R&R discussion
#21
Quote:What happened at Vatican II was not necessarily what you said in bold.
I wasn't talking about Vatican II there. Where today can we find a bishop who actually has authority?



Quote:
Quote:The minority of modernist Bishops easily swayed the majority of neutral Bishops, and the even smaller minority of ultra-conservative Bishops was shut off and not listened to. These neutral Bishops did not have the intention of destroying or changing the Church the way the modernists did, but the modernists planned their plot cleverly and made themselves seem like the true traditionalists (this would of course be seen again with the Novus Ordo Missae). Thus all the Bishops that agreed to the heresies of Vatican II were not necessarily heretics themselves, and they did continue to function as Bishops, but the reforms of Vatican II were not valid because:
1. They marked a substantial departure from the Church’s teaching
2. The Church cannot have substantial change, only accidental one as Bishop Sanborn explains

So it’s not like all of the Bishops agreed to the heresies and were heretics in themselves. Many were swayed by the loud minority of modernists who made their case vaguely and well. 

That's an explanation of what happened at Vatican II.  Wouldn’t Bp. Sanborn reject any Papal claimant for accepting Vatican II?  If so, why wouldn’t the same apply for the bishops?

Quote:Also, if I may ask, what position do you hold now? I ask since you said you were a sedeprivationist beforehand for 8 years
Sedeplenist, but I'm not happy about it.
Reply
#22
(04-29-2021, 10:30 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: Very true on them no being just an opinion. I use that term though based on the writings im finding that the pope can not err in teaching faith and morals.
What exactly are you reading? The Pope can err in teaching faith and morals, except for what belongs to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and the Extraordinary Magisterium. Most of what the Pope says and writes belongs to neither of these.
Quote:Thus the issue we run into with Pope Francis. If the Tradition is that the pope can't err in faith and mroals, not just ex cathedra, but also teaching it, then that means the sitting pope can't err in teaching on faith and morals. Pope Francis comes along, and it can be reasoned that he has erred in teaching faith and morals, as in reception of the Eucharist (Faith), capitol punishment (Morals), amazon synod (Faith and morals), etc. Thus my confusion.

If I hold to Tradition, then I have to agree that the pope can't err in faith and morals. Pope Leo and others even write that the pope is above that of councils, thus even they can't be used to judge him.
Not quite. The Pope is not "above" an Ecumenical Council. An Ecumenical Council (with the approbation of the Pope) and the Pope alone are capable of teaching with the very highest level of theological certainty. The one is not greater in authority than the other.
Quote:I then have to hold that God will protect the church from a pope that teaches bad faith and morals. I then have to conclude one of a couple things. Either A), Tradition is wrong, which then makes all other aspects of the faith up for grabs, B) God is protecting the church and its just my opinion and I am wrong, vs the pope, or C) Francis is not the legit pope and thus that protection is not guaranteed.

Thus my problem. I have found many writings now from the Early Church Fathers, all the way to Pope Leo saying that the pope can NOT err in teaching faith and morals. This extends beyond that of ex cathedra. I have found no writings so far from popes, Dr's of the Church, etc, that state that the pope is able to err in teaching faith and morals, and the laity are able to decide on their own when he does and dosent by utilizing the treasure of the faith. Basically, I can't find any pope or authoritative teaching in the church that backs the R&R stance, but have found a bunch of teachings that back the stance that the pope can't err in what I and others in R&R state he is erring in, thus seeming to put myself on the wrong side of Tradition by having the R&R stance.
It is not that "Tradition is wrong", but that your understanding of Tradition is wrong.

It is well known that John XXII taught a serious theological error while he was Pope, a teaching that today we would call a heresy. Yet nobody pretends he was an antipope.

I think what is missing from your analysis is that there are several different degrees of authority when the Pope speaks. There are not just the two cases "ex cathedra or not ex cathedra". Within "not ex cathedra", there is infallible Universal Ordinary Magisterium, there is non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, and there is the Pope as a private theologian or a private individual. Without these distinctions, you end up with a simplistic analysis, and that's how a garage pope is created.
[-] The following 2 users Like Marmot's post:
  • Anon777, MacPasquale
Reply
#23
(04-29-2021, 11:26 AM)Bataar Wrote: The true church still exists. Groups such as Catholic Restoration, CMRI, SSPV, etc are all part of the true church.
Do we not believe in ONE Church?

