Some converts to Catholicism are very smart, which is ironic. Striking that smart guys are so easily suckered by such a transparent scam. The way they act, it doesn't matter if what the pope teaches 99% of the time is false, if what cardinals, bishops, priests, Catholic college and seminary profs. teach 100% is false, so long as it's not stamped "official".
Doesn't matter how morally corrupt the clergy are, from top to bottom (case in point: priestly abuse scandal).
All that matters is having this empty shell of the One True Church®.
And even the infallibilist caveat is a scam, because that caveat is circular. If a pope or council says something manifestly wrong, then that doesn't disprove infallibility–that just goes to show they weren't speaking infallibly on that particular occasion. So even in principle, there can never be any evidence that falsifies the infallibilist claim.
The church can never officially contradict dogma or de fide teaching, so any reversal on doctrine or policy is, by definition, unofficial, was never dogma, never de fide in the first place. Once again, no evidence can ever count against the claim. Like Hume on miracles or methodological atheism.
All this intellectual effort and passion in defending a hollow shell of a church, with enough loopholes to shield their paradigm from any possible disproof. A classic cult member mentality.
Recently, as I was debating two Catholics, I cited this article:
Here are two successive popes who worked together for 25 years. Both attended the council. Both were players at the council. If they can't agree on what it means, where does that leave a less informed reader? Plus, Benedict 16 has revised his interpretation over the years.
Catholic apologists routinely attack sola scriptura by asking, "What's the point of an infallible Bible without an infallible interpretation?" Hence, the dire need for the Magisterium.
Well, by that logic, what's the point of an infallible council without an infallible interpretation? Can any Catholic show me where to find the correct interpretation of Vatican II? Where's the official commentary?
Of course, the reason for divergent interpretations of Vatican II is largely due to built-in ambiguity. It's a consensus document. Things are worded to give different factions elbow room. To get votes from competing parties. So the meaning of Vatican II is inherently uncertain, although it clearly represents a dramatic departure from tradition in crucial respects.
I've noticed this pattern too in online debate with intelligent Catholic apologists. If I appeal to Scriptural principles like "by their fruit you shall know them" in relationship to the history of the Papacy, or show that in practice the Magisterium gives no clear interpretation on important questions, I'll get responses in terms of legal small-print. i.e. Responses which satisfy people who like, and deal in, legal small-print; but which are practically useless for any pew Catholic who wanted to know how to please God and who lacks time to study how to become a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteThis is an amazing summary Steve. I wrote a while back about "Pope Paul VI" having a copy of "The Naked and the Dead" on his bookshelf. I wonder if he saw this sort of thing coming even back then. He'd have been in a position to know.
ReplyDelete"Well, by that logic, what's the point of an infallible council without an infallible interpretation? Can any Catholic show me where to find the correct interpretation of Vatican II? Where's the official commentary?"
ReplyDeleteThis lack of clarity was the whole point of Vatican II, because Vatian II was not Catholic. It was a council called by a modernist, most likely invalidly elected (there is strong circumstantional evidence that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958, but forced to resign resignation under duress is invalid which would make John XXIII's election null and void) and previously suspected of heresy. Various groups and figures within Freemasonry wrote a long time before Vatican II that they need their own council and their own Pope to destroy the Church from within, and they eventually got both. The documents of Vatican II, especially Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio and Dignitatis Humanae, contain from thinly-veiled heresies to ambiguous statements which allows modernists to get away with it by claiming that the problem is merely "misinterpretation of the Council" rather than modernist errors the documents contain. This is why they refuse to clarify Vatican II - to be able to obscure what they did there and slowly change the teaching of the Church.
Also, Vatican II is the first Ecumenical Council in the history which a priori excluded the possibility of dogmatic declaration or condemnation, which in itself is strong ground for considering Vatican II to be invalid, which Fr Hesse explained very well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI
Not to mention that every formal heretic is outside the Church the moment he falls into formal heresy, even if he sits in the Vatican or wears Cardinal's hat - it does not matter, since membership in the Church is supernatural. So, if John XXIII, Paul VI and current apostate bishops are indeed formal heretics, they were/are not members of the Catholic Church and whatever they teach or promulgate with putative Magisterial authority is null and void.
So it seems to you as if the gates of hell have prevailed, eh? There's no longer any pope or any good bishops left to be "magisterium" nor any unbroken succession. And you are confirming the bulk of Steve's post here. Of course, to them, you are the Protestant.
Delete"So it seems to you as if the gates of hell have prevailed, eh? There's no longer any pope or any good bishops left to be "magisterium" nor any unbroken succession."
DeleteOf course there are bishops left - if a specific bishop is not a heretic, he can validly excercise his office, plus there are also Traditional Catholic bishops (albeit without formal jurisdiction). Also, Papal interregnum is not inconsistent with the Apostolic Succession. If Bergoglio is not a Pope, there are many ways a new Pope can still be elected (calling an imperfect Council or direct intervention of Heaven - predicted in some private revelations - are just few of the possibilities).
"And you are confirming the bulk of Steve's post here."
