The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

"The reason I'm not a sede is more to do with the big yellow streak going down my back and nothing at all to do with being a fan of the NO Church.
And may I add. the postings of many here also restrain me."

the salvation of your soul does hang on your decision

tornpage wrote:

the salvation of your soul does hang on your decision

I don't think so.

I think both sedes in good faith, like John Lane and others, and neocons who swear by the V2 popes, could be saved if they are wrong as to the factual question of whether the pope is truly the pope. If you cite any Catholic dogma to either, they will affirm their belief in it.

tornpage wrote:Lourdes,

Did you say you want me actually to back it up?

That sounds like a foul. Umpire?

tornpage wrote:Lourdes,

I know you meant no harm. I was joking.

I'll see if I can at least find someone else's supported argument on that score.

Lourdes wrote:
I meant no harm in my post. What I mean is can you back up what you have written with doctrinal texts? That if I am in doubt about the popes being the popes and not convinced fully that they aren't, and I walk away from the Church to go to a sede chapel, that I won't lose my soul.

columba wrote:

Lourdes wrote:
I meant no harm in my post. What I mean is can you back up what you have written with doctrinal texts? That if I am in doubt about the popes being the popes and not convinced fully that they aren't, and I walk away from the Church to go to a sede chapel, that I won't lose my soul.

If one were to still refer to it as "The Church" while walking away from it then, "Houston, we have a problem."
One would necessarily be walking away because they believe it is NOT the Church.

How can anyone be morally certain that the popes are not popes and that the Church is no longer the Church? How could anyone know for sure that the VII pontiffs had a malicious intent to destroy the Church and supplant the Faith with one of their own making?

It is nice to find someone whom you can trust who is intelligent and knowleable to boot. We have someone here that meets that bill is MRyan. This is why I have engaged him on explicit faith - because of my doubts, and the need for sifting on these huge questions.

(2) CAN A POPE BE IN SCHISM?

A schismatic is by definition a Christian separated from Rome and rejecting the sovereign authority of the Pope, so it would at first sight seem to be impossible. Yet the possibility – in theory at least – of a Pope being in schism is admitted by theologians on similar grounds as apply to heresy, with certain additional ones belonging to the realm of psychology, of affective orientations. A Pope can, like ordinary people, be torn between his duty on the one hand and personal ambition, or the service of some other power – or ideology – on the other. The possibility of his failing in his duty for such a reason was envisaged both by Suarez and Bellarmine; their discussion has indeed a very up-to-date ring about it. Today, with the benefit of direct clinical observation, we can distinguish three grades of papal schism:

AFFECTIVE SCHISM (manifested in feelings and attitudes). Such would be the case of a Pope turning against his own flock, even perhaps excommunicating the lot, or the most loyal among them, for no lawful reason, and acting generally like an unnatural father who disinherits his own children, showing affection and friendship only towards strangers.

EFFECTIVE SCHISM. Such would be the case of a Pope manifesting unconcern for, even disgust with, the traditional rites and institutions of the Church. If a Pope were to discard the heritage of the ages and replace it with a whole lot of novelties – a new liturgy, new canon law, new pastoral methods and new dogmatic formulations – he would be in a state of schism against the Papacy of ages past, and hence against the Church of the Apostles.

ABSOLUTE SCHISM. There remains the third stage, which we have termed "absolute schism", when the Pope abandons altogether his sacred function – the service of the Church and care of his flock, and concern with men’s supernatural welfare generally – and devotes himself instead entirely to other matters, such as the enrichment of his family or his City, or to making diplomatic contacts and increasing his popularity with Heads of State. Or he could take up another religion, or devote himself to a utopian, all-embracing religion of the future, seeking even to turn the Church into one of its constituent units. One could then speak of a rupture between the Pope and his people, between the Vicar of Christ and the Lord Himself.

There have been a few such cases in the past, but, like those of heresy, they must be classed as relatively minor deviations which serve, however, to forewarn the Church of what might come – of what has come to pass in our own day, the beginning of the Great Apostasy foretold by the Scriptures?

Lourdes wrote:
Columba, from my extensive research in this matter, it is my understanding that a pope such as you ask about would immediately lose his office and that it only be left up to the Church to declare what had already taken place. My memory is hazy, but I think that this is what St. Robert Bellarmine said.

I haven't read much of the Abbe de Nantes' writings since I never cared for either him nor his "Phalange" or whatever it is they call themselves. I used to get their periodical in the nineties and could never make heads or tails out of it. I found them strange.

Here is a question for you: where are the four marks of the Church? Are they still in the Church and just so buried that they are no longer obvious? I do not see any unity of faith. Do you?

him being a heretic before being elected pope which would mean his election was invalid.

I'm not convinced by their arguments but at the same time I can't be convinced by my own arguments either, even though there be so many of the popes teachings that I cannot (in my own mind) reconcile with traditional Church teaching.
The other troubling factor is that of him being a heretic before being elected pope which would mean his election was invalid. There are as many (if not more) perceived heresies in his pre-papal writings than those of his pontificat.

In answer I say that I cannot find any of the four marks in the post-conciliar Church. I don't see it as ONE, with so many divisions and ambiguities in belief.
I don't see it as HOLY, with it's failure to provide to the faithful the untarnished means of holiness via the sacraments and most alarmingly through the Mass which now has become the very means by which the loss of faith of many has occurred.
I don't see it as CATHOLIC with its now many different paths to salvation.
I don't see it as APOSTOLIC, with its focus on novelty and ecumenism to the detriment of tradition and loyalty to the perennial teachings derived from the Deposit of Faith.

These Four Marks are either buried beneath the rubble of the above, or, they are not to be found in the conciliar Church at all but elsewhere where the True Church may yet exist undefiled.

As St Thomas said, "A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all." so I often wonder is a doubtful Church no Church at all, being that the Church herself is the sacrament of the faithful? And what level of personal conviction can one accept regarding these questions in order to make their own judgement, especially when no one of Divine authority will stand up and address the concerns of millions of the faithful?

tornpage wrote:

him being a heretic before being elected pope which would mean his election was invalid.

Yes, that would be where I come down on this. JPII didn't start believing, for example, that Jews and Muslims could be saved practicing in their religious traditions and "without recognizing Christ" only after he was elevated. Ditto with BXVI.

The faith of a valid pope would never fail (MRyan, by way of St. Robert Bellarmine).