Posted on 09/15/2019 10:55:13 AM PDT by daniel1212
The article above expresses well a position advanced by those of the sedevacantist movement, which most strongly affirm the authority of the papal office, not only in teaching dogma, but (as stated in the article above) as pertains to "any given matter pertaining to Faith, morals, or discipline, or by presuming to make his teachings, laws, or disciplinary decisions subject to review, revision, or validation by another." And which authority means including protection from deposition by inferiors who judge him to be a heretic . But which therefore means they must exclude a deviant (based on their judgment) pope from actually being a pope.
Thus, while they labor to substantiate that no one can judge the pope and his judgments, yet they essentially do so by judging papal teaching as being heretical, so that the pope has deposed himself: "that if a Pope were to become a public heretic, he could then be judged by his inferiors because he would no longer be Pope."
In short, the sede argument is that the pope cannot be judged by any inferiors so as to be deposed, nor his judgments, but sedevacantists can judge that his judgments render him to be no pope.
In contrast to sedevacantists, modern magisterial RCs are to hold that the correct understanding of past RC teaching is that of the latest magisterium, despite the contrasts . And such hold that sedevacantists are are schismatics by those who hold that Francis is a valid pope.
A clear contrast btwn the two is most manifest as regards the issues of required membership in the Church, Church and state, religious freedom, ecumenism, and non-Christian religions” “The Traditionalist tends to see a conflict btwn the past (esp. Vatican 1 until Vatican 2) while the modern magisterial RCs see Vatican 2 as "clarifying" the past, with its (however contradictory) understanding being the authoritative voice of the RCC. For as stated by Cardinal Dulles, "Even in the case of definitive teaching, development occurs through a kind of dialectic of proclamation and response.” And "the Profession of Faith states that the Catholic must adhere to authentic but non-definitive teaching with ‘religious submission will and intellect." (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” (Sapientia Press 2007) (pp. 93, 106).
Then you also have divisions among traditional Catholics. https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3755297/posts?page=6#6
And schismatics calling other schismatics schismatic and heretical. https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/beware-heresy/ https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/society-of-st-pius-v/
Meanwhile, others contend that "The Catholic Church has thus existed for decades in a condition of objective and grave disunity over matters of de fide doctrine. Another way to say this is that the Catholic Church has existed in a de facto state of schism." - https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/catholic-church-de-facto-schism
All of the above is a result of Catholics interpreting church leaders and teaching differently, despite the Catholic model for ascertaining Truth and obedience to it being one that seeks to avoid division by exhorting the flock to depend upon the magisterium to tell them what to believe and explain it* , not only in "infallible" teaching but in lower magisterial levels (though what level a teaching belongs to can itself be a subject to variant interpretations), rather than engaging in much interpretation.
For in in Catholic theology people cannot discover the contents of revelation unless they are told by the stewards of such, for in Catholic theology such as expressed in the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia, "the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." meaning her. Thus, "when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium)
Therefore ,
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. 9VEHEMENTER NOS, Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906)
And yet traditional Catholics overall censure evangelicals for engaging in "private judgment" (erroneously invoking 2 Pt. 1:20 as forbidding that) since we subject the validity of church teaching to our judgment of whether such corresponds to ancient (NT) church teaching, yet in principal they do the same. Except that for them ancient church teaching is not supremely based on the only wholly inspired substantive infallible authoritative record of what the NT church believed, which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation (revealing how they understood the OT and gospels), but is selectively whatever past RC teaching they choose represents "authentic" Catholic faith.
However, the principal that is espoused by both the traditional and modern magisterial camps but violated by both, that the validity of a man of God and or what he teaches is subject to testing by a higher standard is itself Scriptural. For the NT church did not begin upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and essentially in primary cults). Including the principal that the magisterial discerners and stewards of Scripture are that infallible magisterium.
For the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
The problem, then is two-fold. 1.: the lack of the degree of Scriptural warrant needed to persuade Godly souls of good conscience, who, like the noble Bereans, subjected even the veracity of the apostle's preaching to the test of conformity with Scripture. And 2.: the lack of such souls, but who instead make some other source their supreme and sure standard.
