Quick Q

[Era Might]

Yes, you can be sure that there is no heresy. The Church is incapable of teaching heresy, not only in an Ecumenical Council, but anytime; especially in an Ecumenical Council, however.

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger elaborated in the CDF commentary on the "Professio Fidei":

[quote]The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." To this paragraph belong all those teachings ­on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM[/url][/quote]

Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Donna]

[quote]I guess what I'm getting at is, if we are to give our assent to such documents, does this mean then, that there can be no doctrinal error in it? And thus nothing that might be considered a heresy will be found in it, thereby giving peace to a person's faith?


EDIT: Also, does this mean that if the documents carry weight such that we must give our assent to them, do we also defend them from those who would claim heresy within them? Or simply say that they aren't infallible and thus no point in trying to find heresy as it will not prove anything? Does that make sense?
[/quote]

Yes it does, Golden.

You've been on my mind. Since you have an apologetics page, I am assuming you probably know quite a bit more than the average Joe. But that you've asked the questions herein this thread, I'm of the strong conviction that you are in no position to make a decision about the sedevantist stance, for or against, at this time.

I hope the following might be of use in your research, quoting from Michael Davies' [i]Pope John's Council[/i]. If you haven't read the Liturgical Revolution Triology, you're missing the basics.

I am condenscing a chapter into a few paragraphs...er I've only so much time to type.

Michael Davies brings the question of "what are the status of Vatican II documents" by way of citing [i]Humane Vitae [/i]:

[color=purple]" An orothdox Catholic cannot, of course, refuse to accept officially promulgated concilliar teaching simply because the documents containing it do not possess infallible status. This would be to follow the example of those who rejected Humanae Vitae on the grounds that it was not an infallible statement." [/color] Mr. Davies' notes that while Catholics must hold HV's moral stance, "[color=purple]they are not bound to accept that the arguments which Pope Paul puts forward to prove this are the best available, or even that they are convincing."[/color]

[color=purple]"Similarily, the major part of the documents of Vatican II consists not of specific doctrinal or moral teaching but of vague generalizations, observations, exhortations, and speculation on the likely outcome of a recommended course of action. As Cardinal Tardini prophesied, it provided norms rather than definitions and norms do not come within the scope of doctrine. Where doctrinal and moral teaching is contained in the documents we are bound, as the note of the theological commission states, [i]'to accept it and embrace it according to the mind of the Synod itself...'[/i][/color]

He earlier cites the [color=purple]"fine exposition of papal authority in the Vatican II [i]Constitution on the Church[/i]"[/color] as an example of infallible teaching within a non-infallible document (as Era wrote awhile back).

The following applies to your specific questions:

[color=purple]"What is quite certain is that no one, whatever his rank, can compel us to accept an interpretation of moral or doctrinal teaching in a concilliar document which conflicts with the teaching of the Church...In a case where a concilliar statement is used to justify a breach with authentic Catholic doctrine or tradition then such an interpretation must be refused even if the document itself seems to favor such an interpretation.

"...On the other hand, where we can we refer to the documents of Vatican II in order to defend the authentic faith, or to refute abuses committed in the name of the Council, we would be foolish not to do so.[/color]

"...[color=purple]In his opening speech Pope John insisted on the adherence of the Second Vatican Council to the teaching of the Church in its serenity and precision, as it still shines forth in the acts of Trent and Vatican I, which makes it clear that every Catholic has not simply the right but the duty to refute any interpretation which conflicts with the teaching of these councils."[/color]

- [i]Pope John's Council [/i]"The Status of the Documents" pp 209-217, Michael Davies, 1977, Angelus Press.

Prayers...

Donna

[goldenchild17]

[quote]You've been on my mind. Since you have an apologetics page, I am assuming you probably know quite a bit more than the average Joe.[/quote]
hehe, don't assume too much , I just dabble in something I have no strength in. Just an interest of mine.

