Magisterial heresies and Sedevacantist inconsistencies

Today I took a look at Dimond’s book on No Salvation Outside the Church. While recognizing the problems and not claiming to be able to address all the arguments, I will simply share one thought that came to me while reading the presentation.

It seems that while the Dimonds claim the Church apostatized in Vatican II so that the papal see has been vacant ever since, they are forced to admit pre-conciliar heresy, error or weakness in certain magisterial documents which teach along the lines of Vatican II (on baptism of desire and invincible ignorance).

What the Dimonds do in these situations is that they point out that these documents were not infallible and thus could contain errors. Then they point out other texts from these same sources that support their understanding.

But the problem is this: by the same standard, you could acquit the modern Popes as well, because all the materials the Dimonds quote to show the modern Popes are heretics, are non-infallible documents. None of the post-conciliar Popes has made an infallible declaration. And then you could quote some of the more traditional sounding pieces from these Popes to show they are all right after all.

In other words: The Dimonds claim to “prove” the modern Popes are not Catholics (and thus no Popes) by showing that they are heretics or that they allowed or supported heretical ideas. But by the same method you could show that many preconciliar Popes were personally heretics, and thus no Catholics but antipopes.

The idea of “pure and unchangeable infallibe doctrine” as interpreted by the ultratraditionalists seems to be a naive fantasy in light of how doctrine has actually developed.

Explore posts in the same categories: The Dimond brothers

7 Comments on “Magisterial heresies and Sedevacantist inconsistencies”

  1. Sam Says:

    Your reasoning seems sound. 🙂

  2. Mike Says:

    Would you say that no declarations prior to Vatican II were infallible?

    If not then how do we know which were infallible?

    I do agree on your logic here in that fallibility has been a constant in the Roman Church (as it has been to some extent in every church)since its inception.

    • Emil Anton Says:

      At the moment I think the whole terminology of infallibility is highly problematic, since it was not used in the NT or in the first centuries of the Early Fathers. Thus it seems to me to be a necessarily fallible act to later start talking about infallibility on the basis of earlier texts that were written without this concept in mind. And so if all the talk on infallibility is based on a fallible decision or interpretation, then it’s not worth much. In my opinion, if something is infallible, it is the inspired apostolic scriptures and the regula fidei or Apostolic Creed based on them, believed throughout the ages…

  3. Rasha Lampa Says:

    Hey Emil, you might enjoy this new forum we started

    I actually already posted links to your blog on there.

  4. Achie Says:

    GLORIA IN EXCELSIS DEUS.I never knew there was such an encouraging info against these disheartening sedes.They kept confusing me to the extent of being totally hopeless and saddened.Hoping to come across a lot more of their weaknesses to answer ignorant thoughts.

  5. Ben Says:

    Time to start answering these sedevacantists who are out there condemning the church and her leaders. Good one, Emil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: