It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:24 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
 Are Sedeplentists in the Church, Mr. Lane? 
Author Message

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:24 am
Posts: 24
Location: Victoria, Australia
New post Are Sedeplentists in the Church, Mr. Lane?
This question is directed primarily to Mr. Lane and Mr. Daly because they are probably the two most knowledgable people on this sit but I would love to hear everyone elses opinion on it:

A few days ago I was having a group discussion with some friends about whether SSPX type traditionalists who have the faith and yet are in union with a false pope are in the Catholic Church. I answered that yes, they are. Because they err in good faith and Holy Church has not passed a judgment on whether Benedict XVI is in the Church.

However a friend gave me the example of the orthodox faithful. "They are in union with a heretic and schismatic just as the sedeplentists are". He proposed that the SSPX faithful are in the same position as the orthodox. According to him Church law presumes guilt (which is true) and for this reason all the orthodox were treated as formal schismatics atleast externaly. However the Church admitted that privately they may only be in material schism because they err in good faith. In this case the orthodox/sedeplentist faithful are seperated from the Body of the Church but united to her soul.
Something about this worries me. So before I start researching it I wish to hear the opinions of the people on this forum.

_________________
In Christ Our Lord
Dylan


Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:36 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Are Sedeplentists in the Church, Mr. Lane?
Dylan Byrne wrote:
A few days ago I was having a group discussion with some friends about whether SSPX type traditionalists who have the faith and yet are in union with a false pope are in the Catholic Church. I answered that yes, they are. Because they err in good faith and Holy Church has not passed a judgment on whether Benedict XVI is in the Church.


That is correct, and the key, as you rightly point out, is that Holy Mother Church has not yet passed judgement on the heretic Benedict. Thus we may (exceptionally) notice that he is not a Catholic and not a pope, but we may not presume that all others know this, for a host of reasons including our strict obligation to believe well of our fellow man until and unless it becomes impossible to do so.

Dylan Byrne wrote:
However a friend gave me the example of the orthodox faithful. "They are in union with a heretic and schismatic just as the sedeplentists are". He proposed that the SSPX faithful are in the same position as the orthodox. According to him Church law presumes guilt (which is true)


No, it is not true unless understood aright. What is true is that if the external violation of the law occurs, then moral responsibility for it (i.e. "malice") is presumed and therefore must be disproved. But in this case the external violation of the law that we are seeking is the crime of schism. What is schism? It is the knowing refusal to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or to remain in communion with those who are subject to him. We know from the canonists that those who refuse subjection to the Roman Pontiff because they think he was not validly elected, even if he really was validly elected, are not schismatics. Because they merely make a mistake. Even a sinful mistake, possibly, in that they did not take sufficient care to inform themselves of the true facts. But nonetheless, the sin and crime of schism is absent, because they are not knowingly refusing subjection to the Roman Pontiff. This is what pertinacity means. Pertinacity is simply that the culprit knows what he does. Pertinacity is never presumed. It is judged to be present or absent based on external indications, just like the other facts of the case.

Another way of seeing this is to highlight that pertinacity is part of the definition of the crime. Therefore if the knowledge is lacking the crime is not complete.

The Oriental Schismatics are in a different situation precisely because the sects to which they belong have been publicly condemned by Holy Mother Church. Thus, even if they personally have not sinned in adhering to their particular sect, because they do not realise that they must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, they are knowingly not subject to him, and are thus pertinacious schismatics. They may be personally innocent of sin in the matter, but that does not make them Catholics. They are, as a fact, non-members of the Church.

Dylan Byrne wrote:
and for this reason all the orthodox were treated as formal schismatics at least externaly. However the Church admitted that privately they may only be in material schism because they err in good faith.


It depends on what you mean by “in material schism.” If you mean really in schism, but without malice, then yes, that is right. If you mean not really in schism at all, then no, that is wrong. A Catholic who mistakenly adheres to an anti-pope in the belief that he is really the pope is not even materially in schism. There is no schism at all, just a mistake. But a Greek who refuses subjection to the Roman Pontiff because he does not realise he ought to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is innocent of sin in the matter, perhaps, but he is still actually a schismatic. And in the external forum the Church does presume, according to Canon 2200, that such a schismatic is guilty of his crime until and unless he proves the opposite.

Dylan Byrne wrote:
In this case the orthodox/sedeplentist faithful are seperated from the Body of the Church but united to her soul.


