who was at the council 325?

[Jude Thaddeus]

First, I was referring to the development of the marriage of altar and throne only. Lol. As a RC I would think you would agree given the many controversies including the investure controversy as well as the Eastern emperors’ meddling in the election/acclamation of the Bishop of Rome (Pope of or in Rome however you want to describe) to name a few. It comes down to what you mean by development of doctrine. The christological developments of the first four councils I accept on account of the teaching of Holy Scripture. I accept the notion that the christological findings of the councils are a legitimate development because their teaching in regards to the same are present and the explanation is due to the various controversies that came up in history. There are various ways of explaining Scriptural teachings because they are clearly present in scripture.

What I reject and condemn are innovations that strain the bonds of credulity that are then expounded across centuries of development such as the doctrine of Purgatory. So if you wish to debate Purgatory, first define what you mean. Is it the Pre Tridentine doctrine, or the Tridentine version as taught by the council of Trent? As explained by Bellermine and Andrada or the softer and kinder version as taught by Benedict the 16th or even Francis I? The reason I ask for clarification is the ECF, specifically the Ante-Nicene fathers have numerous views. Which I would add contradict each other and I propose are pious opinions.

So you know I was catechized in an SSPV church which I acknowledge is not the same position you are coming from. But I have a better understanding of purgatory than the average Protestant that you will run into on this Wild West of forums.

So in case you haven’t read the former
-I accept legitimate developments as described above
-I reject doctrinal developments such as Purgatory as well as the notion of Merit, Superogation, the Romish Sacremental system, doctrine of the Mass, treasury of Merit, and expiation of temporal sin in purgatory. Not to mention Penances as well indulgences and the like.
-my advice is to start a new thread to discuss as we are getting too far away from the doctrine affirmed by the creed of I Nicea. I can start it or you can. Just let me know.

I suggest you start your own church.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Have you ever come across one of those Protestant sectarians who, finding heretics on all sides, has reduced authentic Christianity to just himself? Everyone else has it wrong—certainly the historic churches but just as certainly the denominations he used to be part of. One by one he became disenchanted with them, serially leaving one church for an even smaller church, until at length it was just himself and another fellow, whom he discovered to be as foul a heretic as he had ever met.

That left our sectarian alone but confident that he had settled in the true religion—confident, but not at peace, because now he saw that the whole world was wrong. He was frustrated that no one saw the truth as he saw it. No one saw the truth at all. “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10). He didn’t find himself in Thomas Hobbes’ “war of all against all” but in a war of “one against all,” and he was the one.

It made for a lonely life: the crushing burden, knowing that he alone was the carrier of full truth; the sorrow, seeing that no one would follow his lead; the compromises, having to compartmentalize his faith to get by even minimally in society; the sidelong glances that came from one-time friends, the cruel jests from neighborhood children, the incapacity of his own children to see him as he saw himself.

Such is the ultimate Protestant sectarian, the man who has ridden his logic to its limit—where he may be startled to bump into a Catholic analogue, such as Gerry Matatics.

A convert to the Catholic faith from a strict form of Presbyterianism, Matatics went through several subsequent “conversions”: from conservative Catholic to Traditionalist, then to sedevacantist, and now, apparently, to a church of one.

He has a website that, on its main page, has four articles. One has been there, unchanged, since 2009 and two more since 2006. Only one slot has changed with any regularity. It is the slot in which he hawks upcoming audio recordings. His latest offering, posted on January 31, is a series of 25 talks under the rubric “Riding the Train of Truth All the Way to the End of the Line.” He says that the series “enables you to make the case that the authentic alternative to Vatican II Catholicism is NOT the unauthorized, illicit, anarchic, and sacrilegious scene at the chapels served by the illicitly ordained (i.e., in the post-Vatican II era) ‘traditionalist’ priests and bishops, whether of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, or independent variety.”

(In case these acronyms are unfamiliar to you: SSPX is the Society of St. Pius X, the Lefebvrist group; SSPV is the Society of St. Pius V, a sedevacantist offshoot of the SSPX; CMRI is the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, a sedevacantist group started by illicitly ordained bishop Robert McKenna.)

