Author Topic: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?  (Read 1043 times)

ubipetrus

Quote
A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.\
The way I have been using it, however, would delete the second half of this definition since an anti-pope remains anti-pope even if a canonically elected pontiff does not reign.  Thus, I have been using the term to mean:  A false claimant of the Holy See.
I think the choice of the word "antipope" to describe the recent and current Vatican leadership may have been a bit unfortunate.  Unfortunately, it has acquired frequent usage, which many of us just unconsciously and accidently picked up.  Two problems with that:  (1) "antipope" seems to at least suggest the presence of a real Pope, or at least the immediate means for a real Pope to bring a usual papal vacancy to a naturally and commonly prompt close, (2) an "antipope" can, on many or even most occasions, be nevertheless a real Catholic.  Of all the 41 ancient historical antipopes, only Novatian was clearly a heretic, and Vigilius soft on the Monophysite heresy owing to his dependence upon the heretical Empress who arranged for his claims to the papacy.  But other than that all have been thoroughly orthodox Catholics, as reliable for Faith and Doctrine as real Popes have been, and even included such saints as St. Hippolytus.

One nefarious consequence of this confusion has been that since some of these antipopes have appointed bishops to sees and those bishops simply been accepted as such by the real Church, some have attempted to claim that episcopal appointments made by Vatican heresiarchs might therefore have legal value (appointments by heretics never can; those antipopes whose bishops have been accepted as such by the Church were all fully orthodox Catholics).
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 
The following users thanked this post: Vinny Zee

ubipetrus

But you could agree in this thread now that it is Ubipetrus and I who are saying this.
But I do not say the Church defected.  Individuals, whether alone or in groups, defected from the Church, but the Church itself remains always pristine.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

Vinny Zee

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

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

Can you understand what I have written now?

I didn't think so.

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

Do you have any intentions on dealing with the quote from Cardinal Billot or are you going to keep deflecting?
 

Vinny Zee


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please explain to me again what I did not understand about this comment being a defection?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 04:17:09 PM by Vinny Zee »
 

2Vermont

It's quite fitting that I have a splitting (migraine?) headache today.  :facepalm:

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

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

2Vermont

Quote
A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.\
The way I have been using it, however, would delete the second half of this definition since an anti-pope remains anti-pope even if a canonically elected pontiff does not reign.  Thus, I have been using the term to mean:  A false claimant of the Holy See.
I think the choice of the word "antipope" to describe the recent and current Vatican leadership may have been a bit unfortunate.  Unfortunately, it has acquired frequent usage, which many of us just unconsciously and accidently picked up.  Two problems with that:  (1) "antipope" seems to at least suggest the presence of a real Pope, or at least the immediate means for a real Pope to bring a usual papal vacancy to a naturally and commonly prompt close, (2) an "antipope" can, on many or even most occasions, be nevertheless a real Catholic.  Of all the 41 ancient historical antipopes, only Novatian was clearly a heretic, and Vigilius soft on the Monophysite heresy owing to his dependence upon the heretical Empress who arranged for his claims to the papacy.  But other than that all have been thoroughly orthodox Catholics, as reliable for Faith and Doctrine as real Popes have been, and even included such saints as St. Hippolytus.

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

I used to use anti-pope (and probably fall back into that habit on occasion), but I typically say false pope now.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

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

Vinny Zee

Oh no, here we go again.  The Church never defected.  A significant number (99% or so) of churchmen, cleric religious and lay, left the Church, and having left then defected in their conversion to an alien religion.
It is just possible (theoretically, or at least hypothetically) that a person separated from the Church could maintain the Faith whole and entire (though separated from the Church it is of no benefit unless the separation be a result of events outside the control of the person, e. g. being stranded on a desert island).  But defection, at least to some degree (East Orthodox), and often typically to a considerable degree (Protestants), always seems to be the result.

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

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

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

We already dealt with the church of England issue and how it was different than what happened at Vatican II in replies #49 and #69.
 

Vinny Zee

It's quite fitting that I have a splitting (migraine?) headache today.  :facepalm:

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

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

You hang around for some reason. You could've bowed out pages ago. Don't worry, I am more than willing to talk it out.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 04:45:03 PM by Vinny Zee »
 

2Vermont

It's quite fitting that I have a splitting (migraine?) headache today.  :facepalm:

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

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

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

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

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

Vinny Zee

It's quite fitting that I have a splitting (migraine?) headache today.  :facepalm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May God love you and bless you this lenten and Easter season.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 04:51:35 PM by Vinny Zee »