This terminology is dangerous, in that it suggests that the soul of the Church can be somehow outside the boundaries of the body of the Church. However that cannot be. If I recall accurately, Monsignor Fenton did an article on this in the American Ecclesiastical Review. Somebody who has access to it and has more time than I may like to scan it and post it. That would be a great work of charity.

All of these attempts to define the Church so as to exclude the sedeplenists (or any other group who fail to agree with the definer in some point or other) suffer from the same radical flaw, which is that they all display a loss of perspective on the extraordinary nature of private judgements of heresy. It is an entirely exceptional thing to judge that another is a heretic in the absence of an authoritative judgement by Holy Mother Church. It is not the normal thing. Unless we keep in mind that it is abnormal, and therefore dangerous, we run the risk of getting hurt in doing so, or hurting somebody else. This theme runs right through all of the controversies which divide sedevacantists from each other and from sedeplenists. The sedeplenists err in denying our right to judge, exceptionally, the exceptional case before us. But the sedevacantists are prone to forget that they are doing something exceptional, and thus expect everybody else to do the same. I may run across a tightrope to safety – I can hardly blame another for not taking the risk.

If you wish to be right-thinking on this, read Cum ex apostolatus carefully, meditating on the various points it makes. Notice how we may do all manner of things – but there is no penalty for those who don’t do these things. Thus we think with the Church when we say “I may reject this man whom to my judgement is a heretic,” and we depart from right thinking when we say, “You must reject this man whom I see to be a heretic, because you must see it too.”

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post 
What a great post John. I have a much clearer understanding about the issue then I have ever had before. Many thanks...

Tommy


Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:24 am
Posts: 24
Location: Victoria, Australia
New post R&R
Thanks John, that was a big help. After speaking to some sedevacantist priests about it the general impression that one gets is that they believe that the Sedeplentist position: To accept the Vatican II popes but reject Vatican II or R&R as Fr. Cekada calls it, is implicitly heretical and can even lead to grave sin. Why? Bp. Sanborn explains when he attempts to elevate the "Authority matter" above personal opinion. His Excellency basicaly says that any position other then sedevacantism is contrary to the faith.

Bp. Sanborn wrote:
Major: It is impossible that a man be pope and at the same time authoritatively promulgate doctrines of faith and morals which contradict the teaching of the Church, or to make general laws which are harmful to souls.

Minor: But Karol Wojtyla has authoritatively promulgated doctrines of faith and morals which contradict the teaching of the Church, and has made general laws which are harmful to souls.

Conc: It is impossible that Karol Wojtyla be pope.

The major is de fide, for it is the very infallibility of the Catholic Church, namely, that in her official teaching capacity, whether through the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, she cannot err. Nor can she err in making general laws for the Church, that is, they cannot be harmful to souls.

The minor is de fide with regard to Vatican II, and from reason illumined by the faith with regard to the changes of Vatican II.




His Excellency goes on:
Bp.Sanborn wrote:
if a doctrine is authoritatively taught by the pope, it must be Catholic; if a general law is promulgated by the pope, it must be good.

This is ofcourse de fide and it seems that the R&R position is an implicit denial of this because it leads its followers to believe that the Church has a defective Mass and can teach error in her ordinary magisterium.

Bp. Sanborn makes a conclusion:
Quote:
If they do maintain that it is the authority of the Church, they implicitly fall into heresy, since they maintain that the Church has promulgated error and evil, which is against the promises of Christ and the teaching of the Church

Mr. Lane what do you think of this? Does the R&R position lead to heresy and is the sedevacantist thesis a matter of private opinion? It would seem that it is the only legitimate theological conclusion in this crisis because the other two, Ecclesia Dei and Sedeplentism, either accept Vatican II or distort the doctrine of infallibility and indefectibility.

Something which Bp. Sanborn does not address in his article is the fact that SSPX type traditionalists do not verbaly deny infallibility. But they do it by their actions. By rejectng a Mass with the approval of the 'Authority of Christ'. Read the following
Pope Pius IX wrote:
“What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is recognized as a duty? Again, does not the Authority of the Holy See extend, as a sanction, to the measures which We have been obliged to take, or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith?…

In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this see), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema.” (From the encyclical Quae in patriarchatu of Pope Pius IX, September 1, 1876, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite.)