Matatics used to attend SSPX chapels, but he became disaffected when he concluded that the SSPX wasn’t forthright in condemning the vernacular Mass as invalid. He traced the invalidity to the now-supplanted translation of pro multis as “for all.” That, he thought, made the Mass invalid and those who approved of it, or even tolerated it, heretics. He became a full-blown sedevacantist but soon discovered that each sedevacantist group was wrong too:

“The lack of the necessary mission and jurisdiction (and in some cases, even the lack of validity) characteristic of these pseudo-traditionalist sects (all of which ironically trample upon tradition in the very name of tradition!)—and the dire spiritual consequences of this lack—are fully explained [in his new talks] from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, from magisterial teaching, and from canon law.”

Like the Protestant sectarian who became his own church, Matatics did his homework. He investigated the ever-smaller groups he joined or was tempted to join, until he found that none of them would suffice. He holds no grudge against people who still belong to them:

“I don’t question either the intelligence, the sincerity, or the spirituality of those who attend such chapels; I attended them myself, for years, before I researched this matter more carefully. I am quite sure that, for the most part, those who attend such chapels do so precisely because they want to be ‘law-abiding, faithful Catholics during the current crisis.’ Nevertheless, I believe that, objectively speaking, they ought not to be attending them, and that once they are shown the relevant information, those who are of good will—not without an anguished struggle, I’m sure—will realize they can no longer do so.”

They ought not to attend these chapels, just as he does not attend them. They should follow his example and his line of reasoning: There no longer is any chapel worthy to attend. There no longer is a valid episcopacy. There no longer are valid priests. This means there no longer is a Mass. All one can do is to honor one’s Sunday obligation as he does, by staying home and reciting the rosary and other prayers with one’s family. What else is possible in a world where everyone else is wrong? What else is possible when no one else sees the light?
source

 

[Athanasius377]

I suggest you start your own church.

I am doing just fine with the church I have attended for the last 20 years thank you very much.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

"the marriage of altar and throne" is the language of Modernism, that Pius X condemned.

Sedevacantism (from the Latin words sede vacante, or “empty chair”) is the theory that the See of Peter is vacant, and that this explains current problems in the papacy and the Church. The attraction of the theory is that it relieves us of the burden of obedience to the alleged pope, who (according to the theory) is not really a pope at all.

I thought I had treated this thoroughly in the past, but when I looked back, I found I had only touched the surface of the problem in my 2013 essay, Sedevacantism: A Conspiracy to Waste Your Time. Since the theory has cropped up again in certain circles—for the fifth time in my lifetime alone!—perhaps I should apply the coup de grace. For not only is sedevacantism a theory typically advanced with genuinely foolish arguments (which was my main point in 2013) but it also strikes a serious blow against what makes the Catholic Church special. It attacks what we call the Authority Principle.

The Principle of Authority in Religion

The question of spiritual authority plagues (or ought to plague) all religions. In the first place, the problem of authority causes intelligent observers to reject immediately the reliability of any religion which does not claim to be revealed by God. If we confine ourselves, then, to those religions which do claim to be revealed by God, we run into a second problem with authority. Even if the initiating Revelation is credible—that is, attested by signs and wonders that can come only from God—how do we know that the religion or church which claims to carry on this revelation can be trusted to elucidate and interpret it correctly over time?

The question of authority lies at the very core of religious belief because, first, we cannot know much about God and His Plan unless He reveals it and, second, we cannot intelligently accept as authentic any custodian of this Revelation unless it can establish its claim to preserve, explicate and interpret the Revelation without error over time. Yes, I know that many people are slipshod in their methods, accepting all sorts of alleged authority without raising intelligent questions. Nonetheless, when put to the test, the question of this authority is paramount.

This is so true that it would be ridiculous to suppose God would claim to complete a self-Revelation in history without finding a way to secure that Revelation against the ravages of human confusion over time. What, after all, would be the point?

