FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Benevacantism, Etc.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(02-05-2021, 01:40 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]Something amusing occurred to me as I began rereading the article you linked to: you criticize the use of a purportedly fallible magisterial teaching and then use as your response a fallible article that doesn't even participate in the "Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium."  I mean no disrespect to Vox but she cites no sources to defend the idea we can reject this merely authentic ordinary magisterium of the pope based on our assessments of faithfulness to tradition, sinfulness, etc.

Point to any infallible teaching that requires us to assent to obvious error.
(02-05-2021, 02:13 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2021, 01:40 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]Something amusing occurred to me as I began rereading the article you linked to: you criticize the use of a purportedly fallible magisterial teaching and then use as your response a fallible article that doesn't even participate in the "Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium."  I mean no disrespect to Vox but she cites no sources to defend the idea we can reject this merely authentic ordinary magisterium of the pope based on our assessments of faithfulness to tradition, sinfulness, etc.

Point to any infallible teaching that requires us to assent to obvious error.

It wouldn't be an infallible teaching if it taught us to assent to error. And again, it doesn't have to be infallible for the assent of faith to be required.
Yes, as I noted on the last page, there are no exceptions for our submission to infallible teachings, but there are exceptions for our submission to fallible teachings.

Both of you deny that these exceptions exist and have not provided evidence to support your position other than decontextualized sound bites.
(02-05-2021, 02:24 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, as I noted on the last page, there are no exceptions for our submission to infallible teachings, but there are exceptions for our submission to fallible teachings.

Both of you deny that these exceptions exist and have not provided evidence to support your position other than decontextualized sound bites.

At least we can provide quotations from papal magisterial teachings.  You just assert, over and over again, that you can refuse submission to anything you deem fallible.  You linked to an article that doesn't enjoy any level of magisterial authority and does not quote from any magisterial authority to defend the assertion that we can withhold assent to lesser levels of magisterial teaching.  You repeat yourself over and over again and, as your evidence, cite other laity who agree with you.  To prove us wrong, quote one magisterial document that says what you say.  You even impugn the authority of an NO magisterial document that does allow limited dissent by theologians.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, David Nix blogposts, the Summa Theologica, and the Catholic Encyclopedia are all fallible documents. By the logic expressed by Mr. Chairman here, I have no reason to pay attention to any of those.
(02-05-2021, 03:53 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]On obedience:

The Summa: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article5

Catholic Encyclopedia: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11181c.htm

Excellent, thank you, Vox, for providing some weighty material to look at.  Let’s see what the Angelic Doctor says in the article you linked to.  The question is “Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?”  Here are the three objections people raise:

Quote:Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Colossians 3:20): "Children, obey your parents in all things," and farther on (Colossians 3:22): "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh." Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.

Objection 2. Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects, according to Deuteronomy 5:5, "I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you His words." Now there is no going from extreme to extreme, except through that which stands between. Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, wherefore the Apostle says (Galatians 4:14): "You . . . received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus" and (1 Thessalonians 2:13): "When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God." Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.

Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

The sedevacantist position is not, and has never been, that we must obey every single thing a pope says.  If the pope commands me to pick up his lover so they can fornicate that evening, I am permitted, even obligated to disobey him.  If a pope writes a trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth and makes it clear that it isn’t an exercise of his magisterium, I can respectfully disagree with at least sections of it.  That, of course, is what purported Pope Benedict XVI did.  If the pope releases an encyclical on social relations like “Fratelli Tutti,” I’m not free to say, since this isn’t infallible magisterium, I can refuse to assent to it.  Let’s see how St. Thomas answer these objections and it’ll help to illustrate why I am certain this is so.

Quote:Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says "in all things," he refers to matters within the sphere of a father's or master's authority.

Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.

Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

In accordance with his reply to objection 1, since teaching on matters of faith and morals is within the sphere of the pope’s authority, we are duty bound to obey his magisterial teachings.  In accordance with reply to objection 2, since the pope’s magisterial authority, and protection from error and heresy, come from God Himself, I must conclude that a true pope cannot issue, though the Magisterium, any serious errrors or heresies.  In defense of the divine origin of the pope’s teaching authority, we have this Scripture: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16).  Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri says, “Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, ‘in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.’”  The Church shares in God’s own teaching authority and He has granted Her immunity from error in this teaching.  Reply to objection 3 only reaffirms that sinful commands are to be disobeyed.  That, and let’s be clear, in no way establishes that the Church’s magisterium can be the source of a sinful command.  You have to assume that John XXIII to Francis are true popes before you say that, yeah, they’ve obviously issued evil commands through the Magisterium that must be disobeyed.  But that just begs the question in favor of recognize and resist.  It doesn’t establish that it is possible for the Magisterium, either extraordinary or ordinary, to issue a sinful command that must be disobeyed. 

So far, all that has been offered are articles that discuss, in general, things like obedience and not the specifics of magisterial obedience.  I have, at the least, offered magisterial quotes that establish the Magisterium has divine teaching authority that must be docilely received by the faithful because the Magisterium has been granted the special privilege of immunity to error.  Merely pointing out that there are degrees of certitude to the Church’s teachings, and different levels of the Magisterium, does not establish the legitimacy of rejecting lower levels of magisterial teaching, or that Pope Pius XI and others were only referring to the Extraordinary Magisterium when speaking of our duty to docilely receive magisterial teaching.  I ask, again and respectfully, for a single magisterial source that confirms this common R&R claim.  If this R&R claim is true, it should not be difficult to provide a quote from a pope or an Ecumenical Council that affirms the laity can decide which acts of the Ordinary Magisterium can be accepted and which they can reject.  The second linked article elaborates a bit more on obedience in general.  It makes clear that God is the highest authority and we cannot obey men by disobeying God.  Absolutely correct.  The pope’s teaching authority isn’t a human power that comes from a human institution.  His teaching authority is part of the Church’s Magisterium, which is of divine origin and to disobey it is to disobey God, not a man in a white habit. I must conclude that if we accept Francis and his immediate predecessors as true popes our duty is not to recognize and resist but to recognize and reconcile any apparent contradictions (to the best of our abilities).
(02-05-2021, 05:06 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, David Nix blogposts, the Summa Theologica, and the Catholic Encyclopedia are all fallible documents. By the logic expressed by Mr. Chairman here, I have no reason to pay attention to any of those.

He criticizes us for using "fallible" magisterial sources for our position, then proceeds to use fallible sources that aren't even magisterial to begin with.  The irony is amusing.
(02-05-2021, 05:11 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: [ -> ]
Augustinian Wrote:Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, David Nix blogposts, the Summa Theologica, and the Catholic Encyclopedia are all fallible documents. By the logic expressed by Mr. Chairman here, I have no reason to pay attention to any of those.
[youtube]https://youtube.com/watch?v=UBd19R_5ysE[/youtube]

Do you have an argument? Or are you going to just post memes like a child?