The Smoke of the Anti-Christ

[CyberSaint]

But discussing it any further would violate the rules of the forum.



I undertstand, Quis.

Without going further along the S.V. path, how is what the writer of that article stating any different than what Martin Luther stated? Isn't this just repackaged Protestantism?

[QuisUtDeus]

Without going further along the S.V. path, how is what the writer of that article stating any different than what Martin Luther stated? Isn't this just repackaged Protestantism?

Martin Luther didn't believe in the office of the Pope at all, so I don't think there is a comparison.

[QuisUtDeus]

and catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility) does not cause the Pope to cease to be Catholic.  I have never seen a time-honored theological principle that even suggests that.

Nor is there any "time-honored theological principle' that suggests that there can be a "catastrophic failure of the Papal charism of infallibility". Vatican I says otherwise. We all admit the infallibility granted the Church cannot fail Her. You are claiming that the infallibility of the Pope can fail. I don't see any indication that this can be true.

I didn't claim that, I offered it for the sake of argument.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

[QuisUtDeus]

If the NO Mass is promulgated by the Pope and the Magesterium, then if the NO Mass is invalid, so are the Pope and the Magesterium, correct?

No, theoretically, if the Pope were able to promulgate an invalid Mass (which we are saying solely for the sake of argument), that would not cause a condition of sede vacante in and of itself.  For the Pope to lose the throne, he must cease to be Catholic, and catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility) does not cause the Pope to cease to be Catholic.  I have never seen a time-honored theological principle that even suggests that.  Other things such as pernicious and blatant heresy would cause the Pope (or any person) to cease to be Catholic; that is based on sound theological principles.

But discussing it any further would violate the rules of the forum.

The disciplines of the Church are subject to an indirect infallibility, because of the general infallibility of the Church. This is explained in all the pre-Vatican II theology manuals. The Pope cannot promulgate an invalid Mass, because this would be contrary to the mission of the Church. By this the Church would be leading souls into error, which is not possible.

As I stated, that is one theory, one that you clearly subscribe to.

However, there is no "general infallibility" of the Church.  There is the extraordinary magisterium and the ordinary magisterium.

If the Pope and bishops live a scandalous life full of luxury and deviancy, as has happened in the past, are they leading souls into error?  Yes, by poor example.  Therefore it is possible for the human element of the Church to lead souls into error.  Also note the Arian heresy and the fact that most of the bishops in a given area went into heresy even with the ordinary magisterium.

In my opinion, the Neo-Catholics and the Sedevacanists make the same mistake with regard to infallibility.   That any error of personal virtue, discipline, etc. is either 1) Not possible according to the Neo-Catholics, or, 2) a sign of an invalid Pope according to the Sedevacantists.  The problem is that infallibility has been nebulously defined.  It is dogmatic, for sure, but the true extent of it has not been stated by the Church especially when it comes to the ordinary magisterium.

When it is clearly defined, as I think it will be eventually, I believe it will become a very narrow path because that is all God needs to do to guarantee the indefectibility of the Church.

[INPEFESS]

But discussing it any further would violate the rules of the forum.



I undertstand, Quis.

Without going further along the S.V. path, how is what the writer of that article stating any different than what Martin Luther stated? Isn't this just repackaged Protestantism?

Luther is the father is protestantism, a completely separate religion all together. The author has certainly not formed his own religion extra ecclesiam by denying the Church as the only source of Objective Truth, the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, or the supremacy of the Papacy. He is setting the foundation for his personal speculations concerning a conspiracy evidenced (in his opinion) by the lack of manifested gifts of the Holy Ghost by which all man may discern Truth from error - in short, by which we may know the True Church from all others:

Q. 699. Which are the gifts of the Holy Ghost?

A. The gifts of the Holy Ghost are Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, and Fear of the Lord.

Where is the Wisdom in convening a council not called to address heresy or establish Dogma?
Where is the Understanding of Catholic Dogma made obscure by the ambiguities of the VII documents?
Where is the Counsel against the deceits of the devil amidst ecumenism, collegiality, modernism, liberalism, indifferentism, pluralism, etc.
Where is the Fortitude of the Church which has conceded to Protestant ideals and reconciliation with Jews?
Where is the sound Knowledge of the Faith as evidence by the Catholic laity and clergy?
Where is Catholic Piety in the Novus Ordo Missae, the product of this council?
Amidst all of these voids, most especially, where is our Fear of God's wrath?

