It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:15 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
 Benedict XVI? (Peaceful acceptance by the whole Church?) 
Author Message

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 35
New post Benedict XVI? (Peaceful acceptance by the whole Church?)
First of all I just wanted to say hello to everyone as this is my initial post, and secondly to thank you Mr. Lane for starting this wonderful forum which will hopefully set the standard for other boards.
Right now I'm in the position in which I'm neither committed to sedevacantism nor sede-occupantism since at this point I have issues espousing either position, and I'm really hoping that the members of this community could help me clear up some of my lingering doubts.
Cardinal Billot and other theologians speak about the fact that universal adherence to a certain man as pope results in an infallible fact that the the man is indeed, pope. Firstly, does such a teaching contradict Cum ex Apostolatus or are we dealing with apples and oranges? Secondly and more importantly, how can one deny that the world has acknowledged the papacy in Benedict XVI and his four predecessors?
Also, what are Benedict's clear heresies when avoiding all rash judgement? Does what he wrote in a book years ago constitute ample grounds for demonstrating pertinacity? Any and all help and insight is greatly appreciated!


Mon May 29, 2006 5:29 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Hello and welcome Matt! You have asked several interesting questions and I should like to tackle just one of them, when you say “Cardinal Billot and other theologians speak about the fact that universal adherence to a certain man as pope results in an infallible fact that the the man is indeed, pope. Firstly, does such a teaching contradict Cum ex Apostolatus or are we dealing with apples and oranges? Secondly and more importantly, how can one deny that the world has acknowledged the papacy in Benedict XVI and his four predecessors?”

It happens that I had a correspondence a short time ago with an enquirer on the same topic and I am pasting in below the exchange to speak for itself. I am “JD” and my enquirer is “MM”.

JD Yes, if the universal Church with moral unanimity peacefully accept a man as legitimate pope, he must indeed be a legitimate pope. The reason for this is that the pope is the proximate rule of faith. The faithful accept the pope's doctrinal teaching and if the whole Church accepted a false rule of faith, Christ would be exposing His Church to error, which cannot happen.

Thus far I think we are agreed. But notice that, so far are we from peaceful unanimity that in fact practically no-one accepted/accepts Paul VI, John-Paul II or Benedict XVI as his rule of faith! Millions of "fans" went to JP2 rallies where they shrieked ecstatically at his utterances, but as for actually accepting that contraception is necessarily a deadly sin, for instance, hardly anyone did! If JP2 was your rule of faith you had to be against contraception, for religious liberty, against women priests (as theologically impossible) but for the doctrine that Christ is irrevocably united with all men. How many people considered him as pope in that sense? Not the Modernists - they thought him conservative. Not the traditionalists. Anyone?

On the other hand the whole principle on which Billot, St Alphonsus and John of St Thomas base this doctrine is in flat contradiction with the SSPX position. The theologians say that the unanimous recognition of a man as pope proves that he is pope because otherwise the Church would have accepted a false living rule of faith and would be led into error against faith and morals, which is impossible. But the SSPX position actually denies the premise! They cheerfully hold that the pope is not necessarily the proximate rule of faith and that the Church can be and has been led into error by the Vicars of Christ. They are very badly placed to invoke this doctrine against sedevacantists!

[To this I received the following reply with my answers interspersed]

MM In your e-mail you mentioned that JP2's followers who "accepted" him as pope rejected the notion that contraception is a deadly sin. But if that's the case, wouldn't those "Catholics" be outside the Church, therefore making their acceptance of him or not a moot point?

JD Denial of the Church's teaching condemning contraception is not usually considered enough to exclude one from membership of the Church. But supposing it were, you are effectively excluding over 90% of those who constitute the quasi-unanimous consensus recognising the V2 popes. Add those who deny other doctrines - Hell, impossibility of women priests, etc and you reach 95%. Where has your consensus gone? And what kind of a Church is it 95% of whose apparently recognised followers are not even members of her? Certainly not one whose remaining <5% can constitute the peaceful unanimous consensus referred to by John of St Thomas, Billot, St Alphonsus etc. It must after all be extremely uncomfortable giving the "sign of peace" to non-Catholics and elbowing them at the communion-rail (I mean in the cookie-queue) while knowing that they are recognised as Catholics by the Vicar of Christ. Hesitant recognition of a man as a valid though disastrous leader, not to be trusted, during a very grave and manifest crisis of which he is denying the existence...that is not what the theologians mean by peaceful and unanimous recognition.

