Do both Sedes & Neoconservatives believe that every act of Governing & Ambiguous Teaching of Vatican II Popes & other Popes such as Pope John XXII are Infallible contrary to Vatican I?
- LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."
- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents." - The Catholic Monitor
Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis and others who it appears are "proximate to heresy":
"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions."
"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14) - The Catholic Monitor
There is a difference between "material" heresy and "formal" heresy. A Pope can be a "material" heretic -- i.e. he can actually hold personal heretical views (as did John XXII) since a Pope is only infallible when making Ex Cathedra statements to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals.
HOWEVER, a Pope cannot be considered a formal heretic until/unless a duly formed juridical body within the Church examines his alleged "heresies" and requests a retraction or repudiation of any of his positions which are actually found to be contrary to Church doctrine, and only -- if then -- such a Pope refuses to repudiate and/or correct his personally held beliefs.
If such a Pope were to recant his errors and repent of them in such a circumstance, he is not a formal heretic. - Gloria.tv [https://gloria.tv/post/ccfWZin62bJ13DBwFas3Gwojt/replies]
[The Catholic Monitor wonders if Sedevacantists and Neoconservatives are united and of one mind on one belief:]
Do both Sedes and Neoconservatives both believe that every act of governing and ambiguous teaching of Vatican II popes and other popes such as Pope John XXII are infallible contrary to Vatican I?
Is it possible that Sedes and Neoconservatives may be infallibly definitely united and of one mind on this
- This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.
Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives
Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?
Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html] - The Catholic Monitor comment section [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/a-catholic-monitor-discussion-on.html]
The Catholic Monitor would like to recommend Fr. Paul Kramer's book "On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio" to Sedevacantists on the difference between Francis and Pope Benedict XVI:
On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio Paperback – November 15, 2021...
This volume also presents a summary of the main points of the Catholic doctrine on papal heresy in a compressed form, with new material and arguments explaining points which were only touched upon in the first volume, such as the essential distinction between episcopal and papal authority, so as to make the Church’s doctrine on the question of papal heresy more easily and clearly understandable.
(Soft cover edition) [https://www.amazon.com/true-false-pope-against-Bergoglio/dp/1945658266]
Next, as all Catholic Monitor (CM) readers know the CM comment section has been having a lively ongoing discussion with Sedevacantists and Francis advocates who are possibly Traditionalists as well as conservatives (Neoconservatives) for the last few weeks. Below are discussions where some of the above quotes were taken from: