Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Council

Gen Z Catholic made a four part video against Sedevacantism : his overview of the history omits Pope Michael I · Do I Believe the Papacy At All? Yes. · Gen Z Catholic's Video, a Dialogue · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part I, What Would St. Robert Really Say? · Can the Proposed Defense For "united himself to each man" stand? No · Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part II, Misreading Documents, Are We? · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Council · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Orders

Same video as in historic overview.

17:29, Paris time, 12.I. I may be too much plagued by a severe cold to watch and comment. I am not procrastinating this any more. / Next day, nearly good, but only came so many minutes further.

1:03:34 A moment please ...

You may not often hear Sedes explain why Vatican II never was a council. But part of it is, it's taken for granted that "John XXIII" being already a non-Pope, he had no authority to convoke a council, part of it is, one presumes there is a possibility of judging the council by its fruits AND part of it is, there is a theory by even non-Sedes, like Mgr Lefebvre, about why this happened.

Have you read Iota Unum?

Romano Amerio
Iota Unum
Etudes des variations de l'Eglise catholique au XX° siècle

Amerio's essays were praised by traditional scholars in the Church, although they came at a difficult time for him because of the then-public conflict between archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X and Pope Paul VI. As such, his 1980s research and books were largely ignored and neglected by leaders inside the institutional Church but have been revived and received new respect in recent years.[1] Amerio died in 1997.

Amerio is thought to have been at least partially rehabilitated during the papacy of Benedict XVI. Thus Caritas in Veritate, a 2009 encyclical dedicated to Charity and Truth, explores ideas and concepts that were at the very heart of Amerio's theological and philosophical career.[2]

At the beginning of the council, there were at least two ruptures of Conciliar Legality that John XXIII (if such) contributed to violate.

1) A convocation not for any cause like
a) doctrine (condemning a heresy)
b) union (healing a schism)
c) reformation (abolishing abuses).

2) Overriding Church law to accomodate to a majority which was insufficient to effectuate what it intended.

On Romano's view, this meant that the Conciliar régime of the Church had already ended, and the Church was back under Papal régime. I e, John XXIII ended the council.

3) Bullying Cardinal Ottaviani. This one was not the doing of Roncalli, but he did not defend his man.

1:03:56 "because this line of reasoning could be applied to any Church council one does not like the teachings of ..."

I think you are thinking in too "constitutionalist" terms.

There is a difference between a Christian not liking:

• "The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ."
• The theory in Nostra Aetate which closely gives an Evolutionist view of different religions rising higher and higher
  "Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language."
  a better translation would be
  "Religions, however, that are bound up with progress of culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language."
  which is clearly even more evolutionist.

AND a heretic not liking:

• 1. If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of god, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him,[4] and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,[5] and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,[6] let him be anathema.
• 5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema. ...

As long as the faith is known, to those by which it is known, the lemma "either the man is pope and what he says is true, or what he says is not true and he is not pope" will at some point weigh down against someone not being faithful to the faith.

You mentioned a man who became a Baptist pastor would lose papal office. Well, the particular Baptist confession he belongs to may not have been condemned in itself by Trent. Mormonism is not condemned in itself by Trent. BUT as a Baptist, he would fall afoul of Trent Session V, canon 5, of which I cited the beginning.

Are you claiming Karol Wojtyla through Jorge Mario Bergoglio are not falling afoul of Trent Session V, canon 1, by CCC § 283?

I would like to add that they are even falling afoul of Dei Verbum § 3!

3. God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries.

How could the ceaseless keeping of the human race from Adam to Abraham be said to occur over ten thousand years after ten thousand years of hunter gatherer existance, with a presumed animistic and non-theistic religiosity, as Evolutionist palaeo-anthropologists would like to pretend?

1:04:09 There are already people saying they reject the Council of Trent because its teachings are false.

They are known as Protestants, and to a lesser degree Orthodox.

I say a lesser degree, since Councils of Iasi and Jerusalem actually confirmed many of the Trentine anti-Protestant positions, but "ruled" against others.

There are people accepting Ephesus but not Chalcedon, both called Armenians and called Copts (the exact relation to Chalcedon differs between these).

There are people accepting Constantinople I, but not Ephesus, known as Assyrians.

There already is a fold outside the Church for each of those. It is overall speaking not all that much of a problem.

So, what was your point again, practically, as it applies to Catholics?

1:04:23 "it would make the individual the ultimate arbiter"

So?

And, frankly, no.

Sedevacantists and Conclavists actually back up our rejections of Vatican II doctrine and post-Vatican II doctrine by reference to councils and popes we consider ourselves as bound by.

But to some degree, each man actually is determining what is true and false to him. Even if he fully submits to an external authority, to the degree you purport to do, that is also that person, in your case you, making a decision about what you need to consider true or false.

