Author Topic: Religious Assent and Vatican II  (Read 696 times)

2Vermont

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2018, 05:45:21 PM »
Is that "objective" schism or "material" schism?   ;)


 :lol:
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

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

awkwardcustomer

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2018, 06:24:38 AM »
Material schism it is then. Or not.

Whatever state they're in, they're wrong and profoundly so, which wouldn't matter if their error hadn't affected the entire Traditionalist movement, rendering it ineffective and impotent.

Let's face it. Tradition is bumping along the bottom and has completely failed to stop the Vatican II onslaught. During my early Novus Ordo days it was obvious that Tradition was entirely marginal, and the SSPX utterly irrelevant, to the average NO'er. This was a while ago and now the situation seems even worse.

They disobey the Pope was the typical response of the occasional NO Catholic who had actually heard of the SSPX. And it is the correct response. How can it be refuted?  The R&R position requires Catholics to take a Protestant/Schismatic attitude to the Papacy in order to save Catholic Tradition. How was this ever going to work, especially when the R&R brigade haven't ceased to attack the Sedevacantist position at every turn.

Fresh from that other forum, I'm sure my irritation will pass sooner rather than later. Meanwhile the threads will keep coming, the kind of thread that opens with the latest outrage by 'pope' Francis and then fills up with insult after insult being hurled at the man they insist is the Pope, the Supreme Pontiff, Christ's Vicar on Earth.

No Catholic has the right to view a Pope with as much disdain and outright disobedience as the typical R&R Trad does. Tradition will continue to fail, IMO, for as long as the R&R position is held by the bulk of Trads.
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

TKGS

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2018, 08:03:07 AM »
No Catholic has the right to view a Pope with as much disdain and outright disobedience as the typical R&R Trad does. Tradition will continue to fail, IMO, for as long as the R&R position is held by the bulk of Trads.

It seems to me that the R&R position is essentially heretical, not just schismatic, since it positively denies the Church's teachings concerning the indefectibility of the Church.  The relegation of the infallibility of the pope and the Church to such extremely narrow solemn declarations so rare that in 2,000 years of the Church, most people can only really identify two such acts, is merely the extreme opposite reaction against the view that the pope and the Church can develop doctrine in such a way as to completely change it's understanding.
 

Callixtus

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2018, 10:25:57 AM »
No Catholic has the right to view a Pope with as much disdain and outright disobedience as the typical R&R Trad does. Tradition will continue to fail, IMO, for as long as the R&R position is held by the bulk of Trads.

It seems to me that the R&R position is essentially heretical, not just schismatic, since it positively denies the Church's teachings concerning the indefectibility of the Church.  The relegation of the infallibility of the pope and the Church to such extremely narrow solemn declarations so rare that in 2,000 years of the Church, most people can only really identify two such acts, is merely the extreme opposite reaction against the view that the pope and the Church can develop doctrine in such a way as to completely change it's understanding.

That's not the R&R position.  It's more that the popes since Vatican II have not exercised their teaching authority in really ANY way, and whatever the case may be, a Catholic's first order of business is to follow the faith (whatever that means from time to time), and to run from false doctrine from wherever it comes.  Fr. Cekada's line of argument (which is basically what's being put forward in this thread) basically says that Catholics have to follow LEADERS regardless of what they do or say, and we all know that's ridiculous.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2018, 01:43:23 PM »
No Catholic has the right to view a Pope with as much disdain and outright disobedience as the typical R&R Trad does. Tradition will continue to fail, IMO, for as long as the R&R position is held by the bulk of Trads.

It seems to me that the R&R position is essentially heretical, not just schismatic, since it positively denies the Church's teachings concerning the indefectibility of the Church.  The relegation of the infallibility of the pope and the Church to such extremely narrow solemn declarations so rare that in 2,000 years of the Church, most people can only really identify two such acts, is merely the extreme opposite reaction against the view that the pope and the Church can develop doctrine in such a way as to completely change it's understanding.

That's not the R&R position.  It's more that the popes since Vatican II have not exercised their teaching authority in really ANY way, and whatever the case may be, a Catholic's first order of business is to follow the faith (whatever that means from time to time), and to run from false doctrine from wherever it comes.  Fr. Cekada's line of argument (which is basically what's being put forward in this thread) basically says that Catholics have to follow LEADERS regardless of what they do or say, and we all know that's ridiculous.

An ecumenical council called for by the Pope and held in union with all the bishops in the world is an infallible means that the popes have in exercising their authority and promulgating their magisterium, which is binding upon all Catholics.

Isn't this correct?
 

Mysterium Fidei

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2018, 02:03:01 PM »
Does this mean that the SSPX is in schism?

They insist that the Conciliar 'popes' are true Popes and yet refuse to give Religious Assent to their teachings. How can the R&R Trad claim to be subject to the Roman Pontiff - a necessity for salvation - when they clearly are not in any way subject to the Conciliarists who they insist are Popes.

