Thank you to Mr. Wright for editing and publishing the article.
I would describe the Indefectibility of the Roman See as a suit of armor and shield that the Pope always wears, and Infallibility as the sword that he takes out of its scabbard, when necessary, and wields to lead the Church Militant in spiritual combat, to confirm his brethren and to condemn error.
Our Sedeplenist brothers should reflect especially on that quote from Pope Pius XII at the end of the article. If they try to apply it to the Conciliar-Synodal Church, they will necessarily conclude that it does not "maintain and transmit whole and inviolate, through centuries and tens of centuries, even to the end of time, the whole body of truth and grace", which means that it does not have "the assurance, guaranteed by Divine promises" of doing this. This means that it is not the Catholic Church but a counterfeit, and that the head of this counterfeit Church, the leader of the Revolution against the True Church, is not the head of the Catholic Church.
This should be taken as pure speculation, but I think it's the best argument that could square the metaphorical circle.
One of the only weaknesses of scholastic thought is that it concerns itself very much with what God will do rather than what he might choose to do. With that in mind... What If the Petrine protection normally functions in a sort of "Petrine maximalist" mode, preserving the Pope and the See from all error... but. In this period of great disobedience, what if all the 'legitimate'* popes after VII were operating only on a 'minimalist' Petrine protection?
We know that God handed over the Church to be tried by the Adversary for one or two periods of time, amounting to around a century.
*by 'legitimate' I mean 'not formally heretical or apostates', so disqualifying Bergoglio, Prevost, and maybe JPII, though the Church should probably hold a cadaver synod to determine if Assisi et al constituted formal defection from the faith and / or loss of office.
The metaphorical circle doesn't need squaring. The Holy See is vacant.
Personally, I find very dangerous the attitude that treats "scholastic thought" in that way, and yet treats the alleged vision of Pope Leo XIII as an axiomatic certainty.
The see is currently empty. Scholastic philosophy is the best, most exact, and safest method of Theology ever developed. I certainly have never had Our Lord appear and tell me I have done Him good service.
With that being said. Scholastic thought has the bad habit of treating Our Lord as a principle rather than a person, in virtue of His divine attributes.
Scholasticism, at least as it is popularized, is fond of saying God will do X rather than God will do X but may do Y.
Regarding the alleged vision of Leo XIII, I find it curious to note that the time between the indefinite end of Vatican I (Postquam Dei munere, Oct 20, 1870) and the introduction of the Novus Ordo (promulgated in 1969) was 99 years.
"We know that God handed over the Church to be tried by the Adversary for one or two periods of time, amounting to around a century."
But keep in mind, that like Job, God knew his adversary would not prevail.
The Papacy/Peter is the rock in which the Church is built on, and the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Saying God could/would/might/may allow the Holy Ghost, the soul of the Church, to teach error to the universal flock is akin to saying God is the maker and author of evil. "Squaring" the circle that does not need squaring only creates bigger circles that could never be squared.
This scholarly yet genuinely pastoral approach to the age-old Catholic teaching on the indefectibility of the Roman See being intimately connected with the indefectibility of the Church brought for me a clarity in this unprecedented crisis that I have long sought but did not know. Indeed, the truth does set you free. By acknowledging the hesitations and fears of those Catholics seeking to be as authentic as possible about tackling this elephant in the room, this article lays out what is not promised in the statement the truth will set you free. Nowhere is it promised that coming to know the truth will make you feel good; nowhere is it promised that coming to know the truth will not jarring. But the truth is still there, it is still the reality of the situation, acknowledged by the individual or not.
The statements connected with the Society of St. Pius X's consecration of four priests as bishops without papal mandate are what jarred my thought process to dive deeper into the indefectibility of the Church. I began to find it perplexing that the SSPX leadership could speak so forcefully and even correctly of the True Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ and a conciliar church, a modernist church, AND, at the same time, plead for permission to proceed from those who are promulgating heresies from the conciliar church, the modernist church. As well-intentioned as they may be in trying to continuing navigating as authentic Catholics in the context of decades of confusion, it hit me (perhaps a jolt from the Holy Ghost) that there cannot exist the two churches -- the True Church and the conciliar church -- in one entity. Or to put it more plainly, the man generally acknowledged as occupying the Seat of St. Peter cannot be head of both the True Church and the head of the conciliar church at the same time. In short, the step the SSPX does not yet seem willing to take is to admit its seeming acts of disobedience are to protect the flock from the Pope. And that is the thing that is so scary. Yet think of the possibilities if the SSPX ever comes, officially, to embrace the truth of the indefectibility of the See of St. Peter.
Pope St. Gelasius I makes the best point for me: When heretics say the Church is wrong we, who are sure she cannot be wrong, show no hesitation in defending her teachings. (Otherwise all is doubtful).
Also, showing how things like Pastor Aeternus would mean differently under the flawed premise of an erring Church is a useful perspective. It might even penetrate the fog for some.
Firstly, the doctrine of the possibility of an ipso facto deposition of a heretical Pope from the Papal office seems, while likewise maintaining that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, would undermine the utility of the office altogether for the good of the faithful. It reminds me of the a section from Torquemada's Summa de Ecclesia, where, after showing that only one who is 'pertinacious' in his error should be properly called a heretic, he says that the Pope can be called pertinacious in his error, and thus properly a heretic, if 'he solemnly defines an error, and assert it to be held as Catholic by Christians' (Book IV, Part II, Ch. XVI). The fact that Torquemada and the Decretalists of his age did not identify the indefectibility of the Roman Church in the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is precisely the reason that such a statement could be coherently made. Yet, in light of Vatican I, the sedevacantist claim seems to go something like this: that the Roman Pontiff is completely unable to err on matters of faith and morals, such that if he should err on matters of faith and morals, it should be revealed that he is no longer the Roman Pontiff.
Secondly, even if it were to be posited that the formulation of Papal infallibility in Vatican I were to allow for the case of a manifestly heretical Pope, it seems to be rather implausible to further claim that the same formulation in Vatican I could allow for a situation where the Pope would be a heretic, and the rest of the hierarchy would likewise refuse or be unable to carry out a sentence against him that would declare him to have been ipso facto deposed from the Papal office.
You speculate that a heretical Pope losing office (it is not a deposition, it is a tacit resignation) "would undermine the utility of the office altogether for the good of the faithful", yet maintaining possession of said office would actually lead the faithful to spiritual ruin, and that is no speculation because it is a manifest current fact - many faithful, misled into thinking that the Modernist heretics were/are popes, have followed them into heresy, even apostasy.
In the same way, what you label as "implausible" is actual manifest fact.
Contra factum not valet argumentum.
In addition, the claim that we hold "that the Roman Pontiff is completely unable to err on matters of faith and morals" is not true, and you have not read such a thing on this site.
The interpretation was given by Vatican I itself. The Pope is infallible "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church." Also, "by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium." The OUM can be universal either in time (e.g. a line of popes teaching a doctrine) or in space (the Pope and the episcopate each in their own diocese teaching the same doctrine).
This article is about indefectibility, not infallibility.
I suppose that the interpretation of the circumstances of infallibility do not really pertain to my original point.
My original point was that the divine protection from error really does nothing to the benefit of the faithful if it can be said to have been revoked upon teaching error.
Let's say one observes that that the Roman Pontiff, who has been peacefully and universally accepted as being the Pope upon a canonical election, has taught something that under the conditions of infallibility. Should the teaching be given religious assent?
The sedevacantist standard seems to be: if the Pope has taught something in the UOM, AND it is not heretical, then it should be piously believed. But then the office of the pope is superfluous, and there is no unique authority in the successor of Peter that should be heeded to. If one can only assent to the doctrines of one that is believed to be the Pope so long as it is first judged that the teaching is not heretical, then the teaching is always going to be subject to one's own judgment first. But this is exactly the same standard that the teachings of any other bishop, or any other se, should be held to, and therefore the Roman See and the Roman Pontiff would not be unique in the divine protection against error that has been afforded to them.
You need to do more studying, because the things you've written here don't make sense and show a lack of understanding of the notions involved.
The protection of the See from error is never revoked. The reason that the particular man would lose his office is precisely to protect the See from teaching heresy, and to protect the Church. Since he is no longer Pope, the Church would recognize that and act to remove him (something which she cannot do to a true Pope). That is not happening today because in addition to the Roman See, most other sees are also illegitimately occupied by heretics, and the rest of the bishops are simply afraid.
You have not correctly identified what we say. First of all, if something is part of the OUM, this means that it is already infallible. Second, if a Pope is teaching the Church as Pope, then we are obliged to accept that teaching and not subject it to our judgment ("He that heareth you, heareth me"). However, if his teaching is contradicting previous infallible teachings of the Magisterium, then we have a duty to adhere to the previous teaching, we infallibly know the new teaching is necessarily false, and theologians say that this proves that that person is no longer Pope.
Why? Because the See of St. Peter cannot teach heresy to the Church - that is indefectibility.
On the other hand, when the Pope issues a definition or condemns errors, that is infallibility. If a true Roman Pontiff teaches something under the conditions of infallibility, then it must be infallible - that is de fide.