Your problem seems to be that in our case, this outsourcing is not complete. Should it be?

Does Salza, defender of Creationism, fortunately, feel himself bound by CCC § 283?

I might find it great to live in a diocese where I could disagree with CCC § 283, and still be considered loyal to "Pope Francis" (or I might have found it great, earlier on). In Paris, this is not the case.

I'm a writer, with Young Earth Creationism as one of my fond recurring themes of research and polemics, and time after time, parishes in Paris and surroundings have made it a question of "do you accept Pope Francis?" and it is by now clear to both parties "no, I don't" ...

1:04:43 "this type of excessive referral to private judgement"

Meaning, you agree there is a non-excessive one?

Btw, neither Trent session IV, nor Pius XI Mortalium animos, the "meme" sources of the idea "Catholics must be against private judgement" so to speak, actually condemn the use of private judgement as such.

It's Anglicans who say converts display "private judgement" and this is incompatible with submission to the Church and to God's providence placing one under a specific non-Catholic one.

Trent session IV speaks of those who having relied on their private judgement, literally "own talent" have twisted the Bible away from Church Fathers or Church Documents.

Mortalium animos speaks of unity not being possible among Protestants who make "private judgement" (verbatim) their principle.

Meanwhile, Sedes and Conclavists both pretend (I'd say with varying success) to use private judgement in ways that allow us to actually to submit to the Church.

I e, we pretend to use our judgement to NOT disagree with Church Fathers and Church Documents. We use it to get to a position where submission to a living or dead Pope is possible without being bothered by a false Pope.

1:05:00 "it can be applied to Trent, or Vatican I"

No, because those rejecting Trent or Vatican I (Protestants and Döllingerites) would not need to reject the validity of a bishop they regarded as essentially just "urbi" and not "orbi."

Plus, what councils are real councils has historically not always been agreed on. I mean among those already in the past.

Precisely as with papacies.

On 21 December 2018, the association "Friends of Pope Luna" presented to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a petition to have Benedict recognised as a legitimate pontiff.[14][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Benedict_XIII

1:05:12 "Then what's the use of ..."

Well, for all the occasions when a Pope is not objectively of doubtful orthodoxy?

They would still be the vast majority, right?

1:05:32 I would give my view on how this works.

1) A man can of freewill say no to the divine assistance offered him. This is obvious from our theology of grace.
2) This may concern a negative or a positive concern, a sin of omission or a sin of initiative.
3) A man can rise to the cardinalate while objectively engaged in a modern heresy, if a previous pope committed a grave sin of omission, not condemning it as he should have.
4) Pius XII did commit such a grave sin of omission in Humani Generis, in not condemning the idea (already known and still perfectly condemned while Chesterton lived under Pius XI) that Adam had non-human ancestry.

Here is Chesterton while still an Anglican:

Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, "I think; therefore I am." The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not; therefore I cannot think."

https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/439/orthodoxy2-3.htm

While a Catholic:

The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal.

http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/27250-8.txt

This rejection of Evolution, which Chesterton gained by converting, Pius XII marginalised in Humani Generis.

If the legality of the Council had not been broken in the ways mentioned by Amerio, the original schema which later became Dei Verbum just might have made up for it.

But the same episcopates which had lots of predatory clergy were also prone to promote the less traditional view that Pius XII mentioned and didn't condemn.

In 1996, "John Paul II" actually pretended that Pius XII had directly allowed it:

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith.

https://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/default/files/MESSAGE%20TO%20THE%20PONTIFICAL%20ACADEMY%20OF%20SCIENCES%20(Pope%20John%20Paul%20II).pdf

No, he had not affirmed it. But he had refused to condemn it, purportedly for tactical reasons of the moment.

Thereby he paved the way for Evolutionist people becoming cardinals.

1:06:46 The legal obligation to secrecy does not necessarily mean there are no genuine leaks about it.

If Siri was elected, he can have confided the secret to someone.

He can have figured that the illegal subsequent election of Roncalli did not merit the secrecy of a real conclave.

This is for the moment speculation on my part, but I think I heard sth about it earlier. Sorry for having no more right now.

It is less certain whether he remained Pope after so stepping back under duress.

1:07:02 The story I have heard actually says:

• he accepted
• he was then forced to resign.

The resignation being under duress (like a commie threat of a nuke war, forwarded by a freemason), it would have been invalid.

Siri could then have later lost the papacy on not stepping forward.

Either way, Siri was not the Pope when Pope Michael was elected, since he died on 2 May 1989, and Pope Michael was elected on 16 July 1990.

1:07:26 The apparent submission of Cardinal Siri ...

• could have been under continued duress (he could have been forcefully medicated)
• could have been a sin by which he lost the papacy
• could have been a wager to save the apparent papacies, by his prayers.

It could also have been genuine. It could also have put him in at least indirect complicity with errors and direct schism.