A few years ago I rang up Holy Cross Seminary in Australia and asked them about the New Code of Canon Law, after a discussion I asked "so you follow the New Code but when it contradicts the faith you revert to the Old Code?" "Yes, exactly!" was the reply. This thesis had lead this man (I believe he was a brother) to believe that we can pick and choose the laws of the Church, that the Pope can promulgate a law that is defective. Surely any such theory which does this is coming close to heresy?
.........................................................................................................................................

Mr.Lane and Mr.Daly, this seems like a strong case to me. Ofcourse prone to error and undoubtedly on some points I have erred. I was wondering do you believe that this R&R position is implicitly heretical and leads to material heresy?

_________________
In Christ Our Lord
Dylan


Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:44 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:24 am
Posts: 35
New post Questions for Dylan
Dear Dylan,

I wonder if you would mind if I posed you some questions and made a few points, to see what your thoughts are.

Suppose you come across a person of reasonable intelligence who says he rejects the errors and heresies of Vatican 2, but accepts Raztinger as pope because he can't see the case for why he is not pope.

In charity, you would, I hope, go through some of the arguments with him, referring to canon 188 and so on. You would do your best to convince him.

He replies that he just can't see it, for surely Ratzinger would remain pope until condemned by a future pope or council, or something like that.

You try to explain that this is not necessary for Raztinger, as a public heretic, to lose his ecclesiastical office without any declaration, and so on.

Your disputant still cannot see it, try as he might. He is in good faith, it seems.

Is he a heretic? But he says he rejects all the heresies and/or errors of Vatican 2.

Is he a schismatic? But he is not consciously rejecting papal authority, because he is sure Raztinger is pope.

So you ask him whether a pope can issue what your disputant *agrees* are harmful laws and rites, and erroneous - maybe even heretical - teachings.

If he says 'No', you reply: 'But then how *could* Raztinger be pope?'

At this point, what would you think of your disputant's professed good faith? Would you regard him as sincere, as genuinely wanting to follow the Catholic rule of faith? Well, maybe he's just plain *irrational*, and irrationality does not equal bad faith.

My first question to you: How many traditionalist, in particular SSPX, priests, do you know who suffer from this degree of irrationality?

Now, suppose he says 'Yes' - he asserts that a pope *can* issue harmful, erroneous, even heretical rites, laws, and teachings. Maybe he'll quote you apparent precedents, or he'll cite some authority for why this might be possible.

My second question to you: Would you be likely to agree with him? I venture that you wouldn't, since you would know that whatever he comes up with, the truth is that a pope cannot act this way. And you would do your best to point this out to him.

And if he refused to agree with you nonetheless, would he, I ask you, show evidence of wanting to follow the Catholic rule of faith?

Maybe he is just plain ignorant, or irrational, when it comes to what he believes about how a pope can act.

So my final questions to you are: how many traditionalist, in particular SSPX, priests do you know who suffer from this degree of irrationality? And of those who are ignorant, and have had the case pointed out to them, how many would you say have remained in a state of incurable ignorance despite all the proofs, and how many have simply turned a blind eye to what has been pointed out to them and have continued as if nothing had been said to them at all? Of the latter, do you believe they still sincerely follow the Catholic rule of faith?

I hope you don't mind my posing so many questions. I'm interested to know what you think.

A final point. The case for sedevacantism, whilst contested by many, is either objectively certain or it isn't. Sedevacantists believe the former. Many, if not most, of them are not people of outstanding intelligence or erudition. But they want to know the truth and they seek it sincerely, going wherever it leads them.

My final, final question: *If* the case is objectively certain, why isn't it believed by so many SSPX priests who profess to reject the errors of Vatican 2? What distinguishes them from professed sedevacantists? Is it their reduced level of intelligence or education?

Regnum7


Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:09 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Questions for Dylan
regnum7 wrote:
And of those who are ignorant, and have had the case pointed out to them, how many would you say have remained in a state of incurable ignorance despite all the proofs, and how many have simply turned a blind eye to what has been pointed out to them and have continued as if nothing had been said to them at all?


I trust you don't mind me referring readers to the discussion on the English Reformation and St. Thomas More, do you Regnum? Because it seems to me that if these words of yours quoted above apply to anybody, they would have to apply to you on that subject. Otherwise they have no meaning. Perhaps they have no meaning. After all, you are in good faith, aren't you?

Further, if you wish to influence anybody on the state of the Church and where it might not be found, you will need to state clearly where you believe it actually is. Not generically, but specifically. Come on out into the light, my friend.