Very well done, and given on my birthday. Thank you for the birthday gift. I have always read that the pope is infallible only in matters of faith and morals, and only when speaking Ex Cathedra. With regard to the contents offered above, is the Pope obligated to teach the truth in his ordinary teachings? I am particularly thinking about Francis and Traditiones Custodes. Francis deliberately lied when he sent out his cover letter claiming that he sent out a survey to all bishops (he never provided the survey questions, nor did he provide the actual answers) in which he said the bishops favored suppressing the Traditional Latin Mass. We learned later that the majority of the bishops actually favored retaining the TLM. He used this lie to justify issuing Traditiones Custodes. In Traditiones Custodes, Francis lied again when he claimed the Novus Ordo was the Mass of Vatican II. This was a deliberate lie, since he knew the Novus Ordo violated every provision of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II document issued by the Council Fathers detailing their direction for updating the Liturgy of the Mass organically. The Novus Ordo is the Mass of Paul VI since he signed off on it, but it is not, and never has been, the Mass of Vatican II.
Did these lies constitute a violation of the doctrine of indefectibility and, if so, did this mean Francis was no longer Pope, and thus nullifying all his acts following the issuance of Traditiones Custodes?
Please note the difference between infallibility and indefectibility.
The theoretical presence of error in the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium is not excluded by theologians, but the Pope teaching the Universal Church grave error and heresy most certainly is.
The NO can certainly be called the Mass of Vatican II because "Sacrosanctum Concilium" was written precisely to seek to legitimize future changes to the liturgy and to open the door for the creation of the NO rite (which was probably prepared long before in the Masonic lodges). The presence of some conservative language was there to fool the many bishops attached to the Roman rite, and it was mingled with the poison to change their attitudes and prepare them to accept the Protestantized rite.
“The solution, the way to RECOVER TRUE FAITH IN THE CHURCH, as we profess in the Creed, is not to run away from the infallible doctrines of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See and of the Church.”
This is YOU admitting that sedeplenists do not have “true faith” in an article of the Creed. That would mean they have a false profession of faith (even if held ignorantly and innocently). A critical defect that as I already pointed out to you, destroyed what the Church actually IS in their minds (as you point out above). You spilled a lot of ink showing this to people in this article (which was pretty good by the way).
We all distrust AI and clearly Matthew’s “Magisterium AI” is biased in favor of the post-conciliar structure’s false theology, but the answer it gave me when I asked it about Van Noort and the, “More common opinion of the theologians that public material heretics are NOT members of the Church.”, demonstrates aptly that you are indeed “no theologian” and actually seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Let me remind you that you said “Of course Van Noort is right”, but then you diverted and ran off when I pointed out to you that he can only be talking about CATHOLICS as material public heretics NOT “Protestants, or Eastern Schismatics” as you stupidly affirm that only “Protestants and Eastern Schismatics can be material heretics, no Catholics can be material heretics, because they have the correct rule of blah blah blah.”
The passage of Van Noort in question is the one of his that you kept saying I “don’t understand” because I don’t understand heretical intent, etc.
I present the words of Van Noot yet again:
"By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth for example Mary's Divine maternity or several truths of divine and Catholic faith regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guilty (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from church membership it is the more common opinion that public material heretics are likewise excluded for membership theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong if public material heretics remained members of the church the VISIBILITY and UNITY of Christ Church would perish if these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic church in the strict sense of the term. How would one ever locate the Catholic Church? How would the church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its VISABILITY?Where it's UNITY? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics in good faith remaining members of the church."
P. 153 Christ's Church. END VAN NOORT
So I point the A.I. to Van Noort’s body of work and this is what it returned.
From Magisterium A.I:
If a baptized Catholic publicly denies extra Ecclesiam nulla salus—“outside the Church there is no salvation”—but does so through ignorance, misunderstanding, or invincible error, he would be a public material heretic, not necessarily a formal heretic. The public error concerns the objective content of his profession; culpability concerns his subjective knowledge and obstinacy. 1
He would therefore not be a member of the Church in the strict visible sense according to the theological position Van Noort is describing, since membership requires profession of the true faith and unity in that one faith. 2
However, three qualifications are essential:
Merely asking questions, using imprecise language, or rejecting a distorted interpretation of the dogma is not necessarily heresy.
Material heresy does not imply personal guilt or damnation.
The doctrine itself does not teach that every person who is visibly outside the Church is culpable; invincible ignorance can exclude guilt, while salvation still comes through Christ and his Church. 3
So the precise conclusion is:
A Catholic who publicly and objectively denies the dogma, even innocently, can be classified by Van Noort as a public material heretic and therefore as outside visible membership in the Church; but his ignorance may preserve him from formal heresy and personal culpability.
END MAGISTERIUM A.I.
First Van Noort and the common opinion of the theologians is wrong (according to you)! And now Magisterium A.I. gets it wrong too!