Material only, if Michael I was the first Pope since 1958.

1:09:11 The problem is, none of the contradictions I have seen as an apologist in any of the four fields is a good one.

The further problem is, the Vatican II establishment is giving each of them a very undue place, by giving Jews, Protestants, anti-Christians more understanding than the case warrants in each case.

The fact you bring this up proves, you consider these have as much weight as the "apparent only" contradiction I see between CCC § 283 and Trent Sesssion V, canon 1.

Yesterday, I saw Trent Horn play a Vatican II-ish game of "gag the apologist" when Kennedy Hall had, correctly, attacked Evolutionism.

That kind of attitude is one major deal breaker with me about the Vatican II establishment, whatever be responsible for it (Council, Konzils-Ungeist, post-Council "papacies").

1:09:54 God's nature, vs Theophany.

1:10:50 -- 1:10:58

"not in the sense that we should say our differences don't matter anymore but in the sense of figuring out which beliefs are are absolutely essential and which ones are open for disagreements"

What is notionally the difference between a "difference that doesn't matter" and a "belief that is open for disagreement"?

What is different between "anymore" and "figuring out"?

1:11:32 -- 1:12:14

"when Vatican II speaks of the Catholic church not experiencing full catholicity it's important to keep in mind the different senses in which this can be understood the Catholic Church experiences full catholicity in relation to itself but not in relation to all other Christian denominations in other words when speaking about the one true church it's clear that it is one but when speaking about all denominations which profess to to be Christian it's clear that scism and heresy have fractured the church and there are many denominations which are not in full communion with the one Catholic church but these false churches are still tied to the true church in certain ways many of them perform valid baptisms read scripture during their services and groups such as the Eastern Orthodox even have valid confession and communion because these links to the true church exist the Catholic Church wants to use these as stepping stones"

This is obviously a way to see things that is not heretical, but perhaps not the only or even main way to read Unitatis Redintegratio.

However, it is certainly not what the Vatican II establishment is practising, right now.

It is certainly not what it was when Bergoglio was willing to be buried as an Anglican bishop by the Modernist Anglican Tony Palmer, had he died first, or even when he himself gave Tony Palmer the burial of a Catholic bishop.

1:12:02 A more correct way of saying that is that schism and heresy have severed souls from the Church.

[Again: "it's clear that schism and heresy have fractured the church and there are many denominations which are not in full communion with the one Catholic church"]

1:12:40 Sorry, but saying it is a right inherent in the human person to have religious liberty is not how a doctrine is applied, it is a doctrine itself.

I can be fine with modern societies having religious liberty as a palliative for already existing religious confusion.

But I cannot say the right a Spaniard today has to be Atheist or Protestant, before the Spanish law, is one inherent in his human person as such, and therefore applicable to anyone who shares, will share or in the past did share his human nature.

On this item, I am satisfied, you are stretching Vatican II to accomodate for a real Catholic view. Thanks for not doing the opposite!

1:12:52 A critic of Dignitatis Humanae does not necessarily think the Inquisition can be brought back now, or even there will be an occasion in the future.

You are strawmanning what we say.

It is not a blinding to reality that men of the 15th C. have the exact same inherent dignity as man of the 21st C. The inherent rights as per divine law are therefore the same.

Either the previous theory that our duty to truth inherently primes individual rights, or the new one, that individual rights automatically can dispense with our duty to truth is a false one.

Individual rights may dispense with legal duties to truth, but not per divine law, only as a convenience in post-modern society.

1:14:07 St. Christopher was taken from the martyrology. I think "John Paul II" restored him, but temporarily he was. So was St. Barbara.

1:14:43 Father Mullady has pretended there is no social religious freedom, spoken of in both Syllabus of errors and Dignitatis humanae.

While the motivations for each view on the social question, what rights we inherently have before the state, can be given as Brian Mullody says, he misses that both of the statements actually do speak of rights we have socially, before the state, and this right is primarily a right of expression.

The right to express an objectively erroneous view is not inherent in the human person.

By the time one expresses a thing like "I don't believe in the ..." (chose any given dogma), one has both had an activity of the intellect and one of the will. It's the external act, hankering back to both, which a Catholic state inherently has no absolute reason to respect, it's only the external act that a state can have any jurisdiction over.

The traditional view does not mean Catholic states cannot tolerate error for cogent reasons, for instance, if the Dominican Republic tried to outlaw all non-Catholic religions, other states, bigger and with more weapons, might interfere, and deprive the Dominican Republic of more essential ways to enjoy Catholic statehood.

18,792 sq mi, 128th country by surface, 11,434,005, 88th country by population.

Spain is larger, but already beyond saving by an Inquisition.

But this does not equate to there being anything wrong with Spain burning a few die-hard heretics. Back before 1820, or 1830, when conditions were different.

1:15:12 "the terms 'freedom' refer to two very different acts of the soul."

