Author Topic: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?  (Read 1046 times)

ubipetrus

If you are going to make the argument to me that this is an extended "interregnum" ...
It has been satisfactorily shown that we indeed have an extended interregnum.  But it is also shown that our present circumstance is no "mere" extended interregnum, as there are a great many other things also going on, the creation of a new and parallel society, the gradual corruption (defection) of that society away from the Catholic Faith, the leader of this alien new society being mistaken for a Pope (one really has to wonder how in the world that could have happened, that so many could be so easily fooled, but obviously indeed they were for that lays before our very eyes for everyone to see).
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

ubipetrus

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.
You need me to prove to you that Vatican II happened as a historical event?  This has descended into madness.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

ubipetrus

Defection is the key word here. I know you see it. Doesn't schism in and of itself mean defection?
No, it doesn't.  Not necessarily in every case.  During that First Great Western Schism there was no defection on any side.  You would get the exact same Catholic Faith in all of its details no matter which claimant you went with as Pope.  Had any one of them deviated the other two would have pounced on him and denounced his heresies (and loss of any right to being even a claimant to the papacy) right away.  Furthermore, you would not have canonized saints on all sides (as indeed the Church does so recognize), for had any side vanished into heresy any person loyal to that side (once heretical) would also be convicted as a heretic.

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).  The Eastern schismatics deviated from the Faith, in their denial of the office of Peter, and in their denial that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son (as well as the Father, which neither the Church nor the Eastern schismatics denied).  That was a defection.  They also excommunicated the Pope without cause, something that as inferiors (in rank) they had no right or power to do, and furthermore even as equals to the Pope (per their own mistaken perception of things) which again would be something they have no right  or power to do.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 02:36:17 PM by ubipetrus »
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

ubipetrus

"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.
The "whole Church" remained pristine.  Neither the Church as a whole, nor any part of it CONTINUING AS PART OF IT fell into error.  Those who schismatically separated themselves from it however rapidly also then fell into error and heresy.  Sorry if my phraseology was less than clear.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

annamack

"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.
The "whole Church" remained pristine.  Neither the Church as a whole, nor any part of it CONTINUING AS PART OF IT fell into error.  Those who schismatically separated themselves from it however rapidly also then fell into error and heresy.  Sorry if my phraseology was less than clear.



Your "phraseology" wasn't unclear at all - VZ simply doesn't understand what "defection" means.  Perhaps you ought to go back to basics.
 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS

ubipetrus

THIS IS JUST ABSOLUTELY TWISTED!
Because there are traditionalists proves there was a defection...
?!?!?  You might as well have stated that "The faithfulness of Jesus Christ proves that there is no God," or "The Creation of the World proves that there is no God."

(Need I state the obvious?)  The presence of traditionalists proves the existence of the Church, for we traditionalists ARE, ALONE, the Church, whole and entire.  If (per impossible, and I do maintain dogmatically that it is impossible) we traditionalists were to have all disappeared, then the Church will have disappeared.  When the last member of a family (with no heirs) dies, then the family has died.

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.  They left the Church and then vanished into heresy.
the traditionalists realized this and are trying to save the church from herself (for lack of a better way to put it.)
Just so much more "?!?!?"  The Church saving Herself from Herself?  Unworthy of refutation.
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.
Of course they do!  The loss of anyone is cause for lamenting, for only those who remain hold the Church together (or more precisely, comprise the Church which God holds together through His Will).  Luckily for them in the past, they also had a living Pope with them to pronounce on the situation and take (and lead the Church in) the requisite action.  They also had the luxury of vast numbers, at least around the world overall if not within some localized region where a schism into heresy occurred, alive on their side.  Today, the relatively few remaining authorities in the Church, and without a Pope to lead, guide, and coordinate them, have to struggle as best as they can to take the requisite action.  And the only "numbers" we have on our side are those of history, namely the fact that despite all the heresies and schisms down through the ages, and even the massive departure of the Novus Ordo Vatican apparatus and their followers, there have been at least five times as many traditional Catholics as there have been all other manners of "Christian" put together.
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). 
Have you even read a word I have said?  Such a statement as this gives me sound basis to believe you have not.  "no defection of those that went outside" ?!?!?  It is precisely those that went outside who then defected.  "it came from the clergy of the Church (all of them...)" ?!?!?  Most heresies have indeed come from the clergy, but never all of them, for that would equal the defection of the Church.  Those from whom heresies came indeed did defect in the generation of their heresies, but those who did not originate heresies nor go along with them remained faithful and retained their status as being of the Church, and able to speak (authoritatively) for the Church.  At Vatican II there were some about 250 faithful prelates (Coetus Internationalis Patrum) who resisted and opposed the whole direction of Vatican II, but were mocked, silenced, and outvoted by the plotters and the suckers who perpetrated or went along with its alien new directions.  Archbishops Thục and Lefebvre and bishops de Castro-Meyer and Mendez were among them (though Mendez was out sick for most of that council and returned only near the end when he found they had become a roomful of Protestants).
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 02:40:58 PM by ubipetrus »
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

ubipetrus

Keep it simple.
What has happened is actually rather simple.  It is fairly easy to see or picture.  It is somewhat more complicated and tedious to explain it in mere ordinary words, and especially in a manner comprehensible to persons coming from a variety of perspectives and assumptions.  And what it takes to PROVE what has happened in a full and properly rigorous and theological manner is far more substantial, takes a whole book  or two, hence my Sede Vacante! volumes.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

2Vermont

I have come to the conclusion that I am indeed confused. I have no idea what VZ's point is in this thread.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

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

ubipetrus

I have come to the conclusion that I am indeed confused. I have no idea what VZ's point is in this thread.
I think the original question was an interesting one, but it has been answered to the uttermost degree, so I for one see little purpose for the continuance of this thread.  But a host of other topics have come up and some of these latest posts of Vinn are very disturbing in their bizarreness, e.g.:  "He:  How many children do you have?  She:  Tomato soup."
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

TKGS

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.

Of course they do!

I would note that there are numerous statements of pre-Conciliar popes calling upon heretics and schismatics to return to the bosom of the Church.  Pope Pius IX invited the Orthodox and Protestants to come to the Vatican Council and be reconciled to the Church. 

I can't identify which specific encyclicals, exhortations, etc., they were, but I've read plenty of them.  Perhaps someone who knows these documents better than I can identify them.