[quote]But that you've asked the questions herein this thread, I'm of the strong conviction that you are in no position to make a decision about  the sedevantist stance, for or against, at this time. [/quote]
And I most certainly haven't, although everyday I am coming closer and closer to a decision. But I am currently working this out in an indepth discussion with a couple of guys(I asked phatcatholic and Cam42 to come over so hopefully they'll be able to clear things up) and will have it worked out in my own weak mind at least, when this discussion plays itself out. I will say I am far to the side of sedevacantism right now. Have been for awhile. But have been waiting to actually switch churches until I am completely sure of what I am doing.

[quote]I hope the following might be of use in your research, quoting from Michael Davies' [i]Pope John's Council[/i]. If you haven't read the Liturgical Revolution Triology, you're missing the basics. [/quote]
I haven't gotten through this book yet. It's one of the next on my list. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Davies' position as I have researched his stuff quite a bit(although not this work as of yet), and will admit that some of it is pretty good, but I(and many others) feel he is ignoring some very important basic points.

[quote]I am condenscing a chapter into a few paragraphs...er I've only so much time to type.

Michael Davies brings the question of "what are the status of Vatican II documents" by way of citing [i]Humane Vitae [/i]:

[color=purple]" An orothdox Catholic cannot, of course, refuse to accept officially promulgated concilliar teaching simply because the documents containing it do not possess infallible status. This would be to follow the example of those who rejected Humanae Vitae on the grounds that it was not an infallible statement." [/color] Mr. Davies' notes that while  Catholics must hold HV's moral stance, "[color=purple]they are not bound to accept that the arguments which Pope Paul puts forward to prove this are the best available, or even that they are convincing."[/color][/quote]
So we are to accept what it says but not necessarily the arguments used to present the argument? This doesn't seem to be saying all that much to me. People have seen different ways of presenting the same doctrine, but the point is we are still bound to hold the doctrine, no matter how we do this. And if we see problems with the doctrine itself it doesn't matter if we like the argument or not, we are still bound to the doctrine itself.

[quote][color=purple]"Similarily, the major part of the documents of Vatican II consists not of specific doctrinal or moral teaching but of vague generalizations, observations, exhortations, and speculation on the likely outcome of a recommended course of action.[/quote]
I would definitely agree with this. However this is new for a general council to do. Never before has a council been vague. Instead everything was always very clear in it's language.

[quote]As Cardinal Tardini prophesied, it provided norms rather than definitions and norms do not come within the scope of doctrine. Where doctrinal and moral teaching is contained in the documents we are bound, as the note of the theological commission states, [i]'to accept it and embrace it according to the mind of the Synod itself...'[/i][/color][/quote]
This is fine. But there is still the issue that doctrine exists. So what is the doctrine we are bound to by the council?

[quote]He earlier cites the [color=purple]"fine exposition of papal authority in the Vatican II [i]Constitution on the Church[/i]"[/color] as an example of infallible teaching within a non-infallible document (as Era wrote awhile back).

The following applies to your specific questions:

[color=purple]"What is quite certain is that no one, whatever his rank, can compel us to accept an interpretation of moral or doctrinal teaching in a concilliar document which conflicts with the teaching of the Church...In a case where a concilliar statement is used to justify a breach with authentic Catholic doctrine or tradition then such an interpretation must be refused even if the document itself seems to favor such an interpretation.

"...On the other hand, where we can we refer to the documents of Vatican II in order to defend the authentic faith, or to refute abuses committed in the name of the Council, we would be foolish not to do so.[/color]

"...[color=purple]In his opening speech Pope John insisted on the adherence of the Second Vatican Council to the teaching of the Church in its serenity  and precision, as it still shines forth in the acts of Trent and Vatican I, which makes it clear that every Catholic has not simply the right but the duty to refute any interpretation which conflicts with the teaching of these councils."[/color]

- [i]Pope John's Council [/i]"The Status of the Documents" pp 209-217, Michael Davies, 1977, Angelus Press.

Prayers...

Donna[/quote]

I'll just skip over the rest for now as I don't believe catholic v. catholic debate is allowed here and I really don't care to get kicked off of phatmass because of that. If you want to follow the discussion and the points I am bringing up you can go to www.fidesetvirtus.com/forum and it's in the debate section. Hopefully phat and Cam will be there shortly to straighten me up!

[qfnol31]

Just because the documents were without definitions didn't mean they weren't infallible. There is a small difference, but it does mean that some statements can be infallible on their own merit, though they've never been proclaimed before.

[Donna]

Golden, it means that the previous Councils' dotctrinal position must be held. For example, the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be messed with. If anyone does...look over the particular doctrine in the whole time-line of the Church.

I must say I'm even more concerned than before, if you've a page and only purport to be dabbling, plus haven't read M. Davies (whom I disagree with on things, too)...but that's the basics, man. Please remember from Ecclesiasticus, the warning to not go into too high/hard to understannd things. I don't mean that as a cop out. But the sede position is impossible! One might as well just throw themselves into a pit willingly.

Just for the record: There's no doubt in my mind that Vatican II was convoked and promulgated by Popes.

So is that one of the arguments? (I'm being rhetorical, I think I'll check out the link you gave of the debate)...that a Council which has been like no others couldn't happen unless the seat of Peter is empty?

This bothers me, the whole sede thing. It leads nowhere but to electing your own pope. AND, this is coming from one who does understand why people could be so confused at this time, and has a lot in common as far as traditional liturgy, catechism, etc; with the sedes.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Donna

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Donna' post='955174' date='Apr 20 2006, 11:33 AM']
Golden, it means that the previous Councils' dotctrinal position must be held. For example, the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be messed with. If anyone does...look over the particular doctrine in the whole time-line of the Church.

I must say I'm even more concerned than before, if you've a page and only purport to be dabbling, plus haven't read M. Davies (whom I disagree with on things, too)...but that's the basics, man.[/quote]
I understand Mr. Davies arguments, I just haven't read the whole of that particular book yet. I do plan to soon. I don't think he has covered nearly all of the issues, though so it takes more than just him to understand things. I personally have found other non-sede arguments to be much stronger than his. I have a site, because I write about what I believe in and why I believe it. I have not put any sede arguments on there as of yet because I am not 100% sure yet. All I have are arguments for basic Catholic teaching ie. Peter as the 1st Pope, The Eucharist, and the Church's teaching on abortion all proven from Scripture. I say I dabble because I do not have a Theology degree(though hope to get one some years down the road). I have been assured that my papers so far are within commonly accepted Catholic teaching. I don't think a person needs to be an expert on what interests them, but I think as long as someone has a decent understanding of something that they want others to believe, they can write things to try to convince others. There are many people here that are involved in apologetics that don't study it for their life's work, do not have a degree in it, is something that is a part-time thing for them. Same with me.

[quote]Please remember from Ecclesiasticus, the warning to not go into too high/hard to understannd things.[/quote]
Definitely, absolutely. Since this is so easy to see and understand for me right now and is taking WAY more brain cells to try and reconcile things that have happened, I have continued with the search.

[quote]I don't mean that as a cop out. But the sede position is impossible! One might as well just throw themselves into a pit willingly.[/quote]

That's what I used to think. Even pre-Vatican II theology books say that a sedevacantist should not be considered in schism though, and this is before VII ever even happened and before there was any speculation of problems. St. Robert Bellarmine said it could happen as well. So I don't think it untenable. The question is, is it happening now.

[quote]Just for the record: There's no doubt in my mind that Vatican II was convoked and promulgated by Popes.[/quote]
And I'm not so sure. It is possible for me that Paul VI was pope when he began the council, but lost it during. This is a theory that has been put out there, but I'm not sure I agree with that.