MM Could it not be said then that those "neo-Catholics" who accept the entire moral teaching of the Church and accept V2 in good faith be the ones who matter as far as universally recognizing a man as pope?

JD To my mind that involves so much adjustment of the Billot doctrine that the result is no more than a private opinion. The neo-Church recognises all the neo-Catholics as her members irrespective of their adhesion to Catholic doctrine. If the consensus is composed by the tiny percentage for whom the teaching of the Catholic Church is the rule of faith and the V2 popes are their proximate rule of faith, it has become invisible and unverifiable.

MM However, does it even matter if in actuality they accept JP2's teachings as long as they recognize in him the papacy (this is only as far as Billot's position is concerned; I'm under the impression that he teaches that what's important is that the man is recognized as pope by Church Universal, and that whether or not they assent to his teachings is irrelevant to this one very particular issue)?

JD No. This is wrong. I tried to make this point clear last time but I probably didn't do a very good job of expressing it. May I ask you to read very attentively the following rather complicated sentence: the reason and the proof of the theologians' teaching that peaceful and unanimous recognition of a man as pope demonstrates him to be truly pope is that the pope is 1. the living rule of faith of the Church's members and 2. infallible, and if the Church adhered unanimously to a non-pope, i.e. a non-infallible rule of faith, she would be liable to be led into error in faith which is impossible. Got that?
Right. Well as you can see, calling a man pope while not recognising him as one's rule of faith simply doesn't have this effect. The teaching of cardinal Billot, John of St Thomas and others on this subject is not a direct teaching of the Church. It is a theological inference made for excellent reasons by theologians and which it would be foolish and rash to disagree with. But this reasoning is based entirely on the fact that Catholics necessarily adhere to the doctrinal teaching of the man they consider to be pope. If the Catholic faith did not in fact require this adherence, the argument would not work and the theologians would never have made the deduction that unanimous recognition is proof of papal legitimacy. It would be a non sequitur.
It would also be a non sequitur if it were possible for the whole Church to err in the faith as a consequence of adhering to the teaching of a true pope. Unanimous adherence to a fallible usurper would not, in that case, be incompatible in itself or in any of its consequences with Catholic doctrine. Claro?
And it would also be a non sequitur for a third reason if the adherence Catholics owe and give to papal teaching were something rare and limited to extraordinary acts like the proclamation of a dogma such as the Assumption. For in that case most popes would not in fact lead the Church to believe anything and if they taught grave and habitual error by their ordinary Magisterium this would not necessarily mean that the Church would follow them.
If you have understood the foregoing you will see that the adherence to the V2 popes of men who did not acknowledge in them their proximate rule of faith has no relevance at all to the principle of recognising papal legitimacy by unanimous peaceful adherence. You will also observe that Billot and the other theologians who use this argument would simply not recognise as the Catholic Church an institution whose members did not have this habitual disposition to recognise papal teaching as their rule of belief.
You will also see that it is the position of non-sedevacantist traditionalists that conflicts with the Billot doctrine, for they consider it possible and even necessary in our days to adhere to a man as pope while not adhering to his doctrinal teaching as their proximate rule of faith - the very point of dogmatic certainty which Billot and the others take as the logical point of departure of their reasoning. For the SSPX to use the Billot argument would involve self-contradiction. They deny the premise (which belongs directly to Catholic doctrine) and cannot therefore reproach sedevacantists with not accepting the conclusion (which doesn't belong directly to Catholic doctrine but which we do accept anyhow).

Ave Maria!

John DALY


Mon May 29, 2006 8:33 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
FORTESCUE wrote:
You will also see that it is the position of non-sedevacantist traditionalists that conflicts with the Billot doctrine, for they consider it possible and even necessary in our days to adhere to a man as pope while not adhering to his doctrinal teaching as their proximate rule of faith - the very point of dogmatic certainty which Billot and the others take as the logical point of departure of their reasoning.


Excellent work, thank you John.

St. Robert Bellarmine says essentially the same thing in two sentences.

Quote:
Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?