Now: It so happens that the Catholic Church is unique among all religions in that it contains within it what we call an “authority principle”. This principle guarantees the veracity of its teaching down through the ages, long after the original Revelation was received. This is so important that any serious reflection upon it enables us to understand immediately that the lack of such an authority principle, in any religion, is a very serious problem indeed.

As a matter of historical confirmation, we can see the difference between having an authority principle and not having one, even within Christianity, by comparing Catholicism to Protestantism. Even casual observers can see that Protestantism has, in its various forms, changed its teachings and beliefs in significant ways, quite literally hundreds of times if not thousands, with the necessary effect that the various sects disagree significantly with each other on even the most central points of faith and morals.

Clearly, this will not do.

The Catholic Authority Principle

The authority principle in Catholicism consists of Christ’s establishment of the Petrine authority, by which the successors of Peter confirm their brethren in the Faith until Christ comes again at the end of time. This principle is rooted in the prayer and promise of Christ, as preserved in Scripture (e.g., Mt 16:18-19; Lk 22:31-32; Jn 21:15-17; Acts 15:7-12) and in Tradition, and as articulated and exercised consistently from the very first by the Church Christ established to bring His salvation to the ends of the earth. It is just this that is the unique claim of the Catholic Church.

When it comes to reliance on the authority principle, it is also vital that Catholics know exactly when it is in active operation, and when it is not. Catholics have always believed, and the Church has defined this clearly, that the vicars of Christ on earth speak infallibly, with the full authority of Christ, whenever they
(a) teach
(b) on a matter of faith or morals
(c) to the whole Church
(d) by virtue of their supreme Petrine authority.

This guarantee is sufficient to its purpose, which is to maintain integrity of Divine teaching within the Church until Christ’s return. Its essence is that the Pope cannot bind the whole Church to error, and so Christ’s promise to be with the Church until the end of time cannot turn out to be a lie.

The teaching authority of the Pope, then, is guaranteed in its clear and specific operations, by the same Holy Spirit who guarantees the veracity of Scripture itself. To effect its purpose—which is, obviously, to ensure that the Catholic Church remains essentially credible throughout history—it need not be any stronger or more complicated than it is, nor can it be any less.

Notice, then, that this authority principle instituted by Christ, and unique to Catholicism, has been Divinely established without any guarantee that popes will be good men, intelligent men, clear thinkers, or free from confusion, personal errors, and even sinful and scandalous behavior. None of these inevitable human shortcomings affects the authority principle in the slightest. When any pope makes formally clear that he is deliberately “confirming the brethren” in their faith, the truth of his statement is kept free from error by God Himself. Nothing more, and nothing less, is guaranteed, or needs to be guaranteed, in a Church necessarily made up of sinners.

continued...

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Sedevacantism

The possibility of the active exercise of the authority principle exists, therefore, only when there is a pope in office. The impossibility of its exercise exists, in other words, only when the See of Peter is vacant, and it is just this that brings us to sedevacantism.

The only time the See of Peter can be known to be vacant is during an interregnum, if the Church has not yet elected a successor in accordance with the provisions put into effect by the last pope who modified those provisions. While there could be (and has been) temporary confusion about the existence or outcome of a papal election in periods when rival bodies of cardinals purported to elect alternative popes—and full accounts of the situation were impeded by slow or unreliable communications—it is hard to imagine a case in which such confusion could arise even temporarily in the era of constant news coverage and instant communications.

In any case, we can always tell when the papacy becomes vacant owing to either death or resignation, both of which are possible. And we can always tell whether the next pope has been elected or not and, if so, when, and who he is. Apart from these questions, there is no possibility of the See of Peter being vacant. We may easily admit the fact that the See of Peter is, at some times, vacant. But we cannot accord the same veracity to sedevacantism when it becomes a theory.

The theory of sedevacantism is a ridiculous intellectual tool, used by those who do not like what they see in a particular pope (whether for good or bad reasons), in order to proclaim that one of the following conclusions is true:

• The ideas held or the actions taken by an ostensible pope prove that he cannot have been elected at all (which can be easily checked); (or)
• By virtue of the ideas an alleged pope holds or the actions he takes, he has proven he could not be validly elected (which is nonsensical, there being no such conditions); (or)
• For the same reasons, the alleged pope has ceased to be pope (which is impossible without death or resignation).