We cannot sensibly discuss scandal, which is defined as a stumblig block preventing somebody from progressing towards the good, if you cannot say where the good is, can we? You seem to have quite a few views about where the good is not. But where it is, you are all coy about.

Are we clear yet? This forum is for candid men. Let your speech be "Yes, yes, no no."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:56 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:24 am
Posts: 35
New post Good faith
I would be very happy for readers to be directed to our lengthy exchange on St Thomas More and the Reformation.

As to where the Church is, I am more than happy to contribute to a new thread, initiated by you, specifically on 'Where is the Church'? I will say right now that I am not alone in believing it to be no straightforward matter.

BTW, could you please tell me how, when replying to others, I can bring up the small text boxes that say 'Regnum wrote...' etc., as per your message above? I haven't figured out how to do that yet.

Thank you,
Regnum


Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:18 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Good faith
regnum7 wrote:
As to where the Church is, I am more than happy to contribute to a new thread, initiated by you, specifically on 'Where is the Church'? I will say right now that I am not alone in believing it to be no straightforward matter.


Dear Regnum,

To quote another's post, look at the top right corner of that post and there is a little link entitled "QUOTE." (Hover over it and a yellow text balloon will appear, saying, "Reply with quote.") Click the link and away you go.

Let's not waste time on other threads whilst you lead young Dylan to your position with clever questions. He deserves to know up front what he is being pointed towards. Is it, by any chance, the Brussels Syllabus position? Here is a copy with later comments by its chief architect:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/bscomment.html

Your questions do seem to imply that position, or something similar. Especially that very plausibly presented judgementalism.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:32 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:24 am
Posts: 35
New post Plausible judgmentalism
Thank you, Mr Lane, for pointing out how to reply with quotes.

I am not sure whether accusing me of 'plausible judgmentalism' is a back-handed compliment; if so, thanks, I think. :-)

Thanks also for the link to what you call the Brussels Syllabus. I have never read it. Should I?

As to wasting time, I could always, if you can adequately explain to me how it would advance the debate, give you a small list of *some* of the people I believe to be in the Church, bearing in mind:

1) I will not name names where I think the individual would prefer not to be named, or where I am not sure, or where I think it may be prejudicial to them in some way. I imagine the early martyrs would have acted likewise. Not that we are in danger of death, I hasten to add, but I know that some people run the risk of suffering materially or in their apostolate if they are named by others in contexts which might conceivably lead to further accusations or condemnations.

2) By naming people or categories of people, I do not pretend to have engaged in some sort of study of whether they are in the Church. I am not a theologian, I have no authority, I have only opinion like the rest of us. So my list should not be taken as some kind of formal endorsement, or pretence to certainty, or advice to others, and the like. Like you, I appreciate the immense difficulty of our situation.

3) No one should suppose that by naming an individual, or a class of people, I in any way imply that I know them personally or have had anything to do with them.

Regnum


Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:54 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Plausible judgmentalism
regnum7 wrote:
Thanks also for the link to what you call the Brussels Syllabus. I have never read it.


Dear Regnum,

There has been a misunderstanding. The rules of this forum are that we use real names. I make exceptions for those who write and request anonymity. In those exceptional cases I take personal responsibility for their posts. In your case I was under the illusion that I knew whom you are, so I did not hold you to this course and I granted you anonymity even though you did not request it.

Please write to me via email and we will discuss your posting privileges.

And the Church is a city seated on a mountain whose light cannot be hid, so if you are unable to say where she is other than by naming a few individuals I think you have a serious problem. In fact, your position is unorthodox.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:28 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: R&R
Dylan Byrne wrote:
His Excellency basicaly says that any position other then sedevacantism is contrary to the faith.


That's right - implicitly contrary to the Faith. We all say the same thing on that score. But it is quite possible for somebody less intelligent than Bishop Sanborn to hold such a position and not see what all of its implications are. And it is also possible for another to think that our position implies things against the Faith. Indeed, some people who hold our position in fact do hold things contrary to the Faith.

This is why the theologians say that if something directly opposes the Faith, it is heretical, but if it is only indirectly opposed to a doctrine de fide, it is erroneous and perhaps even proximate to heresy, but not actually heretical. In the present case we have an unprecedented crisis resulting in massive confusion affecting even the most careful and prayerful men. There have been genuinely holy and very learned men who have not seen the vacancy of the Holy See as the best solution; and there have been genuinely holy and learned men who have seen it. There have also been far too many complete rotters who have seen that the Holy See is vacant and have gone on to establish their own schism, or some other complete scandal, and thus ensure that fewer men will see the truth than otherwise would have done so.