How then can we claim that the Holy Ghost is guiding our Church and its pope in the way of Truth when it is in want of all of His gifts?

This was the author's premise. Bold, but not Protestant.

[INPEFESS]

If the NO Mass is promulgated by the Pope and the Magesterium, then if the NO Mass is invalid, so are the Pope and the Magesterium, correct?

The writer of that article is therefore stating that the Pope and Magesterium are invalid.

How is this any different from what Martin Luther was saying in 1521?

I don't remember him ever saying that the Mass was de facto invalid. Does he say this? If so, on what page?

[lamentabili sane]

and catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility) does not cause the Pope to cease to be Catholic.  I have never seen a time-honored theological principle that even suggests that.

Nor is there any "time-honored theological principle' that suggests that there can be a "catastrophic failure of the Papal charism of infallibility". Vatican I says otherwise. We all admit the infallibility granted the Church cannot fail Her. You are claiming that the infallibility of the Pope can fail. I don't see any indication that this can be true.

I didn't claim that, I offered it for the sake of argument.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

I offered it for the sake of argument.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

You offered it. I refuted it because it is incorrect. I didn't put any words into your mouth.

[CyberSaint]

If the NO Mass is promulgated by the Pope and the Magesterium, then if the NO Mass is invalid, so are the Pope and the Magesterium, correct?

The writer of that article is therefore stating that the Pope and Magesterium are invalid.

How is this any different from what Martin Luther was saying in 1521?

I don't remember him ever saying that the Mass was de facto invalid. Does he say this? If so, on what page?

I was making a logical deduction from his assertions. Are you stating that the logic is flawed, or that my claims of his assertions are false?

[QuisUtDeus]

and catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility) does not cause the Pope to cease to be Catholic.  I have never seen a time-honored theological principle that even suggests that.

Nor is there any "time-honored theological principle' that suggests that there can be a "catastrophic failure of the Papal charism of infallibility". Vatican I says otherwise. We all admit the infallibility granted the Church cannot fail Her. You are claiming that the infallibility of the Pope can fail. I don't see any indication that this can be true.

I didn't claim that, I offered it for the sake of argument.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

I offered it for the sake of argument.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

You offered it. I refuted it because it is incorrect. I didn't put any words into your mouth.

if the Pope were able to promulgate an invalid Mass (which we are saying solely for the sake of argument), ... catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility)

I clearly said it was solely for the sake of argument - I made no claim about it whatsoever.   Please discuss things honestly and don't mischaracterize what I say.

[lamentabili sane]

and catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility) does not cause the Pope to cease to be Catholic.  I have never seen a time-honored theological principle that even suggests that.

Nor is there any "time-honored theological principle' that suggests that there can be a "catastrophic failure of the Papal charism of infallibility". Vatican I says otherwise. We all admit the infallibility granted the Church cannot fail Her. You are claiming that the infallibility of the Pope can fail. I don't see any indication that this can be true.

I didn't claim that, I offered it for the sake of argument.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

I offered it for the sake of argument.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

You offered it. I refuted it because it is incorrect. I didn't put any words into your mouth.

if the Pope were able to promulgate an invalid Mass (which we are saying solely for the sake of argument), ... catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility)

I clearly said it was solely for the sake of argument - I made no claim about it whatsoever.   Please discuss things honestly and don't mischaracterize what I say.

I am being honest and I am not questioning your honesty.  Explain for me why one would state something "soley for the sake of argument" and then balk when someone makes an argument refuting it?