Author Topic: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?  (Read 1366 times)

ubipetrus

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.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

ubipetrus

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"
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

ubipetrus

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.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 05:04:10 PM by ubipetrus »
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

ubipetrus

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.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

Vinny Zee

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. 
 
The following users thanked this post: ubipetrus

ubipetrus

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.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 
The following users thanked this post: Vinny Zee

Vinny Zee

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.
 

2Vermont

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.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

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

2Vermont

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?
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 
The following users thanked this post: Joe Cupertino

Matto

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?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 09:41:58 AM by Matto »
 
The following users thanked this post: Callixtus