Their position is ludicrous is it not and entirely uncatholic. How did so many Trads find themselves in this position?

What a superb trick of the devil it is to fool Traditional Catholics into behaving like Protestants, Schismatics and other enemies of the Church towards the Papacy, all the while believing they are upholding Tradition.

When I was in the process of converting to the Catholic Faith from Protestantism, and I first became aware of, and began to look at the SSPX, it did not take me too long to regard their position as completely nonsensical.

While continually acknowledging the Vatican II popes as true popes, they said that these popes could promulgate harmful doctrines, disciplines, and a non-Catholic liturgy upon the Faithful. Furthermore, again, while continuing to insist that the Vatican II popes are true popes, they had set up a worldwide apostolate, with their own bishops, priests, seminaries, parishes, schools, and convents; all in opposition to the men they proclaimed as true popes and the local ordinaries set up by these true popes.

It wasn't too long after this that I found out about the sedevacantist position.
 

awkwardcustomer

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2018, 02:57:21 PM »
I'm a convert too and discovered the Traditional Mass in my first year. I can remember thinking - THIS is Catholicism.

That was over 20 years ago and since them I've heard all the arguments. A Pope can be a heretic. Popes HAVE been heretics.   Popes are only infallible when declaring so from Peter's Chair or from an Ecumenical Council, as if the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium doesn't exist. Ordinary teachings of the Pope are capable of error and can be deemed uncatholic and ignored. Popes in union with the Bishops of the world can impose error on the Faithful to the endangerment of souls. R&Rers misquote Bellarmine. And they don't seem to have heard of the requirement to give Religious Assent to fallible teachings of the Magisterium.

These errors destroy the Papacy.  If Popes can act as the R&R position claims they can, then what's the point of the Papacy?
 

awkwardcustomer

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2018, 03:00:45 PM »
No Catholic has the right to view a Pope with as much disdain and outright disobedience as the typical R&R Trad does. Tradition will continue to fail, IMO, for as long as the R&R position is held by the bulk of Trads.

It seems to me that the R&R position is essentially heretical, not just schismatic, since it positively denies the Church's teachings concerning the indefectibility of the Church.  The relegation of the infallibility of the pope and the Church to such extremely narrow solemn declarations so rare that in 2,000 years of the Church, most people can only really identify two such acts, is merely the extreme opposite reaction against the view that the pope and the Church can develop doctrine in such a way as to completely change it's understanding.

If it isn't heretical to claim that a Pope can be a heretic, and that Popes HAVE been heretics, then perhaps it should be.
 

2Vermont

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2018, 03:49:05 PM »
While continually acknowledging the Vatican II popes as true popes, they said that these popes could promulgate harmful doctrines, disciplines, and a non-Catholic liturgy upon the Faithful. Furthermore, again, while continuing to insist that the Vatican II popes are true popes, they had set up a worldwide apostolate, with their own bishops, priests, seminaries, parishes, schools, and convents; all in opposition to the men they proclaimed as true popes and the local ordinaries set up by these true popes.

Like I said elsewhere, I don't believe these folks truly believe these men are true popes.  They just say they do.  In other words, they pay lip-service.  And supposedly, this is the "smarter play" than the sedevacantist position...or at least that's what I was recently told on an R&R forum.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 04:25:39 PM by 2Vermont »
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

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

2Vermont

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2018, 03:59:00 PM »
No Catholic has the right to view a Pope with as much disdain and outright disobedience as the typical R&R Trad does. Tradition will continue to fail, IMO, for as long as the R&R position is held by the bulk of Trads.

It seems to me that the R&R position is essentially heretical, not just schismatic, since it positively denies the Church's teachings concerning the indefectibility of the Church.  The relegation of the infallibility of the pope and the Church to such extremely narrow solemn declarations so rare that in 2,000 years of the Church, most people can only really identify two such acts, is merely the extreme opposite reaction against the view that the pope and the Church can develop doctrine in such a way as to completely change it's understanding.

That's not the R&R position.  It's more that the popes since Vatican II have not exercised their teaching authority in really ANY way, and whatever the case may be, a Catholic's first order of business is to follow the faith (whatever that means from time to time), and to run from false doctrine from wherever it comes.  Fr. Cekada's line of argument (which is basically what's being put forward in this thread) basically says that Catholics have to follow LEADERS regardless of what they do or say, and we all know that's ridiculous.

An ecumenical council called for by the Pope and held in union with all the bishops in the world is an infallible means that the popes have in exercising their authority and promulgating their magisterium, which is binding upon all Catholics.

Isn't this correct?

I still don't get how any Catholic can truly believe that an ecumenical council isn't the pope exercising his teaching authority in any real way.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

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