Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
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.

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?)
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.
Social and Family Life / Re: Putin's Family Values
« Last post by annamack on February 11, 2018, 12:18:17 PM »
I read an article a few months ago (maybe longer) in which the author claims that a traditional Catholic priest (he named him, but I don't remember his name) in Russia told him that Putin spends a week every year living as a monk in an Orthodox monastery on retreat.  The priest believed that Putin had genuinely converted to the Orthodox faith and that his actions in defense of Christianity are genuine.  I've tried to locate the article on the internet but haven't been able to figure out the right search word combination to find it.

I don't believe very much that the MSM report about Putin, but it seems that most "bad" things they report about him are actually good things.  I certainly don't believe anything "leaked" by the "Intelligence Community". 

So I don't know what to think for sure.  I'm just not willing to condemn him other than his Orthodox faith.  And perhaps, if the Conciliar sect wasn't masquerading as Catholic, perhaps he would find the truth.  The fact that it was widely reported that Putin doesn't think Bergoglio is even a Christian is interesting.

I also read somewhere (like you, I can't remember where) that, when he made a state visit to the Vatican, he wanted to discuss Fatima but Bergoglio refused.  As I've said previously, I'm not particularly bothered about his motives, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he's genuine.
Social and Family Life / Re: Putin's Family Values
« Last post by annamack on February 11, 2018, 12:12:07 PM »

And yet he is the one world leader promoting Christianity (albeit a schismatic form, I know).  I don't really care what his reasons are.  Indeed, I'm inclined to agree with Nick's response.

Sounds like you're a pragmatist, too :D

To the very marrow of my being, sadly.

I don't have a strong opinion about Putin, and honestly I don't personally know much about him at all.  I thought these were some interesting insights worth sharing, though.  I think that in many other situations, traditional Catholics would be far less receptive of someone with Putin's history and far more skeptical of him.  Imagine if you found out your priest was a former KGB agent who goes off and decides to form some priestly order, has a great amount of success proliferating it, gains loads of attention, says all the right things, etc.

If he were a validly ordained priest, then I would be happy to accept him as such. 

Without personal knowledge of Putin, the good Father's opinion is just that - and he is, of course, as entitled to it as the rest of us are entitled to ours.
[note that most of the Eastern Catholic Hierarchy adheres to the false ecclesiology of Vatican II]

Thanks for the links.

Please read through and contribute to the thread on my question regarding whether the doctrine of papal infallibility inevitably brought about sedevacantism.

Can an indefectible church promote a false ecclesiology? Did the indefectible church defect before promoting said ecclesiology?

Note: I am not questioning your conclusion Vatican II promotes a false ecclesiology.
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.
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.)

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 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. 
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.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]