Author Topic: Secondary Objects of Infallibility  (Read 567 times)

2Vermont

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2017, 04:43:50 AM »
Anonimus,

Yes, I started a new thread because I thought it was needed.  I'm not asking you to repeat anything and I know you started your arguments off with secondary objects of infallibility in the other thread. It seems as if the other thread's posts are focused on what others have said about the reforms (and not the SO of I) despite the fact that you did mention the SO of I.

As far as I'm concerned you don't have to post in this thread at all if you do not want to do so because you feel you have to repeat yourself. I was actually going to ask you to start a new thread anyway.  I find that your new angle could have used one. 

To be clear, I wish to be very specific here.  If the Pian reforms were dangerous as you and others believe/believed them to be, then where does that leave the Church teaching of secondary objects of infallibility?  It teaches that the discipline of the Church can NOT be dangerous to the Faith.  Regardless of what people "believe", how can the liturgical changes of a true pope be dangerous to the Faith?

And I'm throwing that question out to all of the members, not just the ones who are still reading the old, long thread (which if we're honest, has been all over the place and I suspect that many aren't even reading it anymore). I may find that no one wants to address the topic of this thread either.

I also wanted to make it clear that even Father Cekada (and those well-known anti-Pian clergy who currently do not follow the Pian reforms) doesn't believe this.  I got the impression that those you mentioned who do were from the past. 

Did I read all of your materials Anonimus?  No I did not.  I was honest about that when I first posted to you.  I asked you to summarize some things and you refused to do so.  This thread is not interested in all of the details you posted.  The only thing that is important (and I'm taking your word on it) is that there were people in the past who believed that the changes were dangerous to the Faith.  Got it? 

Now if you could stop making sarcastic accusations and move on, that would be great.   :)

2V-

Why do you worry about the consequences to the SO of I with regard to liturgical laws, but not with regard to the identity of the Pope?

That seems inconsistent to me.

Because Van Noort also teaches, in accordance with Divine Law, that public heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.  Therefore, when he taught that dogmatic facts were secondary objects of infallibility he couldn't possibly have been referring to the so-called universal acceptance of a heretic pope.

Some people seem to think a public heretic is anyone who utters a heresy in public.

In reality (paraphrasing), a public heretic is one who has been judged a heretic by competent authority.

When have any of these post V2 popes been so judged?

I see that you are turning this thread into debating the usual, worn out arguments between the sedevacantists and the sedeplenists...which was not the point of the thread. St Robert Bellarmine is clear that by Divine Law a manifest heretic loses title and membership ipso facto.  As a result, I have no concern over whether the teaching of knowing the identity of a true and Catholic pope is a secondary object of infallibility. This answers your earlier post:

Why do you worry about the consequences to the SO of I with regard to liturgical laws, but not with regard to the identity of the Pope? That seems inconsistent to me.

So, although my questioning seems inconsistent to you, that doesn't mean that it is. 

I wonder whether what seemed to be dangerous to the Faith by others wrt Pius XII's liturgical reform was also not, in fact, dangerous. 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 04:45:48 AM by 2Vermont »
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

ClemensMaria

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2017, 09:01:32 AM »
Whether the V2 changes, NOM, etc were universally and peaceably accepted at the time is debatable, but that Francis was universally and peaceably accepted by 99.9999% of the Church is not.

His papacy (unlike the claimants in the GWS, for example) would certainly have been considered by Van Noort, Billuart, Berry, and Billot, et al as a dogmatic fact on the basis of this criteria, because as Billot explains: The Church is infallible not only in her teaching, but in her believing as well.

If 99.9999% could be mistaken, and 0.00001% correctly deduce Francis was not truly Pope, there are insurmountable implications regarding the Church's visibility which in my opinion not only make such an event virtually impossible, but also suggest to me that Cajetan/John of St. Thomas were correct in their understanding regarding the deposition/loss of office for a Pope.

"For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." (Matthew 24:24)

First, I think we can disregard what percentage of the laity recognizes Bergoglio as pope.  The important point for maintaining traditional Church ecclesiology would be that the clergy recognize him as pope and subject themselves to him.  That was not universal.  You might have a better argument with J23 and P6 but I would argue there is good reason to believe that fraud and deception would invalidate any claim to universal acceptance.  But in the case of Bergoglio the heretics who adhere to the false doctrines of the Conciliar sect cannot be used to establish a dogmatic fact as if it were some kind of voting system and anyone is allowed to vote.  I would argue that most of those clergy who actually adhere to the traditional doctrines of the Church either do not recognize Bergoglio as pope or they do not subject themselves to him.  So if you want to imagine Van Noort et al falling away into V2 heresies then go ahead.  However, that kind of speculation isn't going to convince anyone and is basically a waste of time.
 