This is why I have sometimes characterized sedevacantism as a way some people have of ignoring a pope they do not like. This is true whether or not they dislike him for good or bad reasons. But perhaps it is better to say the theory is a way people have of making themselves comfortable again in the face of a pope they find insupportable. Yet no such comforts are promised by God to any Christian. The tests of fidelity we all face are as many and varied as the human weaknesses on which they depend.
The principle of private judgment at work

The astute reader will see in an instant that any such judgment is a private judgment. For one reason or another, we conclude—based on our own judgment of a pope’s character or impact on the Church or faith or morals—that this person who calls himself “the pope” has either ceased to be the pope or must never really have been the pope. We decide this, then, not by the historical fact of his election, but based on our own fallible reading of another person’s character, our own deficient understanding of faith and morals, and our own presumptuous determination of what God will or will not permit to happen in his Church.

But what God will or will not permit is very clear. He will not permit the vicar of Christ to bind the whole Church to error through an official Magisterial act. Beyond that, He will permit—and has repeatedly permitted—every kind of evil in the men who have been elected to the papacy, for the simple reason that nothing else invalidates His own promises to be with the Church. When we go beyond this guarantee—when we insist that such-and-such a situation is so bad that the supposed occupant of the See of Peter is obviously not a real pope at all—we are simply exercising our own private judgment.

But all such private judgments make us...Protestants. We deny the reality and sufficiency of the authority principle which is unique to Catholicism, in favor of trusting our own judgment (whether from otherwise excellent motives or horrible ones). And in doing so, we throw into question whether we can ever really be obliged to recognize and obey a particular vicar of Christ or not.

Indeed, the sedevacantist theory is really one more form of Protestantism, most commonly a Traditionalist form (Traditionalist separatism, by the way, is very like Protestant separatism). WE see that this alleged papacy is insupportable. It is OBVIOUS TO US (based on whatever criteria we declare entirely on our own to be certain). Therefore, we KNOW that this pope is an impostor, and we reject his authority.

Congratulations to all who do this! They have succeeded in setting up a new religion, just as Luther did. But they have not chosen to base it on a Divine certainty. They have forgotten a wise observation made by a most unlikely critic of the Church. When a young admirer came to Voltaire in great excitement about starting a new religion, Voltaire brought him up short: “If you want to start a new religion,” he said, “begin by getting yourself killed, and then rise again on the third day.”

Suffering under a bad pope is far preferable to sedevacantism. The damage a bad pope can do is limited by Divine decree. The damage we ourselves can do is not.

source

 

[Athanasius377]

Have you ever come across one of those Protestant sectarians who, finding heretics on all sides, has reduced authentic Christianity to just himself? Everyone else has it wrong—certainly the historic churches but just as certainly the denominations he used to be part of. One by one he became disenchanted with them, serially leaving one church for an even smaller church, until at length it was just himself and another fellow, whom he discovered to be as foul a heretic as he had ever met.

That left our sectarian alone but confident that he had settled in the true religion—confident, but not at peace, because now he saw that the whole world was wrong. He was frustrated that no one saw the truth as he saw it. No one saw the truth at all. “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10). He didn’t find himself in Thomas Hobbes’ “war of all against all” but in a war of “one against all,” and he was the one.

It made for a lonely life: the crushing burden, knowing that he alone was the carrier of full truth; the sorrow, seeing that no one would follow his lead; the compromises, having to compartmentalize his faith to get by even minimally in society; the sidelong glances that came from one-time friends, the cruel jests from neighborhood children, the incapacity of his own children to see him as he saw himself.

Such is the ultimate Protestant sectarian, the man who has ridden his logic to its limit—where he may be startled to bump into a Catholic analogue, such as Gerry Matatics.

A convert to the Catholic faith from a strict form of Presbyterianism, Matatics went through several subsequent “conversions”: from conservative Catholic to Traditionalist, then to sedevacantist, and now, apparently, to a church of one.

