|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 15, 2018 20:49:31 GMT -5
Vinny wrote: The teaching of the Church on papal infallibility always existed, Vatican I merely defined this truth that always existed. Sedevacantism is a response to the crisis, nothing more. It’s not a movement, it is merely Catholics who grasp the principles involved in this crisis, and consistently apply the theology to the facts of the case. If Paul VI taught heresy to the universal Church, either that is an act that a Pope can do, or it is not. If Popes can teach heresy to the universal Church, then all teaching of all Popes can then be doubted. If this is true, then it is an attack on the papacy, as the papacy is the guarantor of doctrinal and moral orthodoxy. This view must be rejected by Catholics. Some argue that Vatican II did not teach infallibly, but for the sake of argument, even if that were the case, the teaching at a minimum would have been part of the ordinary maagisterium of the Church, which must be infallibly safe teaching, even if not infallibly true. I began a new thread discussing indefctibility, Paul VI and Vatican II HERE. Much of what I said there responds to your ideas posted here. Let me know if you don’t agree, and specifically where you disagree if you do, so we can narrow this down to the exact point of disagreement.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 10:43:27 GMT -5
Voxx come on, how can you decipher tone on the internet? Clotilde started their reply with, "first of all." That is not a tone? It most certainly comes off as, "listen here," but I was not at all offended. The "objections" were put to me? How do I have a problem? I only modified the objections for readability here. However, the last objection was from one of the sedes verbatim, this was their comment/objection: "If true popes promulgated Vatican II, that would be a defected Church. The fact that they were not true popes keeps the indefectibility of the Church intact." I know this particular sede holds Vatican II is heresy (all of it.) So the question is either a true pope promulgated heresy. To avoid saying that, this particular sede holds to the fact the church has no head. To respond to this sede, I quoted from "The Creed Explained" by Rev. Arthur Devine. I hope you will read this reply in its entirety. If what I said in that reply is still not clear I'll be happy to explain then. By the way, the link you recommended yesterday, I think the OP was close to 9-11 pages long if I would've put it to Microsoft Word. You didn't seem to have any concerns with how long that OP was. Yes, in fact, I can discern tones from what People write... that is why Im admin and your not. So yeah...mind your tone... Now I think you are still in defence mode from the Pharisee forum where you were banned. (BTW I posted a public protest to your banning as an overreaction and silly) So just chill the #### out. As per INPEFESS and I discussion on the paradox...Obviously you did not read where I actually did tell him "TLDR"...sooo Ironically YOU didn't read the thread posts there first either. NOW...I will once again ask you to define what you mean when you write DEFECTION...I want your opinion...not some anonymous sedes opinion of it. You. Define it. It will greatly reduce your need to write so much if you would just restrict yourself to answering that one question first. Otherwise we'll all be talking in circles. Actually, when you say, "Chill the #### out" and it comes from a Kowalski, I actually feel much better. As a 100% Sicilian, I grew up in a town that was about 90+% Polish. My best friend growing up was a Kowalski and having any Kowalski use expletives completely normalizes the situation for me. Thank you for publicly protesting my banning, but I'm banned over there so I can't see the website any longer to know that. So, as I showed from my OP (hopefully) is that I believe the church is indefectible. I am not a sedevacantist. Defection - 2300 Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and hierarchy attended Vatican II at any one time and 99% of them never came home. Defection - The Pope became a heretic and fell. There is no hierarchy to elect a new pope. Defection - The current hierarchy keeps electing a continuous succession of heretical popes since Pius XII, due to the fact there is no real leadership with valid orders any longer. I don't make these statements. I have gathered these (and numerous others) from talking with and listening to traditionalists. Above are just some of the statements, if true, constitute a defection. In conclusion I will say, many traditionalists will use all of the following terms when saying the same things; schism, heresy, bifurcation, parallel society, departure, going outside/went outside, falling, destroying, just to name a few.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 16, 2018 10:55:07 GMT -5
That is not defection. That is betrayal...was not Judas Chosen by Christ? As long as one Bishop and one lay catholic exists the Church exists. If you think a mass betrayal by the hierarchy isnt possible you must be ignoring world history and church history. Even the Apostles fled Christ on Good Friday except for the few. Mary... John...Magdelene etc. So basically all that you wrote was based on a misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 16, 2018 10:57:42 GMT -5
You have entirely forgetten the Eastern rite Hierarchy. Typical of Roman Catholics of every Stripe.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 16, 2018 11:06:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 16, 2018 11:15:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 16, 2018 13:08:31 GMT -5
Vinny, if you want to discuss this further, I will await your reposne to my other posts, but, I think your assertions below, which you base on what others have told you are the source of why you are thinking the way you do. You have made assumptions built upon misinformation, and due to that you think it’s one way or the other, defection of the Church or the Vatican II sects and “
Vinny wrote:
Defection - 2300 Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and hierarchy attended Vatican II at any one time and 99% of them never came home. Not true. The signing of the doc6ments did not automatically mean an agreement with the heretical interpretation of the documents.
