Author Topic: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?  (Read 1333 times)

Vinny Zee

Due to the fact you do not know what an anti-pope actually is...

Then why don't define the term for me.  I'll start by noting the definition from Catholic Encyclopedia:

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. 

So it is as I stated, you use the term incorrectly. Whether you use the term "anti-pope" or "false claimant (of the Holy See)" it is the exact same terminology. To have an anti-pope, i.e. a "false claimant" you have to have someone either currently holding that position or there was a valid election/appointment etc. to that position and the false claimant takes it instead. I only pointed to the Roncalli/Siri situation, because that is perhaps the only point where you could apply "anti-pope." This is due to the fact you've stated in the past Pius XII was the last valid pope. After his death, and the see was vacant, there was an election. If and ONLY IF, Siri was elected, but Roncalli went to the chair as John XXIII then I would argue one could then apply the term "anti-pope" or "false claimant." After that, however, you can no longer use the term, because with Paul VI, JPI, JPII and Benedict XVI, there is no argument someone else was validly elected but these men ascended to the papacy. So after John XXIII, anti-pope is no longer a term you can use. (Granted some have tried to say Benedict XVI never resigned and Francis was installed; this is doubtful, but a separate topic altogether.)

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

Do you have any intentions on dealing with the quote from Cardinal Billot in response to your understanding of "anti-pope" and canonical elections?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 07:56:23 AM by Vinny Zee »
 

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.
 

2Vermont


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.
"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: TKGS

TKGS

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.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 12:15:31 PM by TKGS »
 

annamack


Sir, I have read every word you have ever written. We are in agreement, yes, it is those that went outside that defected.


Ooh!  You've kind of grasped (although apparently without realising that you'd grasped it  :confused: ) - you said it yourself: "it is those that went outside that defected".  So... if it was those who went outside who defected... (I'm typing slowly here)...  it wasn't the Church that defected!!!

Geddit??!

Hurrah!!!

Well done!!!

 :party:
 

annamack


Sir, I have read every word you have ever written. We are in agreement, yes, it is those that went outside that defected.


Ooh!  You've kind of grasped (although apparently without realising that you'd grasped it  :confused: ) - you said it yourself: "it is those that went outside that defected".  So... if it was those who went outside who defected... (I'm typing slowly here)...?  it wasn't the Church that defected!!!

Geddit??!

Hurrah!!!

Well done!!!

 :party:
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 12:38:42 PM by annamack »
 

ubipetrus

I have never made any disparaging comments to any traditionalists either in this thread. The only point was that the mere fact you have traditionalists on one said saying to the Vatican II "apparatus", "No." And the Novus Ordo in existence, proved there was a defection at some point.
Yes, or to be more precise, the Novus Ordo in existence itself IS itself the defection.
You will find no where in this thread I said traditionalists are not who you say they are. My point was that the existence of traditionalists and Novus Ordo post-Vatican II proves a defection at Vatican II. What you affirmed in this statement is what I had been saying all along. The defection you just described is the defection I had been describing.
Good to get that straight.
We are in agreement, yes, it is those that went outside that defected.
Good to get that straight.  Maybe we just put it down to you were just having a bad day and not typing in what you meant to say.  Bygones, etc.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

ubipetrus

The next discussion that needs to be had is about the defection of the indefectible church.
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.

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

ubipetrus

We've come to an agreement on the fact Vatican II was a defection. So perhaps you are right and we'll have to move on?
"Move on," yes I like that.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

ubipetrus

"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/)
Questions were raised even in the days of John XXIII.  Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner first raised doubts about the election of Roncalli who was already known to her and the Vatican curial officials she was close to as being a rather shady character, and who furthermore visited a Masonic Lodge on the eve of his election to the Papacy.  But she did not (at least at the time) doubt the lawful or canonical validity of the election, just the prudence thereof.  However, a fellow in Oklahoma named Tom Costello also published some statements about Roncalli as John XXIII, expressing doubts (or even denials) of his papal claims, and even managed to garner some attention for himself.  I believe he was acquainted with Hutton Gibson, and that he had published a "yellow sheet" paper of some sort which was the first claim of Sede Vacante, proper, and the only during the reign of John XXIII.  And that is literally all that I know about him.  But without any access to these papers I cannot know the basis for his complaints and claims so as to evaluate them.
Real (and vastly substantiated) criticisms arose during the most particularly odious career of Montini as Paul VI, particularly on the basis of many known and specific heresies on his part, so even if these observations were not yet widely known that is sufficient to affirm that "the Universal Church" most certainly DID NOT "adhere" to Paul VI.  Some realized that such a heretic cannot be Pope.  Others, feeling no competence to "judge a Pope" merely recused themselves from his teachings and mandates, perhaps doubting that they really came from him at all but rather from his "handlers" and the like, not claiming competence to pronounce on anything save the wickedness of the new directives themselves.  Thus has been the case ever since; the Church does not adhere to heretical Vatican leaders.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34