For those who accept the SSPX position, that dillemma is a non-dilemma. They think "avoiding one's own head" is something they have worked out how to do.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Last edited by Admin on Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon May 29, 2006 10:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 35
New post 
Wow, thank you for the very informative and in-depth reply Mr. Daly. So I suppose that the "universal adherence" in a certain sense to Benedict XVI from a sedevacantist point of view is somewhat of begging the question since to adhere to a non-Catholic proves nothing.

What heresies in your (or anyone else's) opinion does Benedict pertinaciously espouse?


Wed May 31, 2006 3:43 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Dear Matt,

I am not only saying that adhering to non-Catholics doesn't prove anything. I am also saying that hardly anyone "adheres to" the Vatican 2 "popes" anyway. Because "adhering" doesn't just mean using the word "pope". It means accepting all that they teach. Treating them as real Catholics treat real popes. This isn't happening.

On pertinacious adherence to heresy, we can say that Benedict is pertinacious whenever it is clear that he knows his ideas are contrary to Catholic dogma. Theologians teach that the act of heresy, including pertinacity, can be sufficiently manifested by words, actions or even by omissions. Is it not clear from Benedict's words, actions and very evident omissions that he does not believe that the Christ's Mystical Body is identical and co-terminous with the Roman Catholic Church? Is it not evident also that he is out to undermine the very foundations of the entire Catholic faith with his Kantian philosophy?

Take his equation of natural "luv" with supernatural charity in his first encyclical. Take his declaration yesterday at Auschwitz that Christ descended into the "Hell of human suffering". Take his use of the Novus Ordo Good Friday prayer asking God for the Jews to "advance" in fidelity to His covenant. Is it not clear that he hardly turns round without trampling the faith underfoot?

Look at his silence before the well-known fact that most of the members of his church don't believe in Hell, don't believe in transubstantiation, don't believe in or practise Catholic morals within marriage or regarding the sixth commandment... Does he believe that they are on the road to Hell and that it his duty to rescue them?

And let us not forget that his words and acts from before his election not only remain on the record but are in many cases now maintained in force by his "papal" authority. For instance the declaration that in some cases a "Mass" with no consecration can be valid...

John Daly


Wed May 31, 2006 4:57 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:44 pm
Posts: 1
New post 
John Daly wrote:
Is it not evident also that he is out to undermine the very foundations of the entire Catholic faith with his Kantian philosophy?



I see a lot more of Hegel's dialectics in Benedict's method of undermining the foundation of the Catholic faith than anything else.


Wed May 31, 2006 9:05 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re:
John Daly wrote:
Yes, if the universal Church with moral unanimity peacefully accept a man as legitimate pope, he must indeed be a legitimate pope. The reason for this is that the pope is the proximate rule of faith. The faithful accept the pope's doctrinal teaching and if the whole Church accepted a false rule of faith, Christ would be exposing His Church to error, which cannot happen.

Thus far I think we are agreed. But notice that, so far are we from peaceful unanimity that in fact practically no-one accepted/accepts Paul VI, John-Paul II or Benedict XVI as his rule of faith! Millions of "fans" went to JP2 rallies where they shrieked ecstatically at his utterances, but as for actually accepting that contraception is necessarily a deadly sin, for instance, hardly anyone did! If JP2 was your rule of faith you had to be against contraception, for religious liberty, against women priests (as theologically impossible) but for the doctrine that Christ is irrevocably united with all men. How many people considered him as pope in that sense? Not the Modernists - they thought him conservative. Not the traditionalists. Anyone?

On the other hand the whole principle on which Billot, St Alphonsus and John of St Thomas base this doctrine is in flat contradiction with the SSPX position. The theologians say that the unanimous recognition of a man as pope proves that he is pope because otherwise the Church would have accepted a false living rule of faith and would be led into error against faith and morals, which is impossible. But the SSPX position actually denies the premise! They cheerfully hold that the pope is not necessarily the proximate rule of faith and that the Church can be and has been led into error by the Vicars of Christ. They are very badly placed to invoke this doctrine against sedevacantists!

... Hesitant recognition of a man as a valid though disastrous leader, not to be trusted, during a very grave and manifest crisis of which he is denying the existence...that is not what the theologians mean by peaceful and unanimous recognition.

... May I ask you to read very attentively the following rather complicated sentence: the reason and the proof of the theologians' teaching that peaceful and unanimous recognition of a man as pope demonstrates him to be truly pope is that the pope is 1. the living rule of faith of the Church's members and 2. infallible, and if the Church adhered unanimously to a non-pope, i.e. a non-infallible rule of faith, she would be liable to be led into error in faith which is impossible. Got that?

Right. Well as you can see, calling a man pope while not recognising him as one's rule of faith simply doesn't have this effect. The teaching of cardinal Billot, John of St Thomas and others on this subject is not a direct teaching of the Church. It is a theological inference made for excellent reasons by theologians and which it would be foolish and rash to disagree with. But this reasoning is based entirely on the fact that Catholics necessarily adhere to the doctrinal teaching of the man they consider to be pope. If the Catholic faith did not in fact require this adherence, the argument would not work and the theologians would never have made the deduction that unanimous recognition is proof of papal legitimacy. It would be a non sequitur.

It would also be a non sequitur if it were possible for the whole Church to err in the faith as a consequence of adhering to the teaching of a true pope. Unanimous adherence to a fallible usurper would not, in that case, be incompatible in itself or in any of its consequences with Catholic doctrine. Claro?

And it would also be a non sequitur for a third reason if the adherence Catholics owe and give to papal teaching were something rare and limited to extraordinary acts like the proclamation of a dogma such as the Assumption. For in that case most popes would not in fact lead the Church to believe anything and if they taught grave and habitual error by their ordinary Magisterium this would not necessarily mean that the Church would follow them.

If you have understood the foregoing you will see that the adherence to the V2 popes of men who did not acknowledge in them their proximate rule of faith has no relevance at all to the principle of recognising papal legitimacy by unanimous peaceful adherence. You will also observe that Billot and the other theologians who use this argument would simply not recognise as the Catholic Church an institution whose members did not have this habitual disposition to recognise papal teaching as their rule of belief.

You will also see that it is the position of non-sedevacantist traditionalists that conflicts with the Billot doctrine, for they consider it possible and even necessary in our days to adhere to a man as pope while not adhering to his doctrinal teaching as their proximate rule of faith - the very point of dogmatic certainty which Billot and the others take as the logical point of departure of their reasoning. For the SSPX to use the Billot argument would involve self-contradiction. They deny the premise (which belongs directly to Catholic doctrine) and cannot therefore reproach sedevacantists with not accepting the conclusion (which doesn't belong directly to Catholic doctrine but which we do accept anyhow).


I have been pondering this entire question in another connection, which is the approach that Fr. Gleize and others take to what they call "the new magisterium."

Their position is not that they deny that the preaching of the pope and the bishops is the proximate rule of faith, but rather that the Conciliar hierarchy has introduced a new mode of proposing doctrine. The Church, as we know, proposes doctrine as obligatory upon all. The obligation to assent is intrinsic to the proposition of doctrine by the Church. The Church teaches: we must believe. But the Modernists do not believe in objective authority and its consequence, the obligation to assent to what is objectively proposed. They made this clear at and after Vatican II in countless ways. At Vatican II itself Paul VI actually instructed nervous bishops that they were not defining anything infallibly, so that they need not be so concerned with the precise language of the texts to which they objected. So the thesis of Fr. Gleize and his school (which I think is the that of the Archbishop) is that the New Church "magisterium" is of a radically different nature than that of the true magisterium of the Church.

One could characterise this as taking Paul VI and his bishops at face value. "You don't want to oblige us? OK, we're not obliged to accept your heresies."

Of course, a hierarchy which doesn't teach in the proper sense is not the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This admits of the obvious exceptions, the bishops such as de Castro Mayer who continued to teach authoritatively as before, so it isn't an argument which rules out the existence of the hierarchy in toto. But it is an argument which rules out the notion that the entire body, morally considered, is the hierarchy of the Church, and the obvious explanation of why this is, or how it is so, is that the Holy See was and is vacant.

I'm also interested in how this set of factual observations as presented by JS Daly affects the proof from infallibility that the Holy See is vacant. That proof goes like this:

Major: The Church is infallible when she proposes doctrine universally (i.e. in the ordinary way or in the extraordinary manner).
Minor: But the New Church hierarchy proposes errors universally.
Conclusion: Therefore the New Church hierarchy is not the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Fr. Gleize and Co. are denying the minor (they explicitly and emphatically accept the major).