Read about the Great Western Schism. There were horrible ideas held by the holiest of men. And the joke may well end up being on us - so the best policy is to be as holy as possible, because on Judgement Day we may be found to have been holy and wrong, or unholy and wrong, but if we are wrong, only one of those possibilities will be acceptable to the Divine Judge.


Dylan Byrne wrote:
The minor is de fide with regard to Vatican II, and from reason illumined by the faith with regard to the changes of Vatican II.


Which, despite the dress it's wearing, is really only another way of saying that the minor is a matter of personal judgement.

Quote:
Bp.Sanborn wrote:
if a doctrine is authoritatively taught by the pope, it must be Catholic; if a general law is promulgated by the pope, it must be good.
This is ofcourse de fide


Of course. Could you please quote for me the theologian who informed you of this?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:53 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:24 am
Posts: 24
Location: Victoria, Australia
New post Re: Questions for Dylan
Dear Regnum,
Sorry for the long wait. I have been very busy and have not had enough time to visit this forum.

regnum7 wrote:
Dear Dylan,

I wonder if you would mind if I posed you some questions and made a few points, to see what your thoughts are.

Suppose you come across a person of reasonable intelligence who says he rejects the errors and heresies of Vatican 2, but accepts Raztinger as pope because he can't see the case for why he is not pope.

In charity, you would, I hope, go through some of the arguments with him, referring to canon 188 and so on. You would do your best to convince him.

He replies that he just can't see it, for surely Ratzinger would remain pope until condemned by a future pope or council, or something like that.

You try to explain that this is not necessary for Raztinger, as a public heretic, to lose his ecclesiastical office without any declaration, and so on.

Your disputant still cannot see it, try as he might. He is in good faith, it seems.

Is he a heretic? But he says he rejects all the heresies and/or errors of Vatican 2.

Is he a schismatic? But he is not consciously rejecting papal authority, because he is sure Raztinger is pope.

So you ask him whether a pope can issue what your disputant *agrees* are harmful laws and rites, and erroneous - maybe even heretical - teachings.

If he says 'No', you reply: 'But then how *could* Raztinger be pope?'

At this point, what would you think of your disputant's professed good faith? Would you regard him as sincere, as genuinely wanting to follow the Catholic rule of faith? Well, maybe he's just plain *irrational*, and irrationality does not equal bad faith.

My first question to you: How many traditionalist, in particular SSPX, priests, do you know who suffer from this degree of irrationality?


Regnum, I dont know many of the 400 (?) SSPX priests but from those I have spoken with and friends I have who attend the SSPX seem to explicitly hold the catholic faith, that is they say that the Pope is infallible etc. but they do not act upon these beliefs. Would it be to much to say that all the priests of the SSPX suffer from this irrationality as they all hold a contradictory and illogical position, to reject Vatican II but accept the men who promulgate it.

Quote:
Now, suppose he says 'Yes' - he asserts that a pope *can* issue harmful, erroneous, even heretical rites, laws, and teachings. Maybe he'll quote you apparent precedents, or he'll cite some authority for why this might be possible.

My second question to you: Would you be likely to agree with him? I venture that you wouldn't, since you would know that whatever he comes up with, the truth is that a pope cannot act this way. And you would do your best to point this out to him.

I would not agree with him at all. And I would do everything I could to refute this error.

Quote:
And if he refused to agree with you nonetheless, would he, I ask you, show evidence of wanting to follow the Catholic rule of faith?

Maybe he is just plain ignorant, or irrational, when it comes to what he believes about how a pope can act.

So my final questions to you are: how many traditionalist, in particular SSPX, priests do you know who suffer from this degree of irrationality? And of those who are ignorant, and have had the case pointed out to them, how many would you say have remained in a state of incurable ignorance despite all the proofs, and how many have simply turned a blind eye to what has been pointed out to them and have continued as if nothing had been said to them at all? Of the latter, do you believe they still sincerely follow the Catholic rule of faith?

