Florence and Sedeism

Jehanne wrote:
If what Florence said [on the Baptism of children] is, indeed, true, then all the Holy Innocents were, without exception, sacramentally Baptized in Water. If you want to make the same claim about aborted infants, that's fine, also. It may not, in the end, be an either/or thing. We may have to accept our ignorance of such things this side of the grave.

On this point, the sedes are at least consistent, in that they claim that Vatican II was not a true Council because it was not presided over by a true Pope, who promulgated heretical ideas. The SSPX would have us believe that we need to sort the "wheat from the chaff" from Vatican II, deciding what part of the Council texts are part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and which parts are erroneous, even heretical.

This really belongs under the sede sub-forum, so that’s where I’m moving it.

Not only is your Feeneyite interpretation of Florence proven false, your suggestion that the Church has been in error since at least the 5th century with respect to the Holy Innocents by being in heretical opposition to the subject Council is pure rubbish, and not in the least bit “Catholic”.

The sede’s are not consistent, they are all over the map and invent heresies to justify their schism (they are, after all, without a Shepard, and have been rudderless for some 53 years).

There is no such thing as the “promulgation of heretical ideas”. A doctrine that is promulgated for the universal Church is either heretical, or it isn’t; and under the true Church of Christ, it is impossible for the Church to promulgate heresy in an Ecumenical Council. Vatican Council II did not promulgate a single heresy and anthema sit to the heretics who say that it did.

I defy you to produce even one promulgated heresy.

Go ahead, make your case. Let me warn you advance, you’d better differentiate between the dogmatic order and practical-pastoral directives (“non-dogmatic and contingent aspects of a doctrine”), that latter of which “admits the fallibility of opinions and doctrines of a pastoral, moral or legal character", while the dogmatic order admits to no such thing, not even from doctrines of the third degree.

My bet is you are going to blow it; but I already know that from your other posts - it’s a given.

The Church has never said, let alone taught, that the Holy Innocents died without Baptism. Pray tell, show me any Magisterial document that says that they died without Baptism. You can't, because none exist. Besides, they were, without exception, all Jewish, so they were covered under the Old Covenant, not the New. And, unless you are going to (once again) say that angels are nothing more than mythical creatures who do not exist, then I am free to say that they are active in the World, which means that they can Baptize, even the unborn.

The Council of Florence can speak for itself. It says that one must persevere in the "bosom and unity" of the Catholic Church, and the analogy is clear. A Protestant heretic and/or schismatic Orthodox does not have his/her head against the "breasts" of Holy Mother Church, as much as you try to "implicitify" (okay, a new word) their desire to be one with the Mystical Body of Christ, whose Vicar they open deny.

Did Vatican II promulgate heretical teachings? The SSPX thinks so, as do a lot of other groups. Indeed, on this issue, there is wide agreement between traditional Catholics and their modernist heretic counterparts:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. (DH, 2)

Okay, the Council pays a little "lip service" with their "within due limits," but I am not buying it:

She was told that if she did not wish to believe in the Church and in the article Ecclesiam Sanctam Catholicam, she would be a heretic to uphold [her views], and that she would be punished by other judges who would sentence her to be burned. (Condemnation Trial of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle, May 2, 1431)

No wonder that many say that Vatican II "corrected" the various Inquisitions or that "Pope" John Paul II had to "apologize" for them, in spite of the fact that Catholic society actively burned heretics for 1500 years.

Jehanne wrote:The Church has never said, let alone taught, that the Holy Innocents died without Baptism. Pray tell, show me any Magisterial document that says that they died without Baptism. You can't, because none exist. Besides, they were, without exception, all Jewish, so they were covered under the Old Covenant, not the New. And, unless you are going to (once again) say that angels are nothing more than mythical creatures who do not exist, then I am free to say that they are active in the World, which means that they can Baptize, even the unborn.

You don’t even seem to realize that your fallacious statement that says “The Church has never said, let alone taught, that the Holy Innocents died without Baptism. Pray tell, show me any Magisterial document that says that they died without Baptism” is proven entirely irrelevant by your next statement that says “they were covered under the Old Covenant, not the New”.

So why on God’s green earth should there be “Magisterial proof” for the water baptism of the Holy Innocents when they did NOT require water baptism under the Old Law?

And so you thus miss the whole point of the Ambrosian Liturgy that says of the Holy Innocents, “being bathed in their own blood he [our Lord] effects in them the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom".

Get it? Our Lord, the living embodiment of the “New Law”, effected IN the Holy Innocents that same “salvation of regeneration” (the merit of His Blood) that will be found in the Baptism of Regeneration, and “gives them the crown of martyrdom”.

You are free to say that angels, bi-locating saints, or even little green men baptized the Holy Innocents, you say some of the strangest things anyway; but you are NOT free to say that the Ambrosian Liturgy and the entire tradition of the Church on the blood martyrdom and the “salvation of regeneration” our Lord effected upon the souls of the Holy Innocents is opposed to the dogma of the Church (Florence) on the Baptism of children (the rigorist and errant interpretation of which would render the Church’s Liturgy and traditional teaching heretical).

And you clearly implied such a heresy.

Jehanne wrote:
Did Vatican II promulgate heretical teachings? The SSPX thinks so, as do a lot of other groups. Indeed, on this issue, there is wide agreement between traditional Catholics and their modernist heretic counterparts:

I don’t care what some factions of the SSPX believe, I asked you to name even one heresy promulgated by the Second Vatican Council.

I'm still waiting.

Jehanne wrote:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. (DH, 2)

Okay, the Council pays a little "lip service" with their "within due limits," but I am not buying it:

Since you are a sede, it goes without saying that you are “not buying it”; I challenged you do name the official heresy, and you have failed to do so.

Jehanne wrote:

She was told that if she did not wish to believe in the Church and in the article Ecclesiam Sanctam Catholicam, she would be a heretic to uphold [her views], and that she would be punished by other judges who would sentence her to be burned. (Condemnation Trial of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle, May 2, 1431)

No wonder that many say that Vatican II "corrected" the various Inquisitions or that "Pope" John Paul II had to "apologize" for them, in spite of the fact that Catholic society actively burned heretics for 1500 years.

And what has this to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing! And in fact, you fell right into the trap I warned you to avoid, that of failing to “differentiate between the dogmatic order and practical-pastoral directives”.

You blew it.