[quote]So is that one of the arguments? (I'm being rhetorical, I think I'll check out the link you gave of the debate)...that a Council which has been like no others couldn't happen unless the seat of Peter is empty?[/quote]

Well no not really. It's much more complex than that, but that's a small part of it. I can't go into detail here as I think it against forum rules, but you can check it out there if you wish.

[quote]This bothers me, the whole sede thing. It leads nowhere but to electing your own pope. AND, this is coming from one who does understand why people could be so confused at this time, and has a lot in common as far as traditional liturgy, catechism, etc; with the sedes.[/quote]

Again I hear ya. I was strong Church Militant up until very recently here. So I know exactly what you are saying. But I am seeing things differently now.

[jasJis]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='955378' date='Apr 20 2006, 03:25 PM']Again I hear ya. I was strong Church Militant up until very recently here. So I know exactly what you are saying. But I am seeing things differently now.[/quote]Chuckle. I hear ya too. :

[Donna]

Goldenchild, I heard everything you said. I appreciate your responses - especially the first one. Your barrier (a degree) of who is not a dabbler is quite high!

I don't understand how being sedevacantist isn't equated with schism; I don't think that's possible. That said, I'm sure you know my take on things, and concern for your soul - but at this point, it didn't seem helpful to spell that out.
++++++++++++++++

jasJis!!!!! It's great to see you!

What CAN you mean by that post, and your new title? Hey man, I'm in remission from having been so sick...I must post this soon on Open Mic.

[Donna]

Goldenchild,

I went to the site and skimmed the debate. There doesn't seem to be a debate, just analysis of "subsists", and stuff on the roman vs. english/ICEL-approved canon. I'm familiar with this stuff; have copy of the de defictibus decree and etc;

I don't think these guys are very far into stuff, I've seen a lot worse. May be hope yet here.

I don't know that I can add anything on that board; it's the same stuff I've seen non sede Trads write insofar as ambiguity in certain Vatican II document terms, the old Mass and etc; But the non-sede's don't believe the seat is empty.

PS: when I said becoming sede is like throwing oneself into a pit willingly, I mean the legistics alone are staggering; what, there are about 1/999 th of "true" priests then? All that kind of stuff, the apostolic succession. I will NOT believe that, that Our Lord'd make it THAT HARD - and it's already dang hard enough - to find/practice the Faith.
And who of the sede leadership is sound?

See, this is a problem, and it exitsts in Trad (and non-Trad!) non-sede circles. You take someone like B. Williamson, who'd have people moving to only a few places in the country in order to educate their children, it's quite clear enough that is what he thinks, decrying surburbia and promoting the Catholic village/leave the city thing - all the while counting on suburbanite professionals to donate alms.

The Indult crowd (depending on who) can be no better, the YOKE they can exact is crazy: repeat crazy. I mean, according to Solange Hertz, at least some years back, EVERY marital act is at least a venial sin. Omilord and the rants about wicked women wearing pants (and not in front of the Blessed Sacrament, mind you), blah blah blah.

It's as if many do not belivie the Faith, esp. the doctrine of "necessary ocassion of sins" -like public school. We'd dang well believe Our Lord'll get us thru this, Faith intact, cause the whole world is a necessary ocassion of sin it seems. And clergy are not gods: Our Lady said a diabolical disorientation'd come over the clergy, well Trads are no exception. Everyone must prove themselves, every last one. And no one - no last one - will be impeccable.

So...it has behooved me to read a lot over the years and get a good smatttering of what the "stars" are saying, whether they be EWTN, Liberal, Indult, Conservative, SSPX. Every one of us needs to keep this in mind, particularly when we're in a situation where we've become the wandering Jew, searching. I reckon every serious Catholic will face this in these times, whatever form it manifests as.

Just a couple questions, they shouldn't offend phorum guidelines: if they do, I beg PM's pardon! But does the sedevacantist position differentiate between papal authority having the power to do something vs. the right to? Do they view this in general (father of a family; civil power holders: police, mayor)? What do they say about St. Peter screwing up big time, both before and after Pentecost? Was the Church "sede" until St. Peter repented or what?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

jas,

Your sig bums me out... and I guess answers my query. But I'm glad to see ya still.