Not that anything close to comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever realized by the NT church, much less would be today, for not all doctrines have the same degree of warrant. Yet there is a hierarchy of Truths, and the core teachs are those who the clearest Scriptural substantiation.
And thus despite differences, those for who attests to most strongly affirming the authority and integrity of Scripture also attest to far greater unity and commitment in basic beliefs than the fruit of Rome, and thus are the religious enemy #1 for traditional Catholics and the liberal media alike.
Meanwhile, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed
* 'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
ping
IMHO, with “Francis” driving the selection/appointment of new bishops and cardinals (who will select the next Pope) we may never again see a true Pope. I hope I’m being too pessimistic.
Get rid of him by Papel Impeachment. It’s obvious he’s a commie. Blame it on Russian Collusion. Easier to prove on the Pope than Trump!
I can’t speak to his adherence to the theology of the church or any of that. I can only say, that it stuns me that a pope is parroting out liberal talking points about global warming and illegal aliens.
The pope is "infallible", only when teaching on dogma "ex cathedra",
as I understand it.
However, as stated in my comment,
"the Profession of Faith states that the Catholic must adhere to authentic but non-definitive teaching with ‘religious submission will and intellect." (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” (Sapientia Press 2007) (pp. 93, 106).
For CCC 892 states,
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. — Catechism of the Catholic Church
And while
Donum Veritatis also allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties,"
yet, among other requirements, such a theologian is to,
"refrain from giving untimely public expression to them." - http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm
According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. - Father John Trigilio; http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM
Also, While the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, and Joseph Ratzinger (as Archbishop) taught that "over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else,"[2] it cannot be allowed to be determinative of truth, and the Catholic is obliged to form it according to Catholic teaching.[3] cf. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
Morever, the Catholic Encyclopedia (Infallibility) states,
in the Catholic system internal assent is sometimes demanded, under pain of grievous sin, to doctrinal decisions that do not profess to be infallible...
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible.
For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision. — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
And trying to ascertain which teachings require full assent, and the kind thereof can be exasperating. As a poster on a RC forum dealing with this expressed:
rrr1213: Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task.
But the solution (before Francis at least) he was given was just obey everything:
Well, the question pertained to theology. The Catholic faithful don’t need to know any of this stuff to be faithful Catholics, so you are confusing theology with praxis.
Praxis is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That’s what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that’s what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to “obey your leaders and submit to them.” This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/31
For the alternative can result in what as one poster wryly stated,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
This article made my eyes glaze over. So I’m left with a question. I’ve been a practicing Catholic all my life. Does it make me an apostate to say out loud that the current occupant of the office first held by St. Peter is a below-average clown and a top-of-the-line nut?
Because "The One True Holy Spotless Church" they defend is a delusion.
well, for some, the escape clause is that the Holy spirit does not guide the College of Cardinals in selecting the new pope.
At that rate, if the Holy Spirit is not active in guiding the *church* then why would anyone in their right minds adhere to it?
No, not apostasy, but refusing to accept the authority of a duly-elected pope makes you a heretic and guilty of the mortal sin of schism - according to the heretical schismatic RCC.
Catholic Encyclopedia: ..not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
A Catholic canon law lawyer: Canon 751 tells us that schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. And this is where sedevacantism fits into the equation.
As we saw in “What is the ‘Old Catholic Church’?” canon 205 tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance—and it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism. If you don’t believe that this or that papal document was issued by a man who is/was really the Pope, then you naturally don’t intend to abide by whatever it says. A Catholic who thinks that all the Popes since St. John XXIII were invalidly elected is obviously not going to obey anything that these Popes have said. In other words, by refusing to accept the authority of the current Pope or his recent predecessors, a Catholic who’s a sedevacantist willfully puts himself into a state of schism.
Some of the specific positions advocated by various groups of sedevacantists might strike ordinary Catholics as funny, but schism is no laughing matter. Under canon law it is considered a crime against religion and the unity of the Church, and thus a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (c. 1364.1). ..