Vinny wrote:
Maybe, but it’s also equally possible that Paul VI was never pope to begin with, which is where I lean. Whether Paul VI was not Pope in 63 ot fell from office when he approved Lumen Gentium in 64, or the other Vatican II documents in 65 doesn’t really change much. The Church will have to answer this question for us, but in the interim, what we do know is that a Pope could not have approved those documents. To argue otherwise creates the real problem with indefectibility.
Vinny wrote:
This is another assumption. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church did not as a group fall away. For those Sedevacantists that have asserted as much, I have repeatedly challenged them to make a case against each individual bishop, something they have never done. They are comfortable relying on their assumptions.
Vinny wrote:
The valid orders in the Roman rite are doubtful since 1968. As Voxx has just reminded you, the eastern rite episcopal and sacerdotal orders were not changed by Paul VI and remain unquestionably valid.
Also, and more important than just the orders, the apostolic succession certainly continued in the east among all bishops who kept the Faith and did not publicly fall away into heresy by embracing the new sect. In the Roman rite, the apostolic succession also continued through all pre-June 68 appointees.
The legitimate hierarchy along with the remaining Catholic clerics of Rome have the power of election if all of the Cardinals have died or have fallen away. The Church is not now, nor has it been since this crisis began left without a mechanism to elect a Pope.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 13:38:31 GMT -5
Vinny wrote: The teaching of the Church on papal infallibility always existed, Vatican I merely defined this truth that always existed. Sedevacantism is a response to the crisis, nothing more. It’s not a movement, it is merely Catholics who grasp the principles involved in this crisis, and consistently apply the theology to the facts of the case. If Paul VI taught heresy to the universal Church, either that is an act that a Pope can do, or it is not. If Popes can teach heresy to the universal Church, then all teaching of all Popes can then be doubted. If this is true, then it is an attack on the papacy, as the papacy is the guarantor of doctrinal and moral orthodoxy. This view must be rejected by Catholics. Some argue that Vatican II did not teach infallibly, but for the sake of argument, even if that were the case, the teaching at a minimum would have been part of the ordinary maagisterium of the Church, which must be infallibly safe teaching, even if not infallibly true. I began a new thread discussing indefctibility, Paul VI and Vatican II HERE. Much of what I said there responds to your ideas posted here. Let me know if you don’t agree, and specifically where you disagree if you do, so we can narrow this down to the exact point of disagreement. I read the new thread. So continue the discussion over there or you just want the issues you raised addressed/discussed over there? I think on some of the issues I raised, I could respond right away. Others will require me to go back and consult some older resources I've read, so it may take a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 13:42:12 GMT -5
Ha. Nice. Yeah, AM, she was vicious to me right out the gate when I signed up over there. I'm not surprised she chimed in after I was banned and also wouldn't be surprised if sh liked the moderator's banning of me too. I honestly had nothing personal against anyone on that site!
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 13:46:48 GMT -5
You have entirely forgetten the Eastern rite Hierarchy. Typical of Roman Catholics of every Stripe. No I haven't. I attend a Byzantine Rite Ukrainian Catholic Church. I think it would require a completely separate thread on the discussion on that.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 14:00:10 GMT -5
That is not defection. That is betrayal...was not Judas Chosen by Christ? As long as one Bishop and one lay catholic exists the Church exists. If you think a mass betrayal by the hierarchy isnt possible you must be ignoring world history and church history. Even the Apostles fled Christ on Good Friday except for the few. Mary... John...Magdelene etc. So basically all that you wrote was based on a misunderstanding. I have never said the Church did not exist. Not here, not anywhere and emphatically state this again. I did not say a mass betrayal of the hierarchy isn't possible. I am only trying to figure out what to call what traditionalists say happened at Vatican II and since? Defection - a Conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty, (as to a person, cause or doctrine.) Indefectibility - Not subject to failure or decay, free of faults. For now, I am just going to add betrayal to my growing list of terms that are permissible to use instead of defection. As of now, I realize I am safe by using the following terms: Betrayal, schism, heresy, bifurcation, parallel society, departure, going outside/went outside, falling, destroying, division (or formal division).
