberatly being heretical. But hey dont bring mead to a Bud Light Party. Dilly Dilly.

Is it really possible to be as stupid as he was making himself out to be?  I'm actually leaning towards the thought that he was attempting to tempt others into heresy.
Title: Re: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?
Post by: tmw89 on February 16, 2018, 11:24:57 AM
Voxx, since you were too thick to understand my last post: unless you are here to contribute to the topic, you are not welcome to post here.  It would be one thing if you were a valued and regular contributor, but it is manifestly obvious the only reason you are posting here is to disparage administrator decision-making.  Basta.  Enough.