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm

Quote:The marks of the Church are certain unmistakeable signs, or distinctive characteristics which render the Church easily recognizable to all, and clearly distinguish it from every other religious society, especially from those which claim to be Christian in doctrine and origin.
How in the world can ALL be expected to figure out that the Church of Christ is identical to a bunch of bishops - that don't even agree among themselves - and their followers?
Quote:Some false notions of unity

All admit that unity of some kind is indispensable to the existence of any well-ordered society, civil, political, or religious. Many Christians, however, hold that the unity necessary for the true Church of Christ need be nothing more than a certain spiritual internal bond, or, if external, it need be only in a general way, inasmuch as all acknowledge the same God and reverence the same Christ. Thus most Protestants think that the only union necessary for the Church is that which comes from faith, hope, and love toward Christ; in worshipping the same God, obeying the same Lord, and in believing the same fundamental truths which are necessary for salvation. This they regard as a unity of doctrine, organization, and cult. A like spiritual unity is all the Greek schismatics require. So long as they profess a common faith, are governed by the same general law of God under a hierarchy, and participate in the same sacraments, they look upon the various churches — Constantinople, Russian, Antiochene, etc. — as enjoying the union of the one true Church; there is the common head, Christ, and the one Spirit, and that suffices.

True notion of unity

The Catholic conception of the mark of unity, which must characterize the one Church founded by Christ, is far more exacting. Not only must the true Church be one by an internal and spiritual union, but this union must also be external and visible, consisting in and growing out of a unity of faith, worship, and government. Hence the Church which has Christ for its founder is not to be characterized by any merely accidental or internal spiritual union, but, over and above this, it must unite its members in unity of doctrine, expressed by external, public profession; in unity of worship, manifested chiefly in the reception of the same sacraments; and in unity of government, by which all its members are subject to and obey the same authority, which was instituted by Christ Himself.
Where is the visible unity in the church of the Sedevacantists?
[-] The following 3 users Like Marmot's post:
  • Adventus, Anon777, MacPasquale
Reply
#24
(04-29-2021, 11:54 AM)Marmot Wrote: Where is the visible unity in the church of the Sedevacantists?

It's worse than that. Watch some videos of sedevacantist priests argue over the language of the liturgy. There is no unity.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Adventus's post:
  • Anon777
Reply
#25
(04-29-2021, 11:33 AM)Marmot Wrote:
(04-29-2021, 10:30 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: Very true on them no being just an opinion. I use that term though based on the writings im finding that the pope can not err in teaching faith and morals.
What exactly are you reading? The Pope can err in teaching faith and morals, except for what belongs to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and the Extraordinary Magisterium. Most of what the Pope says and writes belongs to neither of these.
Quote:Thus the issue we run into with Pope Francis. If the Tradition is that the pope can't err in faith and mroals, not just ex cathedra, but also teaching it, then that means the sitting pope can't err in teaching on faith and morals. Pope Francis comes along, and it can be reasoned that he has erred in teaching faith and morals, as in reception of the Eucharist (Faith), capitol punishment (Morals), amazon synod (Faith and morals), etc. Thus my confusion.

If I hold to Tradition, then I have to agree that the pope can't err in faith and morals. Pope Leo and others even write that the pope is above that of councils, thus even they can't be used to judge him.
Not quite. The Pope is not "above" an Ecumenical Council. An Ecumenical Council (with the approbation of the Pope) and the Pope alone are capable of teaching with the very highest level of theological certainty. The one is not greater in authority than the other.
Quote:I then have to hold that God will protect the church from a pope that teaches bad faith and morals. I then have to conclude one of a couple things. Either A), Tradition is wrong, which then makes all other aspects of the faith up for grabs, B) God is protecting the church and its just my opinion and I am wrong, vs the pope, or C) Francis is not the legit pope and thus that protection is not guaranteed.

Thus my problem. I have found many writings now from the Early Church Fathers, all the way to Pope Leo saying that the pope can NOT err in teaching faith and morals. This extends beyond that of ex cathedra. I have found no writings so far from popes, Dr's of the Church, etc, that state that the pope is able to err in teaching faith and morals, and the laity are able to decide on their own when he does and dosent by utilizing the treasure of the faith. Basically, I can't find any pope or authoritative teaching in the church that backs the R&R stance, but have found a bunch of teachings that back the stance that the pope can't err in what I and others in R&R state he is erring in, thus seeming to put myself on the wrong side of Tradition by having the R&R stance.
It is not that "Tradition is wrong", but that your understanding of Tradition is wrong.