Sigh.

G' Night all...

~Please remember how DISFIGURED Our Lord's Holy Face was during the Passion - few recognized Him for Who He is. He said "You will be scandalized in Me"... and the Bride Church will follow in His footsteps.

*Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us, now, and at the hour of our death! Amen.* Keep the Faith!

Edited April 21, 2006 by Donna

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Donna' post='955692' date='Apr 20 2006, 09:10 PM']
Goldenchild, I heard everything you said. I appreciate your responses - especially the first one. Your barrier (a degree) of who is not a dabbler is quite high!

I don't understand how being sedevacantist isn't equated with schism; I don't think that's possible. That said, I'm sure you know my take on things, and concern for your soul - but at this point, it didn't seem helpful to spell that out.[/quote]

Yes I understand and thanks for that. The more people concerned for me the better . As far as why it should not be considered schism is because there is not even one doctrine of the Church that we deny. We resist the people who currently attempt to occupy the seat of Peter, but we do not reject the seat of Peter. We know that the Papacy is real, a position instituted by God. We believe that the Pope cannot teach heresy in his capacity as Pope through the extraordinary magisterium of his ex cathedra statements or through the ordinary magisterium of his teaching encyclicals. I believe the second has occurred with these men. Do I believe they are not Pope because they teach and hold to certain heresies? I don't know. I do believe that they believe in and teach heresies, but I think that after Paul VI, they were never Pope to begin with. I think Paul VI himself started out to as a true Pope but gave up his position in his statement at Vatican II. That is what I believe right now.

But just because we don't believe these men are Pope does not make us schismatics as that fully accepted Theology book says, because we question these men's claim to the seat of Peter, but we do not question the seat of Peter itself. It has been declared that the seat of Peter exists and is true, and is as such a doctrine that we cannot deny. That Benedict, John Paul II and the couple guys before them are true popes has not been declared a doctrine of the Church.

Donna, Yes the discussion there is just getting started. My research has gone much much further and there is much I want to cover first. We are currently only at the matter of "subsists in" but have not recieved a decent explanation of it. That for me, is a huge issue and could make the case all by itself. And it has recieved no opposition as of yet. This disturbs me a little. If it is so easy to explain, why hasn't it been? With that, I invite you to go over there, and if you don't care to, then we should probably stop discussing in this thread as I see it can only evolve into a debate between Catholics and that isn't allowed here.

Edited April 21, 2006 by goldenchild17

[qfnol31]

Wow, I'm curious about this "we" you've been talking about...people you know in person or online?

[goldenchild17]

When I say "we" in that last post, I give basic sedevacantist views. I understand there are some differences between different people, which makes sense as this is not a doctrine, but simply an understanding of the current situation, and we don't have the whole story, and until we do we will realistically have some differences in the way we see it.

My discussion over at my message board consists of people on different boards that I have asked to take part there.

[phatcatholic]

[b][color="#FF0000"]note from moderator:[/color][/b]

i want to thank everyone for how they have handled this thread so far. i think this thread can continue b/c it has the spirit of seeking truth and understanding, instead of contention. however, some debating will invariably need to be done. i suggest that such debate take place at goldenchild's board:

www.fidesetvirtus.com/forum

we need as many knowledgable people as possible to go there and help our fellow brothers. goldenchild needs us. of course, sincere questions can continue to take place here.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

Thanks. Yeah I tried to keep this as a simply inquisitive thread. I just wanted to understand how the documents of this council are to be viewed as it has an effect on my overall beliefs(I'll explain why in the discussion on my board if you want). No intention to start a debate. I am in serious need of trying to figure this all out though, so anybody that can jump over there and help out that would be great, thanks.

P.S. My site is currently down for just a short time as Lunarpages is upgrading the servers or some such thing. Keep checking back and it should be back up before too long.