I believe all traditional catholic priests are doing their utmost best to follow the Catholic faith. Sedevacantism is only a theological conclusion. To deny sedevacantism is not heretical because heresy is the denial of an article of faith, sedevacantism has never been "dogmatised". However it is illogical to deny the sede vacante thesis. For some it may even lead them into heresy. If this man said that I was incorrect when I say the Church cannot err in her general laws and I had given sufficient proof to the contrary then I would have to answer yes, he is a heretic and holds this heresy despite his knowledge that the Church teaches the contrary.
However I have never met a traditionalist who denies infallibility so openly. Usualy they make excuses such as Vatican II is not infallible so any laws based on it are fallible etc.

Quote:
I hope you don't mind my posing so many questions. I'm interested to know what you think.

A final point. The case for sedevacantism, whilst contested by many, is either objectively certain or it isn't. Sedevacantists believe the former. Many, if not most, of them are not people of outstanding intelligence or erudition. But they want to know the truth and they seek it sincerely, going wherever it leads them.

My final, final question: *If* the case is objectively certain, why isn't it believed by so many SSPX priests who profess to reject the errors of Vatican 2? What distinguishes them from professed sedevacantists? Is it their reduced level of intelligence or education?

Regnum7


Why is it that so many traditionalists hold this illogical position? Because they are suffering from "diabolical disorientation". In these times of apostasy the devil will be given immense power over the Church. Through Vatican II he has reduced it to a remnant and he still viciously attacks that remnant by spreading errors like sedeplentism and feeneyism among the flock.

_________________
In Christ Our Lord
Dylan


Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:33 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Dylan:

Quote:
Through Vatican II he has reduced it to a remnant and he still viciously attacks that remnant by spreading errors like sedeplentism and feeneyism among the flock.


I really do hate to see sedeplenists or sedevacantists compared to feenyites. The rejection of BOD/BOB is really a separate issue from the "pope issue" and should be addressed separately.

RB


Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:49 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Questions for Dylan
Dylan Byrne wrote:
Dear Regnum,...


Dear Dylan,

Mr Regnum, an old friend of mine, has had his posting privileges suspended, so he cannot respond to you. Like all anonymous members, he was only permitted to post because I thought that I knew that "Regnum7" was him. Once he effectively denied that it was him, I asked him to email me to confirm and discuss the extraordinary situation, which he has not yet done.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:45 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:24 am
Posts: 24
Location: Victoria, Australia
New post Re: R&R
John Lane wrote:
[
Of course. Could you please quote for me the theologian who informed you of this?


Dear Mr. Lane

Are you reffering to which priest told me that the Church cannot err in her general laws or if I have ever read it written by a noted authority?
Quite simply I learnt that the Church is infallible in these things in my first few months in the traditional movement, its contained in the catechism. Have you ever read "Christs Church" by Van Noort, it explains this in some detail.
Mr. Lane on an unrelated topic I was wondering what you thought of the SSPV? They recently ordained two new priests. I have known about them for some time and regularly listen into their internet radio station. However not much information is available about them.
This ties into this thread as they hold the sede vacante thesis to be only theological opinion.

_________________
In Christ Our Lord
Dylan


Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: R&R
Dylan Byrne wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Of course. Could you please quote for me the theologian who informed you of this?

Dear Mr. Lane

Are you reffering to which priest told me that the Church cannot err in her general laws or if I have ever read it written by a noted authority?


No, I was referring to your "This is of course de fide."

If you have Van Noort, please check and tell us what you see.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:52 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Well, since Dylan seems to have abandoned the discussion at this point, here is what Monsignor Van Noort actually says on the matter:

Quote:
Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.


Therefore the point is not de fide and to deny it does not in itself suffice to destroy supernatural Faith and thus make one a non-Catholic. But to deny this truth would still be a mortal sin, at least for a layman.

And I add, (lest anybody assert that they deny this truth) that the SSPX members do not deny it, but rather that their position implies the denial of it. But it is manifest that they do not see this implication.

And in any case, it is completely certain that one who cannot notice the difference between de fide and theologically certain is in no position to comment on another's supposed theological errors.

I have no wish to break the bruised reed, and indeed I hope that Dylan will now see that things which are said to be "obvious" over a Lygon Street coffee with a fellow sedevacantist layman are in fact sometimes rather more complex than that, and therefore (when factual questions are thrown into the mix) a great deal more obscure also. This is a question of strict justice to fellow Catholics. Charity comes next, but has not yet entered the picture, and nor can it until justice is rendered.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:17 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 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.