TKGS

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2017, 11:30:16 AM »
Whether the V2 changes, NOM, etc were universally and peaceably accepted at the time is debatable, but that Francis was universally and peaceably accepted by 99.9999% of the Church is not.

This is actually a bald-faced lie.  I grant that 99.9999% of the world has accepted Bergoglio with the title of pope just as a similar percentage of people probably accept Lhamo Dondrub with the title of Dalai Lama.

But virtually zero percent of the world, Catholic or not, peacebly accept Bergoglio as the pope in actuality.  No one really looks to Bergoglio as their proximate rule of faith, which is what the pope is.  Bergoglio has great power in many administrative functions, but no one looks to him to inform their consciences.

Just for fun, 0.0001% of the 1.2 billion self-described Catholics in the world amounts to 1,200 souls.  I'm pretty sure that there are more than twelve hundred sedevacantists in the world.  So even your wildly stupid figures are clearly wrong.

When you actually have facts to present, we'll be here to listen.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 11:52:28 AM by TKGS »
 
The following users thanked this post: Mysterium Fidei, annamack

Anonimus

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2017, 03:15:02 PM »
Anonimus,

Yes, I started a new thread because I thought it was needed.  I'm not asking you to repeat anything and I know you started your arguments off with secondary objects of infallibility in the other thread. It seems as if the other thread's posts are focused on what others have said about the reforms (and not the SO of I) despite the fact that you did mention the SO of I.

As far as I'm concerned you don't have to post in this thread at all if you do not want to do so because you feel you have to repeat yourself. I was actually going to ask you to start a new thread anyway.  I find that your new angle could have used one. 

To be clear, I wish to be very specific here.  If the Pian reforms were dangerous as you and others believe/believed them to be, then where does that leave the Church teaching of secondary objects of infallibility?  It teaches that the discipline of the Church can NOT be dangerous to the Faith.  Regardless of what people "believe", how can the liturgical changes of a true pope be dangerous to the Faith?

And I'm throwing that question out to all of the members, not just the ones who are still reading the old, long thread (which if we're honest, has been all over the place and I suspect that many aren't even reading it anymore). I may find that no one wants to address the topic of this thread either.

I also wanted to make it clear that even Father Cekada (and those well-known anti-Pian clergy who currently do not follow the Pian reforms) doesn't believe this.  I got the impression that those you mentioned who do were from the past. 

Did I read all of your materials Anonimus?  No I did not.  I was honest about that when I first posted to you.  I asked you to summarize some things and you refused to do so.  This thread is not interested in all of the details you posted.  The only thing that is important (and I'm taking your word on it) is that there were people in the past who believed that the changes were dangerous to the Faith.  Got it? 

Now if you could stop making sarcastic accusations and move on, that would be great.   :)

2V-

Why do you worry about the consequences to the SO of I with regard to liturgical laws, but not with regard to the identity of the Pope?

That seems inconsistent to me.

Because Van Noort also teaches, in accordance with Divine Law, that public heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.  Therefore, when he taught that dogmatic facts were secondary objects of infallibility he couldn't possibly have been referring to the so-called universal acceptance of a heretic pope.

Some people seem to think a public heretic is anyone who utters a heresy in public.

In reality (paraphrasing), a public heretic is one who has been judged a heretic by competent authority.

When have any of these post V2 popes been so judged?

I see that you are turning this thread into debating the usual, worn out arguments between the sedevacantists and the sedeplenists...which was not the point of the thread. St Robert Bellarmine is clear that by Divine Law a manifest heretic loses title and membership ipso facto.  As a result, I have no concern over whether the teaching of knowing the identity of a true and Catholic pope is a secondary object of infallibility. This answers your earlier post:

Why do you worry about the consequences to the SO of I with regard to liturgical laws, but not with regard to the identity of the Pope? That seems inconsistent to me.

So, although my questioning seems inconsistent to you, that doesn't mean that it is. 

I wonder whether what seemed to be dangerous to the Faith by others wrt Pius XII's liturgical reform was also not, in fact, dangerous.

I wonder if what is dangerous to other people's faith needs to be denied by you in order to retain your position(s)?
 

TKGS

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2017, 04:41:51 PM »
I wonder if what is dangerous to other people's faith needs to be denied by you in order to retain your position(s)?