The new magisterium is indeed a problem from the point of view of proving anything from infallibility. A cursory consultation with the theology manuals illustrates this. In proving that any given doctrine has been proposed infallibly the doctrine is first clearly stated (i.e. it is identified specifically) and it is shown how that specific doctrine is contained in the teaching organs of the bishops and/or the popes. But when we turn to the new magisterium we are faced with the challenge of identifying any specific doctrine which is being proposed for the assent of the faithful, universally. Vatican II itself is replete with ambiguity, and its authority is a matter of open dispute, a dispute which has its origin in the words and actions of Paul VI himself. To the question, What did Paul VI and his bishops morally universally require the faithful to believe? there can be any number of answers. The liberals say one thing, the conservatives another, and traditionalists have yet a third response. Is it true to say that these differing responses are merely subjective reactions, not due to the objective factual data?

This debate is an open one and has been for the entire duration of the crisis. In the last few years it has been particularly clear - Joseph Komonchak edited a book published in 2007 entitled, "Vatican II: Did Anything Happen?" which addresses this question. The title itself illustrates how fundamental the question is. Consider this article for example (many others could be cited): http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/ ... vatican-ii The following is an excerpt which encapsulates the problem nicely:

Quote:
What made Vatican II especially different from all councils that preceded it, writes O’Malley, is the language used, a language so distinctive that it requires “a new hermeneutic ... that takes serious account of the discontinuity, thus putting the council’s continuity in perspective.” For lack of a sound-bite name, one might just call O’Malley’s version the third hermeneutic.

Further, he says, the “characteristic style of discourse” of prior councils comprised “two basic elements” -- the canon, or law, formulated to impose a punishment, and the vocabulary appropriate to that genre. It uses “power words,” or “words of threat and intimidation, words of surveillance and punishment, words of a superior speaking to inferiors or … to an enemy.” The language is used to define and limit, to make clear who is included and who excluded.

In contrast, Vatican II used “empowerment words,” words of reciprocity and persuasion as different from commands and anathemas. “There is scarcely a page in the council documents on which ‘dialogue’ or its equivalent does not occur. ‘Dialogue’ manifests a radical shift from the prophetic I-say-unto-you style that earlier prevailed and indicates something other than unilateral decision-making.” Such language, writes O’Malley, did not make it into the documents “without a fierce battle.” Things, indeed, were different about Vatican II at a fundamental level. Whether that difference is expressed in a hermeneutic of discontinuity or of renewal is a battle that still rages, along with, in some circles, the original fight over the language itself.


This debate displays itself in the fruitless efforts of post-Vatican II theologians to define any doctrine and prove that it has been proposed authoritatively for the assent of the faithful. But if this much cannot be achieved, then how could one take the next step and conclude that the Church has spoken infallibly? And if this cannot be shown, what remains of the proof that the post-Vatican II magisterium has defected in relation to infallibility by teaching error?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 06, 2014 12:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Re:
John Lane wrote:
But the Modernists do not believe in objective authority and its consequence, the obligation to assent to what is objectively proposed. They made this clear at and after Vatican II in countless ways. At Vatican II itself Paul VI actually instructed nervous bishops that they were not defining anything infallibly, so that they need not be so concerned with the precise language of the texts to which they objected. [Emphasis added.]


Yet, the Modernists ruthlessly punish anyone who defies the new teachings that they have not "objectively proposed".

It seems that the Modernists do not believe in objective authority in the matter of commanding assent to doctrine (i.e., faith) since that would interfere with ecumenical activities; but, the Modernists intensely believe in objective authority in the matter of commanding assent to activities that put their vague doctrines into action (i.e., morals).

The New Church may not really propose new doctrines that counter the faith (a proposition that seems to me far from certain and actually truly seems preposterous), but the New Church does indeed propose a new morality which is directly counter to the morality taught by the Church prior to Vatican 2.

I simply cannot understand how, in view of their words and actions, anyone can suggest that the "new magisterium" isn't really teaching anything.

This is the problem I have with the SSPX and all sedeplenists who actually know what the Church taught in the past and can see what is taught today. In other words, with people who are paying attention.


Sun Jul 06, 2014 10:36 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Re:
TKGS wrote:
Yet, the Modernists ruthlessly punish anyone who defies the new teachings that they have not "objectively proposed".