It is well known that John XXII taught a serious theological error while he was Pope, a teaching that today we would call a heresy. Yet nobody pretends he was an antipope.

I think what is missing from your analysis is that there are several different degrees of authority when the Pope speaks. There are not just the two cases "ex cathedra or not ex cathedra". Within "not ex cathedra", there is infallible Universal Ordinary Magisterium, there is non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, and there is the Pope as a private theologian or a private individual. Without these distinctions, you end up with a simplistic analysis, and that's how a garage pope is created.


Thank you, that does clear some things up for me. My biggest error was in thinking that the teaching of the pope was equal to teaching of the church, where since the pope is the visible head, the leader of the church, what he says is the teaching of the church in a sense. Christ is the ultimate head, but the pope is the visible head.

Thus, with that idea, quotes like this:
“Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). St Cyprian of Carthage

and:

"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.’…

- Pope Pius XI, "Divini Illius Magistri" para. 18

Come across where the pope can't error in faith and morals. That does help alot in understanding things better, I appreciate it


If you dont mind, since you mentioned it, I had always thought that a pope was above a council. A pope can nulify a council, not vice versa, and a council can not be used against a pope as no man can judge the pope. No bishop or groups of bishops can judge a pope. Councils are made up of groups of bishops. Thus a council can't judge a pope. A pope can though.

Thus, my thinking has always been the pope is above that of a council. They do share in their ability to be infalliable, but the pope gets his infalliability straight from God under strict sanctions, where the council gets it due to their connection to the pope. A council then can only be infalliable if the pope gives it the authority to do so, thus making the pope the giver of that authority. Thus, the pope is greater then a council since he holds the keys and can bind/loose, where a council only can if he the pope approves of it, he can nulify the acts of a council on his own, where as a council can't unless the current pope approves of it and thus its through his authority not theirs that the act is done.
Reply
#26
(04-29-2021, 03:36 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: If you dont mind, since you mentioned it, I had always thought that a pope was above a council. A pope can nulify a council, not vice versa, and a council can not be used against a pope as no man can judge the pope. No bishop or groups of bishops can judge a pope. Councils are made up of groups of bishops. Thus a council can't judge a pope. A pope can though.

Thus, my thinking has always been the pope is above that of a council. They do share in their ability to be infalliable, but the pope gets his infalliability straight from God under strict sanctions, where the council gets it due to their connection to the pope. A council then can only be infalliable if the pope gives it the authority to do so, thus making the pope the giver of that authority. Thus, the pope is greater then a council since he holds the keys and can bind/loose, where a council only can if he the pope approves of it, he can nulify the acts of a council on his own, where as a council can't unless the current pope approves of it and thus its through his authority not theirs that the act is done.
I think this is a good source if you want to understand this:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

A pope cannot nullify an ecumenical council that has been approved by a pope (himself or a previous one). An ecumenical council cannot depose a true pope, but it can determine that a certain papal claimant is not the true pope (as happened to antipope John XXIII).
Reply
#27
There is a condemned heresy called 'conciliarism' that puts a Council above the Pope. Here is the definition from Fr Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary:

CONCILIARISM: The theory that a general council of the Church is higher in authority than the Pope. It began in the fourteenth century, when respect for the papacy was undermined by confusion in Church and State. William of Ockham (1280-1349), in his battle with Pope John XXII (c. 1249-1334), questioned the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua (1324) and John Jandun (1324) declared it was only a primacy of honor. During the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many otherwise reputable theologians, such as Peter of Ailly (1394) and John Gerson (1409) saw in the doctrine of the council's superiority over the Pope the only means of once more reuniting a divided Church. The viewpoint appeared that the Church in general was free from error, but the Church of Rome could err, and in fact had erred and fallen into heresy. The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation. In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had "full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world." He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but "all the fullness of this supreme power." Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope's authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063).
In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a "magisterium of theologians" or "consensus of the people of God" against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#28
A bunch of interesting comments and opinions opposing Sedevacantism have been made, all of which are entirely interesting and I must read over and consider some more. I comment this because of my apparent absence, I promise I haven’t ignored your responses everyone! 

See this is where I’m glad I still have 2 more years before I possibly enter the Seminary / gives me more time to consider my position, change it, or strengthen it. That is why I thank you all for these discussions.

:)
[-] The following 2 users Like Memories_in_Rain's post:
  • Adventus, NoliTardare
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)