tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146626046867730743.post6162850977218666531..comments2023-08-20T02:18:51.060+02:00Comments on Ignis Dei: On The Sedevacantist Position: A Reply (II)Ignis Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13437565567176172342noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146626046867730743.post-60114811145643531742012-09-16T17:58:21.711+02:002012-09-16T17:58:21.711+02:00+
JMJ
We cannot grant that the Second Vatican Cou...+<br />JMJ<br /><br />We cannot grant that the Second Vatican Council was illegitimate, being overran by the Modernists, while at the same time affirming that the infallibility of the Universal Church was "fully operative" in it; that's a contradiction. Truth is, Pope John XXIII stressed in his opening speech that the the Council would be "predominantly pastoral in character" (Oct. 11, 1962) though affirming, in a typically Modernist manner, "all the teachings of the Church in their entirety and preciseness, as they still shine forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council." And as further proof that Vatican II was not a dogmatic Council that bound consciences, no "anathemas" were ever pronounced. We reiterate what we already pointed out in our post above: had the infallibility of the Universal Church was "fully operative" in Vatican II's statements on ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, and the like, then Catholicism had already been overturned into extinction. <br /><br />On the third point, it was prefigured of Old: "I Am profaned in the midst of them" (Ezech. 22.26).Ignis Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13437565567176172342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146626046867730743.post-77556543357229910482012-08-21T20:03:12.471+02:002012-08-21T20:03:12.471+02:00There are three dogmas operative here - which most...There are three dogmas operative here - which most Catholics do not even consider; or, they only consider one, or two - but not all three.<br /><br />The first is the infallibility of the universal Church: which should have been fully operative at the Second Vatican Council: why then is there moral certitude of error in these documents among so many of the "non-sede" faithful in vast areas of the Church?<br /><br />The second is the indefectibility of the universal Church: the Holy Ghost would not allow an ecumenical Council to legislate the destruction of the Church: but all we see is universal apostasy, in doctrine, liturgy, and discipline.<br /><br />The third is God's Divine Providence over His Church: which is even broader than the first two: can we believe that God would allow the Holy Mass and the Holy Eucharist to be profaned in a universal and daily manner by the overwhelming majority of His ministers?<br /><br />If one answers these questions seriously and honestly, one can only be a sedevacantist. No other solution is possible... <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17120869752367971942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146626046867730743.post-38956792603251369972012-07-20T04:56:16.346+02:002012-07-20T04:56:16.346+02:00+
JMJ
Carl, we already pointed out in the post th...+<br />JMJ<br /><br />Carl, we already pointed out in the post that one with a true Catholic spirit need not resort to the pretentions [of the Neo-Catholics] just to salvage the dogmas of the Faith on the Catholic Church vis-a-vis the situation of the Church: truth is only upheld by truth; and, neither is there a logical necessity, at the minimum, to run to the other extreme of Sedevacantism which, as already proved, is nothing but a flawed solution: a Catholic must verify in himself the three essential elements that make up the term "Catholic".Ignis Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13437565567176172342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146626046867730743.post-4846489664022259692012-07-07T01:28:15.563+02:002012-07-07T01:28:15.563+02:00According to Vatican I, the purpose of the Divine ...According to Vatican I, the purpose of the Divine institution of the Primacy is to preserve the universal Church in a visible unity of Faith and ecclesial communion. Now this end is vastly hindered throughout the NEW universal "Church of Vatican II." Christ the Lord did not found His Holy Church on earth in such a way that the truly Catholic faithful would find themselves in a great Cosmic Conflict - at every turn and for FIFTY YEARS NOW - with the so called "Pope and the Bishops in communion with him throughout the world." In order to avoid denying the Dogmas of Apostolic Succession and the Perpetual Succession of the Papacy as defined by Vatican I - YOU MUST PRETEND THAT THEY ARE STILL CATHOLIC...! This violates the FIRST PRINCIPLE of REASON: THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-CONTRADICTION. I have been in a perplexing state of NEGATIVE DOUBT concerning this question of the legitimacy of the Vatican II "Hierarchy" for over thirty years now...if anyone can prove that acceptance of this anti-Church is compatible with the principle of NON-CONTRADICTION; I would only only welcome such...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17120869752367971942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146626046867730743.post-3804792011649397332011-07-04T06:57:04.509+02:002011-07-04T06:57:04.509+02:00+
JMJT