Yes and no. As a matter of fact, they've hardly excommunicated anybody since Vatican II, on either side. Even Lefebvre and Co. were only declared to have automatically excommunicated themselves. No direct censure was inflicted there. Of course in 1976 he was suspended, so that was a censure, but even then everybody was surprised because it was so unique. Ask yourself when the Modernists ever challenged any traditionalist as a heretic for maintaining, for example, that there is no salvation outside the Church? Or any other dogma. Never. That's not their approach.

Just stand back and consider the two approaches - the Modernist vs the Catholic.

The Catholic Church teaches with authority, which means she defines a doctrine carefully then imposes it as a law. All are bound by this law, and infractions are punished. There is therefore an objective rule and judicial action in relation to it. This is the rule of law. Everybody is safe, except those who openly choose to break the law. Even evil rulers are bound; tyranny cannot flourish precisely because the least layman can appeal at any time to the objective rule and refuse to bow before evil.

The Modernist system refuses to recognise any unchanging doctrinal rule, or to be clear about its own notions. It does not impose any doctrine as law, and virtually never enters into a doctrinal trial or inflict doctrinal censures. Because there is no objective rule of faith there is no real concept "heresy" in their system. There remains only "authority" but in the tyrannical sense of personal rule not according to any fixed framework. The "faith" is whatever the pope says it is on a plane, chatting with journalists, today. But it isn't obligatory, it's more an offering of a point of view. Obedience is doing whatever you like as long as you don't make trouble, especially not the trouble that consists in continuing the true Church - that is, practicing the true faith and preaching it publicly, and forming and ordaining priests to offer the true sacrifice etc. Why? Because then you're setting up in opposition, competition, with the Modernists, and just as in business that is a threat and must be crushed.

So yes, they do persecute those who have the faith, but not as the Church persecutes those who breach the rule of faith. It's pure tyranny as opposed to the rule of law.

TKGS wrote:
It seems that the Modernists do not believe in objective authority in the matter of commanding assent to doctrine (i.e., faith) since that would interfere with ecumenical activities; but, the Modernists intensely believe in objective authority in the matter of commanding assent to activities that put their vague doctrines into action (i.e., morals).


What you are describing is personal power, not objective authority. Think, oriental despot or modern dictator, not a properly constituted government which respects the rule of law.

TKGS wrote:
I simply cannot understand how, in view of their words and actions, anyone can suggest that the "new magisterium" isn't really teaching anything.


It's not that they are not inculcating doctrines. It's a question of how. The problem, recall, is to apply the doctrines of the Church regarding her teaching activity to this new activity which is fundamentally different from her activity. It's like taking the characteristics of the game of golf and applying them to the activity referred to as mini-golf. You would struggle. You'd be saying, look, he stood at the line and moved his club and hit the ball. That's teeing off. But it isn't, in any recognisable sense. It's putting, another would say, and all would agree that it is much more like putting. But golf includes teeing off. It's essential. And so on. So there's no real problem recognising that the new game differs from the old one (despite the "conservatives" muddying the waters). They have a new religion and we recognise that; we see that it's essentially different from the old one. All trads have that much sufficiently clear (i.e. in the practical sense - we all avoid the New Mass and go to the old one, we all study the pre-V2 catechism and avoid the post-V2 texts). But precisely because it's a new religion we struggle when we want to prove that activities or other things with the same title (e.g. magisterium or decrees of general councils) are governed by the rules and attributes of the earlier versions. In this thread I am only pointing out that this particular type of proof is difficult. These arguments don't affect the fundamental question, which is clearer every day, of the difference between the New Church and the Catholic Church. Understood properly, these arguments reinforce that difference. But it remains the case, in my view, that arguing that Vatican II would have been infallible if only Paul VI were pope is hugely problematical. That particular proof is not obviously available, and I think most of us at one time or other have been convinced that it was.

Why is that type of proof difficult? Essentially because there isn't only one difference between Vatican II and, say, Vatican I. If they were the same kind of thing, except for the doctrinal error, we could easily prove that Paul VI was not pope, on that basis. But they manifestly were not the same thing. One described itself as "pastoral" and nobody can be sure what that even means. Its texts are ambiguous, and that is entirely new too. Paul VI explcitly denied that it intended to bind all in the way that infallible decrees are necessarily binding upon all. Etc.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:51 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.