He has a website that, on its main page, has four articles. One has been there, unchanged, since 2009 and two more since 2006. Only one slot has changed with any regularity. It is the slot in which he hawks upcoming audio recordings. His latest offering, posted on January 31, is a series of 25 talks under the rubric “Riding the Train of Truth All the Way to the End of the Line.” He says that the series “enables you to make the case that the authentic alternative to Vatican II Catholicism is NOT the unauthorized, illicit, anarchic, and sacrilegious scene at the chapels served by the illicitly ordained (i.e., in the post-Vatican II era) ‘traditionalist’ priests and bishops, whether of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, or independent variety.”

(In case these acronyms are unfamiliar to you: SSPX is the Society of St. Pius X, the Lefebvrist group; SSPV is the Society of St. Pius V, a sedevacantist offshoot of the SSPX; CMRI is the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, a sedevacantist group started by illicitly ordained bishop Robert McKenna.)

Matatics used to attend SSPX chapels, but he became disaffected when he concluded that the SSPX wasn’t forthright in condemning the vernacular Mass as invalid. He traced the invalidity to the now-supplanted translation of pro multis as “for all.” That, he thought, made the Mass invalid and those who approved of it, or even tolerated it, heretics. He became a full-blown sedevacantist but soon discovered that each sedevacantist group was wrong too:

“The lack of the necessary mission and jurisdiction (and in some cases, even the lack of validity) characteristic of these pseudo-traditionalist sects (all of which ironically trample upon tradition in the very name of tradition!)—and the dire spiritual consequences of this lack—are fully explained [in his new talks] from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, from magisterial teaching, and from canon law.”

Like the Protestant sectarian who became his own church, Matatics did his homework. He investigated the ever-smaller groups he joined or was tempted to join, until he found that none of them would suffice. He holds no grudge against people who still belong to them:

“I don’t question either the intelligence, the sincerity, or the spirituality of those who attend such chapels; I attended them myself, for years, before I researched this matter more carefully. I am quite sure that, for the most part, those who attend such chapels do so precisely because they want to be ‘law-abiding, faithful Catholics during the current crisis.’ Nevertheless, I believe that, objectively speaking, they ought not to be attending them, and that once they are shown the relevant information, those who are of good will—not without an anguished struggle, I’m sure—will realize they can no longer do so.”

They ought not to attend these chapels, just as he does not attend them. They should follow his example and his line of reasoning: There no longer is any chapel worthy to attend. There no longer is a valid episcopacy. There no longer are valid priests. This means there no longer is a Mass. All one can do is to honor one’s Sunday obligation as he does, by staying home and reciting the rosary and other prayers with one’s family. What else is possible in a world where everyone else is wrong? What else is possible when no one else sees the light?
source

I agree. The SSPV is full of people just like Gerry. Which is one of the reasons I left. That and the fact the church/mass center/chapel, whatever you want to call it was very cultish. I mean that in a negative way. More over, the Sedevacantist position is simply untenable. Simply put, no Pope, no Roman church. The Papacy is THE tradition in the Roman system. Gerry is a cautionary tale to be sure. I can’t speak to the SSPX but Daniel Dolan’s group was just north of Cincinnati. I don’t remember what group they were with, maybe CMR? But it was very similar to the SSPV.

I agree, you don’t get to pick and choose from the Roman position.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I agree. The SSPV is full of people just like Gerry. Which is one of the reasons I left. That and the fact the church/mass center/chapel, whatever you want to call it was very cultish. I mean that in a negative way. More over, the Sedevacantist position is simply untenable. Simply put, no Pope, no Roman church. The Papacy is THE tradition in the Roman system. Gerry is a cautionary tale to be sure. I can’t speak to the SSPX but Daniel Dolan’s group was just north of Cincinnati. I don’t remember what group they were with, maybe CMR? But it was very similar to the SSPV.

I agree, you don’t get to pick and choose from the Roman position.

Catholics are free to disagree, we are not free to rebel.