We seem to have a number of members on this forum who are utterly unable to make a coherent argument and seem to think their feelings about things are more important than reality.
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

2Vermont

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2017, 06:32:32 AM »
I wonder if what is dangerous to other people's faith needs to be denied by you in order to retain your position(s)?

We seem to have a number of members on this forum who are utterly unable to make a coherent argument and seem to think their feelings about things are more important than reality.

Yes, individual subjective feelings about what they consider "dangerous" to their faith seems to overrule Church teaching.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 06:34:13 AM by 2Vermont »
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

Rubecorks

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2017, 08:17:28 AM »
I wonder if what is dangerous to other people's faith needs to be denied by you in order to retain your position(s)?

We seem to have a number of members on this forum who are utterly unable to make a coherent argument and seem to think their feelings about things are more important than reality.

Yes, individual subjective feelings about what they consider "dangerous" to their faith seems to overrule Church teaching.

Yes, the charge needs to be made objective to have any worth.

They need to say something like, "This change causes me to doubt the doctrine of _________ because, etc."
 

true catholic

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 44
  • Gender: Male
Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2018, 02:34:47 PM »
Anonimus,

Yes, I started a new thread because I thought it was needed.  I'm not asking you to repeat anything and I know you started your arguments off with secondary objects of infallibility in the other thread. It seems as if the other thread's posts are focused on what others have said about the reforms (and not the SO of I) despite the fact that you did mention the SO of I.

As far as I'm concerned you don't have to post in this thread at all if you do not want to do so because you feel you have to repeat yourself. I was actually going to ask you to start a new thread anyway.  I find that your new angle could have used one. 

To be clear, I wish to be very specific here.  If the Pian reforms were dangerous as you and others believe/believed them to be, then where does that leave the Church teaching of secondary objects of infallibility?  It teaches that the discipline of the Church can NOT be dangerous to the Faith.  Regardless of what people "believe", how can the liturgical changes of a true pope be dangerous to the Faith?

And I'm throwing that question out to all of the members, not just the ones who are still reading the old, long thread (which if we're honest, has been all over the place and I suspect that many aren't even reading it anymore). I may find that no one wants to address the topic of this thread either.

I also wanted to make it clear that even Father Cekada (and those well-known anti-Pian clergy who currently do not follow the Pian reforms) doesn't believe this.  I got the impression that those you mentioned who do were from the past. 

Did I read all of your materials Anonimus?  No I did not.  I was honest about that when I first posted to you.  I asked you to summarize some things and you refused to do so.  This thread is not interested in all of the details you posted.  The only thing that is important (and I'm taking your word on it) is that there were people in the past who believed that the changes were dangerous to the Faith.  Got it? 

Now if you could stop making sarcastic accusations and move on, that would be great.   :)

2V-

Why do you worry about the consequences to the SO of I with regard to liturgical laws, but not with regard to the identity of the Pope?

That seems inconsistent to me.

Because Van Noort also teaches, in accordance with Divine Law, that public heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.  Therefore, when he taught that dogmatic facts were secondary objects of infallibility he couldn't possibly have been referring to the so-called universal acceptance of a heretic pope.

Some people seem to think a public heretic is anyone who utters a heresy in public.

In reality (paraphrasing), a public heretic is one who has been judged a heretic by competent authority.

When have any of these post V2 popes been so judged?
[/b]

This is very untrue.  No formal judgement is necessary, its automatic.

Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559:
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:- that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
(i) the clergy, secular and religious;
(ii) the laity;
(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).
 

true catholic

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 44
  • Gender: Male
Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2018, 03:52:17 PM »
Infallibility emanates from the Chair of St. Peter universally teaching on faith and morals, period.  Saints can be and have been wrong, regarding matters of Faith.
 

awkwardcustomer

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2018, 07:09:49 AM »
Some people seem to think a public heretic is anyone who utters a heresy in public.

In reality (paraphrasing), a public heretic is one who has been judged a heretic by competent authority.

When have any of these post V2 popes been so judged?

I'm not familiar with the previous thread and will certainly follow this one. But your comment here needs to be addressed because it's wrong.

No Earthy authority can judge a Pope. Instead, a Pope who falls into public formal heresy is ipso facto deposed according to Bellarmine and others. Only then can the man who is no longer Pope be denounced by a competant authority.

Your claim is another illustration of the back to front thinking that is so prevelant among Trads.

The Vatican II 'popes' either fell from the Papacy when they began teaching their Vatican II heresies and imposing them on the Faithful, or they were heretics before election and therefore were never Popes to begin with.

Either way, their public formal heresies prove their lack of validity as Popes and so any competant authority will be judging them not as Popes, but as heretics who have already fallen from office.