But since sedevacantists tend to cite (incorrectly) a lot of canon law in support of their positions, it seems reasonable to assume that they are aware of both the Church’s position on the crime of schism, and the penalties that may accompany it.
There is nothing illogical about drawing this conclusion about sedevacantists. Think about it: how can you be in full communion with the Catholic Church, if you refuse to acknowledge the authority of the leaders of the Catholic Church? - http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/04/20/can-you-be-both-a-catholic-and-a-sedevacantist/
The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Reading Vatican II as break with tradition is heresy, prefect says. VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as breaking with the truth both espouse a "heretical interpretation" of the council and its aims, said the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. - https://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2012/reading-vatican-ii-as-break-with-tradition-is-heresy-prefect-says.cfm
A lay theologian: Some who call themselves Catholic, utterly reject Vatican II. They say: “Vatican II taught heresy.” Rejection of the authority of any Ecumenical Council, regardless of the content of its teachings, regardless of whether or not the Council taught infallibly, is the mortal sin of schism, and carries the penalty of automatic excommunication. - https://ronconte.com/2013/06/27/note-to-catholics-who-reject-vatican-ii/
“by Papel Impeachment
All we need is a simple Papal Annulment.
Then we can hide the pictures and be free to marry again.
You will know an anti-Christ by it’s acts.
It is all rather awkward.
2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Those who argue that Bergoglio was not a validly-elected pope are essentially doing just that.
The argument is that the ecumenical, papal affirmed body of cardinals deciding who is the valid pope is not an infallible decision, even though if it was one defining true doctrine it would be. Yet this is another issue in which RCs debate. For instance, in "Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis Is Pope." Robert Siscoe argues,
Fr. Smith went on to explain that because the Church is an indefectible visible society, it can never adhere to a false head. There’s no need to study canon law, or spend years researching ancient Latin texts buried away in archives, to be absolutely certain that a particular pope was (or is) the true pope. All that is required to ascertain his legitimacy is to find out if he was recognized as pope by the Church. If the answer is yes, that alone provides infallible certitude of his legitimacy, as well a corresponding degree of certitude that all the conditions required for him to have become popes were satisfied — such as the condition that the papal office was vacant at the time. And the certitude of the pope’s legitimacy occurs the moment the entire Church learns of his election, provided it is not at once contested.
A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.
If the Church did not have infallible certitude about the legitimacy of the current and past popes, she could never be certain that a particular doctrine had been defined, or the definitive decrees of a council ratified, by a true pope or an antipope. Consequently, the object of the Faith (what Catholics must believe by faith) would be uncertain, which the devil would easily exploit to undermine the faith. The scrupulous would be paralyzed by fear, and the unstable would fall into the most outrageous conclusions. Those who denied various dogmas would only have to cast doubt upon the popes who defined them in order to justify their incredulity. This shows why the Church must have infallible certitude about the legitimacy of those she recognizes as the Roman pontiff, either past or present.
The Council of Constance formally condemned the following proposition: “If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy Church Militant since he is not even a member of it.” – CONDEMNED - https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope (excerpts)
I've lived Catholic all my life. I doubt that will change for the few years I have remaining. I never understood until I was in my mid-forties that the evangelist, John, wrote his contribution for me personally.
Jesus said, "The Gates of Hell will not prevail." The Catholic Church survived Alexander VI who had to be about as bad as it gets. I think our current Pope Bozo wants to take a run at that. He may not have a shot at that since he admits to no offspring.
In the Great Schism we had simony and Catholic hierarchy among the super-rich. These days we have Mother Gaia.
Jesus also said, "I am the way the truth and the life." When it comes to saving souls, I wish Pope Bozo would concentrate on that rather than the hoax of global warming. When you have an utter dolt who can retreat to a refuge behind really high walls preaching a zip borders world, it would be nice if he would put a sock in it.
When you have a nation like the United States that has been more generous than any known place since Sol first burst into a star, it would be nice if this manifest clown would acknowledge that even as a passing thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.