No, they refer to the same act openly carried out in society.

1:16:10 I look up Ketteler:

Before we demonstrate that, we have to examine the legal nature of the kind of heresy which alone, according to the principles of the Church, justified punishment because it was an offense against the Faith. Heresy in this sense involved two factors. First, there was a stiff-necked persistence and perseverance by a baptized Christian in error as determined by prior, thorough investigation. Secondly, implicit in this stiff-necked posture, there was active rebellion against the authority of the Church. It is apparent that there is a great difference between one who is in error in the matter of Christian dogmas and a heretic who was subject to punishment. Innocent error is not only not punishible heresy; it is not even an infinitesimal moral violation. Punishable heresy entailed a clear perception of the Christian truth that was in controversy, stiff-necked rejection of it, and at the same time a rejection of the authority of the Church. In the Church's view the real malice of heresy lay actually in rejection of the Church's teaching authority, because the whole body of Christian teaching rests on that authority, and that authority is the arbiter of all disputes and the very essence of the Magisterium. Therefore, where there is no insight into the nature of the Church's authority, where only prejudices prevail, and where the Church's authority is considered to be tantamount to arbitrary human judgments and the judgments of priests, there can be no question of punishable heresy. It is clear that the concept of punishable heresy does not apply when we are dealing with persons who did not themselves choose to leave the bosom of the Church, but who are the descendants of those who centuries ago made that decision. Whether and to what extent their false beliefs constitute sin, only God who sees into the human heart can judge. Externally, it is impossible to pass judgment. Even though the Church regards all those who are validly baptized as members of the one, holy, Catholic Church and therefore as basically and before God subject to ecclesiastical authority, there has never been any intention to exercise external force to punish them. Toward them, the Church can only adopt the position which it takes toward all unbelievers. It is left to their completely free self-determination whether they wish to return to the Faith. [Ed: Today those non-Catholic Christians growing up in various Protestant sects would fall into this category.]

"Religious Freedom and the Catholic Church"
By Wilhelm Emmanuel Von Ketteler
http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/religious-freedom.htm

Let me underline, he was a bishop of Münster, not of Toledo.

Yes, he has a definite point, someone who is not a first, second or third generation heretic in a basically Catholic society cannot be punished in the same way as someone who is.

It would have been dreadfully unfair to punish Tony Palmer for Anglicanism. He was not Cranmer or Tyndale.

Given how longstanding Modernism has been in England, it would have been unfair to punish him for Modernism.

But this does not mean he could not have been for instance expelled from Spain under Franco, for expressing these things in a society that intends to stay pure from them, had he ventured there, before Franco obeyed Dignitatis Humanae

1:16:25 I look up Catholic Encyclopedia:

(3) If in medieval times the Church adopted sterner measures against formal heretics, apostates, and schismatics than she adopts to-day, she did this not as a private individual, who must show only consideration and love, but as the legitimate governing authority within whose sphere also fell the administration of penal justice. The State must also inflict on the thief and revolutionary the legal punishment for theft and revolution, which are not punishable in the abstract.

W a i t ... was J. POHLE saying the acts are not as such punishable? Or was he saying that the punishment cannot happen in the abstract?

The former would match Dignitatis Humanae, but in a very disconcerting way as if punishing a thief were an affront against his human dignity.

The latter would give no credence to DH.

Here are two quotes:

(b) When various Christian denominations establish themselves in any country, the Catholic State can no longer maintain its former exclusive attitude, but is compelled for reasons of State to show tolerance towards the heterodox and to grant them religious freedom within the limits described above and determined by natural law. If religious freedom has been accepted and sworn to as a fundamental law in a constitution, the obligation to show this tolerance is binding on conscience. The Catholic Church recognizes unreservedly the inviolability of constitutions confirmed by oath, of traditional laws, and regular religious compacts, because a breach of the constitution, of allegiance, of a treaty, or of an oath is a grievous sin, and because the Christian moral law prescribes fidelity to the State as an obligation strictly binding in conscience.

and

There are, however, a number of States, which in virtue of their constitutions are committed not alone to tolerance and religious freedom, but also to parity. By parity is understood the placing of all legalized or recognized religious bodies on the same footing before the law, all show of partiality and disfavour being equally avoided. Such is the basic principle of the constitutional State, which, while ethically Christian, allows various forms of belief. On it devolves especially the duty of placing no obstacle in the way of the public promotion of religion in sermon and writing and of extending to the religious practices of all denominations the same legal protection, to the exclusion of any compulsory system that would bind the citizens to receive certain religious rites (e. g. baptism, burial) from clergymen appointed by the State.

Monsignor Lefebvre's critique would be that DH makes religious parity the norm, and one, not devolved from the politics of a certain country, but from the dignity of the human person.

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Religious Toleration (wikisource)
https:en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Religious_Toleration