"All those things are to be believed...+<br />JMJT <br /><br />"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed." (First Vatican Council, 1870) <br /><br />The ordinary magisterium teaches those which have always and everywhere been taught and frequently also the dogmas defined by the solemn or extraordinary magisterium. Those who profess "pertinaciously" (Canon 1325) the direct contradictory of what the teaching authority of the Church proposes either in the solemn (extraordinary) or ordinary magisterium are technically or 'formally' called heretics. Two elements therefore must be established in the case of 'formal' heresy: on the level of the external forum - the matter of the crime, the statements or teachings that contradict the extraordinary (solemn) or ordinary magisterium; and, on the level of the internal forum - the form or what determines the crime, the element of malice, 'obstinacy' or 'pertinacity'. Now the Popes in question, schooled as they were in 'Modernism', have been trying to 'reconcile' contradictories: the principles of the Revolution with the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ - not to reject one or the other (needless to say trying to uphold both), and this in the external forum only; as to the internal forum, the element of malice is rather 'doubtful' ; this is proved in the document "Alta Vendita" wherein the "Synagogue of Satan" (Apoc. 2.9), through its dummy - the Carbonari or the Italian Freemasons, did not entertain the illusion that it could produce a Pope who would officially overturn Catholic dogmas but only to that effect as by way of appearance [diabolical dissimulation as "to deceive (if possible) even the elect," Mt. 24.21]. This somehow explains why in the documents of Vatican II - ratified and implemented by the same Popes - many dogmas infallibly taught by the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium are reiterated yet all the while novelties are proclaimed. Moreover, this makes the passage of Apocalypse 2.13 understandable why, in view of the concrete historical circumstances, the Word of Truth says that the head of that Church which became, as it were, the seat of Satan, "hath not denied" the Faith - this categorically demolishes the ground on which the Sedevacantist position passes that "declaratory judgment" that <"a man has ceased being a pope" - Robert's reply above>. The contradiction then is not at the level of either the solemn (extraordinary) or ordinary magisterium. <br /><br />Canon 188 does not provide for 'formal' heresy - which is already out of the question for the reasons given above - but for "public" 'apostasy'. Now if the Pio-Benedictine Legislation does not actually support canonically the Sedevacantist position (which confuses formal heresy and public apostasy, cf. Eric's reply above), what more if the 1983 Code of the 'New "Catholic" Order' has already 'supplanted' - we are granting this only for the sake of argument - it? <br /><br /><"The Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived" is always fully in force. - Robert, above><br /><br />A moot opinion after all that have been established above to the contrary.Ignis Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13437565567176172342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146626046867730743.post-87034367413968575152011-07-04T06:37:35.038+02:002011-07-04T06:37:35.038+02:00Actually, everyone, the Church gave us (in Magnae ...Actually, everyone, the Church gave us (in Magnae Nobis, 1748): "The Roman Pontiff is above canon law". This entails that a pope who becomes a heretic ceases to be a pope by divine law only, that is, theologically a man cannot be Catholic if he loses the divine virtue of Faith by heresy. Canon 188/4 does not apply to a pope. That was legislated both as a deterrent for the general clergy and for ease of handling heresy in the clergy even if the divine virtue of Faith was not actually lost.<br /><br />The "the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived" is always fully in force. This refers to a "declaratory judgment" not a "condemnatory judgment". The latter never applies to a pope because nobody can judge a pope. However, the Church fully allows that we can determine that a man has ceased being a pope, and then we proceed with the "declaration of fact" which necessarily entails we already know "the man" is not a pope BEFORE the declaratory judgment.Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146626046867730743.post-90330862411389895992011-07-04T06:34:32.216+02:002011-07-04T06:34:32.216+02:00Code of Canon law 188/4 declares that if a cleric ...Code of Canon law 188/4 declares that if a cleric should publicly fall away from the Catholic faith, all his offices would become vacant ipso facto and without need of formal declaration. You stated previously that the quote “Now when [a pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric” was rendered moot opinion by the Pio-Benedictine code. However, canon 188 actual codifies that opinion and therefore the Pio-Benedictine code supports the sede vacante position. Further, the Code of Canon Law of 1917 was replaced by the new Code of Canon Law in 1983. Since the Pio-Benedictine Code is no longer in effect, why do you not reference the current 1983 Code of Canon Law?Eric Hollinsheadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146626046867730743.post-78884546372644333772011-07-04T04:09:12.788+02:002011-07-04T04:09:12.788+02:00As for the Dogma of Infallibility, you are stating...As for the Dogma of Infallibility, you are stating that the Popes of Vatican II would somehow need to defy past "infallible solemn pronouncements" (the solemn magisterium) to be considered in breach of the Dogma. What about the infallible ordinary magisterium Friar? Why do you exclude this when Vatican I openly states that BOTH the ordinary magisterium AND solemn magisterium are infallible and must be believed? <br /><br />"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed." (First Vatican Council, 1870)Paul Sheahannoreply@blogger.com