Steve claims that Vatican II denies Catholic epistemology. I point out that it was meant to try that, because it was a non-Catholic heretical council and it was promulgated by non-Catholics. It has no more authority than Arian councils in the 4th century, and thus is not an argument against Catholicism.
"Of course, to them, you are the Protestant."
If they are formal heretics, they are outside the Church and their opinion is utterly irrelevant. St. Athanasius was a heretic to Arians, but the opinion of Arians was irrelevant either, since they abandoned true faith and ceased to be members of the Church.
There is nobody among the handful of bishops that you point to who is an Athanasius or Gregory of Nazianzus. You are not just shy one pope. You are shy about 60 years worth of popes and counting. And you can pick a private revelation, any private revelation ... any one of them could be valid, right?
Delete"There is nobody among the handful of bishops that you point to who is an Athanasius or Gregory of Nazianzus."
DeleteAs long as there are valid bishops who have jurisdiction and true faith, there is Apostolic Succession, which you tried to deny. And yes, someone like Archbishop Lefebvre - who effectively saved the Latin Mass and rejected the errors of Vatican II - is certainly St. Athanasius of our times.
"You are not just shy one pope. You are shy about 60 years worth of popes and counting."
So what? This situation is not contrary to Catholic teaching in any way.
"And you can pick a private revelation, any private revelation ... any one of them could be valid, right?"
Of course we don't treat private revelations dogmatically, but if they are approved by the Church (which guarantees they contain nothing contrary to the faith) or come from sources such as the Saints or Beatified Catholics they are more worthy of consideration than other ones.
https://twitter.com/studyofchrist/status/911765657749823493
DeleteOn twitter you asserted that "sede being correct means Catholicism is wrong". This statement asserts that the possibiity of sedevacantism does deny Catholic teaching in one way or another. To the contrary, sedevacantism upholds the dogmatic teaching of the Church that heretic is not a member of the Church and removes himself from the Church and any office ipso facto by becoming a formal heretic. Also, that means that there is no contradiction in Catholic teaching, because Vatican II and post-Vatican II teaching are simply not Catholic and do not have any Magisterial authority.
Delete///Vatican II and post-Vatican II teaching are simply not Catholic and do not have any Magisterial authority///
DeleteBy what method are you verifying this? They've got "the bishops in communion with Peter". The only thing that you've given us is your vague sense that somehow you will be vindicated when it all gets sorted out.
"Where's the official commentary?"
ReplyDeleteWhere would we find the commentary on the commentary...?
///Where would we find the commentary on the commentary...?///
ReplyDeleteBut here's the key. Rome has THE LIVING MAGISTERIUM who can always, at any given moment, give you the correct (or at least the in-vogue) interpretation.
We can private message the pope whenever we have a question! :-)
DeleteJohn,
DeleteThat gets to my point. The dot dot dot was intended to mean ad infinitum. Given Rome’s insistence of the need for an infallible magisterium to settle doctrinal disputes, any commentary they might offer for their interpretation of Scripture may not be seen as being more clear than Scripture. It too opens the door for the need for further elaboration, commentary upon commentary... And as Steve notes, we can’t just IM the pope anyway. Even if we could, good luck getting him to give an interpretation from the chair.
Few observations on Rome’s dilemma regarding perspicuity. Epistles written to the church presuppose the perspicuity of Scripture for the laity.
Given the Rome’s view of the ineffectiveness of Scripture to settle doctrinal disputes, the conclusion of an infallible magisterium rests 100% upon Rome’s claim - even for their claim about the magisterium, which itself is a doctrinal claim. If they appeal to Scripture, they undermine the necessity of the magisterium for such matters.
Why should we believe it is more difficult to reconcile James with Paul than it is for a RC to reconcile Vatican ii with Trent? After all, Protestans have no problem reconciling James with Paul, whereas Vatican ii and Trent often contradict each other, even to many professing Roman Catholics (who typically but not always opt for the new face of Rome.)
In reality, Rome doesn’t deny the clarity of Scripture. Even Marian doctrine is alleged to come from Scripture. They deny that *laity* can interpret Scripture aright. They’re protecting their subjects, and in the process placing an iron curtain between them and the true mercy seat.
Yeah Ron, I was just piling on. In theory, "the living magisterium" will always tell you the right thing -- and they will not tell you anything that will imperil your soul. Now, you've got one side of the "Amoris Laetitia" crowd saying one thing, another saying another, a pope hinting that the wrong "interpretation" is really his interpretation ("Go see Schonborn -- he says it's development and he says it's the right interpretation"). He is vindictively replacing conservative clerics with liberal ones at all levels of the organization.
DeleteAll of this is multi-faceted. Pre-Vatican II Rome is one thing; the post-Vatican II Rome is yet another thing, and now Bergoglio is throwing out the balance that "built-in ambiguity", which was supposed to give "each side" its due. But Bergoglio is pedal to the metal, headed left, "in the spirit of Vatican II".
“Yeah Ron, I was just piling on.“
ReplyDeleteThought that might be the case. ��
Like my David Armstrong hat?
Doesn’t show the Tex emoji... :(
DeleteOh well ...
Delete