Replies

What you posted from Pope Boniface VIII is subject to this, which is binding upon all popes, councils, etc: Ecumenical Councils, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful, to Francis, etc, and must be a continuation from Sacred Scripture all the way through church history until now: “But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” Thus when popes, councils, etc, go all the way back to St. Peter. Paul, etc, against Francis and Vat II are overridden. You are ostensibly teaching that Francis and Vat II could override the first Pope, Peter, and they can’t.

Sigh. Try to understand that it is not up to you to decide whether or not the pope or the whole magisterium are pronouncing something in accordance with Revelation itself: the premise of Rome is that it is doing so in such pronouncements as Boniface for teachings of her Sacred Magisterium are protected from error in and even from salvific error in non-infallible teachings which are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful and cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly (http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM; Donum Veritatis). And thus the very test you cites does states that they do, that "when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself," and the binding part is on you, "which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”

The basic premise of Rome is then that

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.

And regarding V2, your position is to be what Ratzing stated to another dissident.that of letter to Archbishop Lefebvre demanding his submission to the post-Conciliar Church:

You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." (http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html)

Otherwise you are a schismatic. See, Can a Pope be Removed from Office? and Can a Pope commit heresy?

You are a schismatic modernist who wants the flavor of the month and like a revisionist who sees history in only one direction.

Seriously, I am a fundamentalist evangelical who actually thinks the TradCaths are correct that Rome has contradicted herself, but that according to the type and broadness of submission to the pope that they themselves affirm (the list I provided you in post 47 was mostly from their sites) then Catholics are not to be ascertaining which church teachings are " in accordance with Revelation" but are to trust their living pope and magisterium in its understanding of them. Otherwise they must reject parts of V2 and Francis and essentially act like evangelicals in making the validity of church teaching subject to their own judgment of whether or not it conforms with past historical church teaching. The main difference is that our source is that the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the NT church believed is Scripture, esp. Acts thru Revelation which best shows how they understood the OT and the gospels. Thus we reject Catholic distinctives while contending for those which are Scriptural.

Francis is just like Luther and you in that he wants to discount previous popes and councils and wants to elevate himself to pope of popes and Vat II to council of councils and it doesn’t work that way.

The NT church actually began in dissent from the historical magisterium and will common people discerning what they would not. Meanwhile if you reject Francis and or V2 even in part (which you should and most here seem to do) then in essence you are presuming to be like a Luther to a certain degree, discounting at least one popes and council based upon the premise that their judgment of what historical church teaching is and means.