Vinny wrote:No, this situation is unique.
Vinny wrote:It meets the definition of an interregnum. This is from Meriam-Webster:
With that said, I agree with you that this is far more than just an interregnum between Popes, but that does not mean that the term “interregnum” doesn’t apply. The term “interregnum” describes one component of this crisis, but it doesn’t mean that there are not other components.
Vinny wrote:Some may not, but that doesn’t change the principles involved. If someone refuses submission to a Pope, it is a schismatic act. The path of schismatics should not and must not dictate our beliefs or actions.
Vinny wrote:The end of the long interregnum itself will solve many problems, the first of which is that we will once again have a living authority to rule over the Church, to govern, to settle disputes, to confirm us in our Faith, and to strengthen the unity of the Church, as the Pope is the center of unity.
No one except a Pope has the authority necessary to make a declaration against Paul VI and Vatican II, and all of the other “Popes,” teachings, and laws since Vatican II. Until we have such a declaration, Catholics will continue to disagree on these and a myriad of other issues.
Vinny wrote:I did not say that or imply that, you seem to have drawn an inference from words I did not use. I have the strong belief that unless God ends the world, that we will once again have a Pope.
Vinny wrote:For me, I don’t really matter in the big picture. I am just a Catholic who loves the Faith among so many others. For the Church, a Pope will change everything we have known since the 60’s for the reasons I described above.
The change will be so amazing, that I think Catholics will be almost be in shock, the world we have lived in for 50 years will be completely and radically different. We will have our leader again, who sits in an office created by God Himself who will teach us, bind us in matters of Faith and morals, govern us, unify us, and protect us from the wolf.
Vinny wrote:It seems to me that you misunderstood what I wrote. I was not talking about open resistors, I was talking about passive resistors who did not go where Paul VI was leading them. Catholics believe and trust the Pope and go where he leads them. It is clear that Catholics who kept the Faith under Paul VI, kept the Faith in spite of him, and continued to believe the Faith as it existed prior to the Council.
This act of not believing the teaching of Paul VI on a matter of Faith taught by him to the universal Church is a proof that these Catholics were not adhering to him as Catholics must to a Pope. Catholics submit to the Pope as their teacher, they believe what he teaches, and believe it as they are taught, not try to find ways to refuse to believe the Pope.
Vinny wrote:Did you read the definition of indefectibilty I posted and linked in the other thread? Linked again
HERE It explains the term, and shows us what an essential defect is. One way that the Church can defect is if the hierarchy which is made up of the successors of the Apostles no longer exists. Another way is if the Church teaches us error in Faith or morals.
I will quote the pertinent section here, Emphasis added:
Vinny wrote:Vinny wrote:Agreed, but the length of an interregnum has not been defined. If you want to argue that the length of an interregnum must not exceed a month, or a year or a few years, then provide your sources.
Vinny wrote:So you say, but as I said above, Paul VI doesn’t come alone, he is a package deal. The baggage that comes with him are his authoritative acts that directly clash with Catholic teaching. Your biggest concern that I have seen from you is your concerm about the indefectibility of the Church, yet you don’t seem to care about the conflict between Paul VI’s teachings and the teaching of the Church which created a real concern about how this makes sense in regards to the indefectibility of the Church.
If he was, then if you think the teaching the Church on indefectibilty cannot exist with the sedevacantist response, you will be hard pressed to defend Vatican II and Paul VIs later teachings on religious liberty, ecclesiology. Ecumenism, intercommion, etc., as part of the 2,000 year teaching of the Church. To believe Paul VI’s claim puts you in an impossible situation in trying to defend the teaching you have so much passion about, the indefectibilty of the Church.
Vinny wrote:Is it an assumption? An assumption is defined as “a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.”
The trouble for your statement is that the case against Paul VI has mountains of proof, and further, as I stated above, if he was the Pope, then there would have been a defection, as he, using his power as “pope,” bound the Church to believe doctrinal error against the Faith.
Let me put this to you with the hope that an example will help you see what I am saying. Do you believe this teaching of Vatican II, which directly contradicts the teaching on the same doctrine by Pope after Pope after Pope prior to Vatican II?:
If you do not believe this, then that very fact implies that you are not adhering to the Teacher Paul VI who bound you as “St Peter’s Successor,” the “Pope” to believe this teaching. If you reject this teaching, as you must to keep your Catholic Faith without error, then that act is an implied act of doubting the legitimacy of the Pope who bound you to believe it.
To the other matter, regarding the fact that the entire hierarchy has defected, yes, those who assert this are assuming them all out of the Church. As I said before, those who assert this have not provided individual evidence against each of these men, they merely gratuitously make the assertion that all them became heretics or joined the new sect. So, yes, this meets the definition of an assumption.
Vinny wrote:I would ask you to re-read what I wrote. Cardinal Billot specifically taught that the infallible proof a Popes legitimacy was when the Church adhered to the Pope, which is not what happened in the case of Paul VI. He was called Pope, but he was clearly not adhered to as Pope, as my question to you above will hopefully help you grasp.
Vinny wrote:I realize this, and I am sorry for you that you were accused in this manner on the other forum. You have argued a hypothetical proposition, “if version X (what others have taught you) of sedevacantism is true then it conflicts with the indefectibility of the Church.” I believe your proposition is flawed, as you have embraced only stripe of sedevacntism that is wrong, and you have globally applied the meaning to all sedevacantists, but it certainly does not make you a denier of indefectibilty and by that a heretic.
Vinny wrote:But the Vatican II sect has not continued the Catholic Church as always, so on that score your theory has a problem. You must account for how these Vatican II “Popes”have taught new doctrine that conflicts with the clear teaching of the pre-Vatican II Popes.
If the Church teaches doctrinal error, then that Church is not indefectible, meaning it is not the true Church. Vatican II and the “papal” teaching of the Vatican II Popes have taught doctrinal error to the universal Church, so things are not continuing along as they once did, and if you really care about your assertion, you must come to grips with this fact, or just ignore it like so many others comfortably do, and just pretend that all is the same in regards to what has been taught by the what is called the Catholic Church since the time of Paul VI verse the Popes that lived in the previous times, Pius XII, Pius XI, St. Pius X, Leo XIII, Gregory XVI, etc.
Vinny wrote:On the contrary, whether you have heard me say it or not, I strongly disagree with many of these “bishops and priests of sedevacantism” on many points, whether it be their views on the “una cum,” or the idea that the entire Catholic hierarchy can end, even for a time, and exist only in vacant offices, or their implied belief that they possess some sort of status or authority in the Church, etc.