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 16, 2018 14:08:29 GMT -5
Vinny wrote: The teaching of the Church on papal infallibility always existed, Vatican I merely defined this truth that always existed. Sedevacantism is a response to the crisis, nothing more. It’s not a movement, it is merely Catholics who grasp the principles involved in this crisis, and consistently apply the theology to the facts of the case. If Paul VI taught heresy to the universal Church, either that is an act that a Pope can do, or it is not. If Popes can teach heresy to the universal Church, then all teaching of all Popes can then be doubted. If this is true, then it is an attack on the papacy, as the papacy is the guarantor of doctrinal and moral orthodoxy. This view must be rejected by Catholics. Some argue that Vatican II did not teach infallibly, but for the sake of argument, even if that were the case, the teaching at a minimum would have been part of the ordinary maagisterium of the Church, which must be infallibly safe teaching, even if not infallibly true. I began a new thread discussing indefctibility, Paul VI and Vatican II HERE. Much of what I said there responds to your ideas posted here. Let me know if you don’t agree, and specifically where you disagree if you do, so we can narrow this down to the exact point of disagreement. I read the new thread. So continue the discussion over there or you just want the issues you raised addressed/discussed over there? I think on some of the issues I raised, I could respond right away. Others will require me to go back and consult some older resources I've read, so it may take a bit. We can discusss the other issues I raised over there, and the others here, it really doesn’t matter to me. The ideas on defection are big, and will take over this thread, which is why I started the new thread dedicated to that. Take your time, please consult your resources, that will make the discussion more fruitful.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 16, 2018 14:11:41 GMT -5
You have entirely forgetten the Eastern rite Hierarchy. Typical of Roman Catholics of every Stripe. No I haven't. I attend a Byzantine Rite Ukrainian Catholic Church. I think it would require a completely separate thread on the discussion on that. We actually did discuss this already HERE
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 16, 2018 14:52:35 GMT -5
That is not defection. That is betrayal...was not Judas Chosen by Christ? As long as one Bishop and one lay catholic exists the Church exists. If you think a mass betrayal by the hierarchy isnt possible you must be ignoring world history and church history. Even the Apostles fled Christ on Good Friday except for the few. Mary... John...Magdelene etc. So basically all that you wrote was based on a misunderstanding. I have never said the Church did not exist. Not here, not anywhere and emphatically state this again. I did not say a mass betrayal of the hierarchy isn't possible. I am only trying to figure out what to call what traditionalists say happened at Vatican II and since? Defection - a Conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty, (as to a person, cause or doctrine.) Indefectibility - Not subject to failure or decay, free of faults. For now, I am just going to add betrayal to my growing list of terms that are permissible to use instead of defection. As of now, I realize I am safe by using the following terms: Betrayal, schism, heresy, bifurcation, parallel society, departure, going outside/went outside, falling, destroying, division (or formal division). You keep implying Im in some kind of clever denial. I am not...the only DEFECTION THAT MATTERS IS THE DEFECTION THAT SHOWS THE CHURCH TO HAVE DEFECTED AS A WHOLE. Since you rightly assert the whole Church didnt defect then wheres your Problem? A majority of Bishops have or may have despoiled themselves but thats not the Church Defecting against Christs promises.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 23:55:30 GMT -5
I have never said the Church did not exist. Not here, not anywhere and emphatically state this again. I did not say a mass betrayal of the hierarchy isn't possible. I am only trying to figure out what to call what traditionalists say happened at Vatican II and since? Defection - a Conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty, (as to a person, cause or doctrine.) Indefectibility - Not subject to failure or decay, free of faults. For now, I am just going to add betrayal to my growing list of terms that are permissible to use instead of defection. As of now, I realize I am safe by using the following terms: Betrayal, schism, heresy, bifurcation, parallel society, departure, going outside/went outside, falling, destroying, division (or formal division). You keep implying Im in some kind of clever denial. I am not...the only DEFECTION THAT MATTERS IS THE DEFECTION THAT SHOWS THE CHURCH TO HAVE DEFECTED AS A WHOLE. Since you rightly assert the whole Church didnt defect then wheres your Problem? A majority of Bishops have or may have despoiled themselves but thats not the Church Defecting against Christs promises. I always hope to be as clear as possible, so if I've given the impression I think you're in a clever denial, I apologize as I do not know where that perception comes from. Because I think clarity is important, if I thought you were in denial I would say directly, "Voxx, you're in a clever denial." Absent that, I have not said this and I do not think this. Indefectibility, because it means the church cannot defect, does not assert that in order for the opposite to be true (a defection) the whole Church has to defect. However, advocating for a defection at any point is a defection, especially if the evidence supports this action. Introducing the word, "whole" into the equation blurs the lines and can confuse matters. I did not assert the whole church didn't defect, I stated, "I have never said the Church did not exist." However, as Catholic theology has taught me, the church is indefectible. What does it mean to despoil one's self? This is the same issue that is created by, "betrayal." Words like, despoil, betrayal, schism, heresy, bifurcation, departure, falling, destroying, dividing are all words foreign to the papacy and the magisterium prior to Vatican II.
|
|