So you can subsititute EENS for whatever you like, but the point still stands. A Catholic who adheres to heresy publicly even if innocently and ignorantly, would fit this definition of public material heretic and according to the more common opinion of the theologians is not a member of the Church.
So when people in the post-Vatican II structure adhere to Vatican II and they gobble up Religous Liberty, and false ecumenism, and blessings for homos, and the old covenant is still salvific, and the New Mass itself, which can be argued is heretical, they can be thought of “CHARITABLY” as public material heretics who are not members of the Church. One should pray for them to come to true faith and not presume they have no errors of their own. So, you mistake me for a hot-headed zealot trying to, “throw everyone out of the Church.” Hah, that is great! But really, I am just irritated that you won’t admit what Van Noort says, it makes you look dishonest or ignorant, and if you are dishonest why should anyone listen to you? If you are so ignorant of the more common opinions of the theologians like Van Noort, what business do you have trying to “teach” others? I tried to explain it to you several times, you are a smart guy right? So, why the sophisms and deflection?
So either state he (Van Noort) was wrong for saying public material heretics i.e., a Catholic holding innocently and ignorantly heresy - is not a member of the Church according to the more common opinion.
Or
State that YOU WERE WRONG to misidentify what Van Noort was saying about public material heretics as if it did not pertain to Catholics who have material heresy but rather those already OUTSIDE the Church i.e., formal heretics.
I still say it is safer to follow the more common opinion of the theologians on this without making any pretense about one’s own membership status. While you call such a tolerated and uncensured more common opinion a “grave sin” of “injustice”, and “unchwaritablness”. You are calling sin what is no sin at all - which as you are aware is a hallmark of heretics.
I write in this article: "what SOME of them [sedeplenists] end up believing in and confessing is not just a defected Roman Pontiff, but a defected Church... the way to recover true faith in the Church, as we profess in the Creed..."
Talk about reading comprehension. BTW, you still haven't read or understood Billot, otherwise you wouldn't be summarizing the doctrine like this:
"...no Catholics can be material heretics, because they HAVE THE CORRECT RULE of..."
No you are missing the whole issue. It is your dishonesty here THAT is what this is about.
If I want to "actually learn" Van Noort isn't good enough eh? I need to read John Daly to understand eh? Lord save us from the audacity of these anonymous arm-chair theologians!
You have impugned the "more common opinion of the theologians" according to Van Noort. Stop citing Billot, other theologians have other opinions and sometimes it is one critical nuance that a theologian is using that makes all the difference. Billot works for your opinon, in the way that favors your understanding best, so you cite him on this as if he is the only authority whom has all the answers, but he isn't and he doesn't.
You are also imputing sin to others in your post's to Elaine, and myself and a certain "mindset" that YOU attribute to "schism of Lucifer of Caligari", snarky, and sly, but I caught you, so don't get all irrational and run off again, stand like a man (if you are one, which I doubt) and own up to your public mistake - even if anonymous, you still need to own up to your misrepresentation of Van Noort and imputing sin to others who have a different tolerated opinion than you do.
You have accused Catholics who follow the more common opinion in this of grave sins. Which is rash judgement. A judgment founded on an OPINON that YOU hold, but NOT defined Catholic teaching.
Retract your rash judgment of Catholics for holding a tolerated opinion. Admit what Van Noort actually says, that it IS the more common opinion of theologians that a Catholic who held a heresy even ignorantly and innocently is NOT a member of the Church."
That is what it says, but you keep evading.
Even if you disagree with him that is fine, just admit that you hold the lesser opinion that public material heretics DO belong to the Church. other opinions are tolerated. You can argue why VAN NOORT IS WRONG, but don't LIE and say I was wrong about what Van Noort said- that is what you did. No. I understood him PERFECTLY, but you keep running to other definitions by Billot, Just admit that Van Noort teaches, that it is the "more common opinion that public material heretics are not members of the Church." and in this it is crystal clear he is talking about CATHOLICS as this section is immediately preceded with the definition of FORMAL heretics which include Protestants, Eastern Schismatics, etc.
Otherwise, I accuse you of rash judgement of Catholics who hold this opinion, and dishonesty in misrepresenting what Van Noort says. If true, (as the evidence would then suggest) then such a person has ZERO business airing their pseudo-theological tracts publicly as both their honesty and judgement are in question.
If you want to leave it at that, so be it, may God have mercy on your soul.
I agree with Van Noort that material heretics (e.g. Protestants, Eastern Schismatics etc.) are outside the body of the Church. Just as other heretics, they reject the Church as their rule of faith. The problem is that you do not want to learn the difference between material heretics and Catholics in error. Van Noort says nothing about that so you take his silence to mean that he supports your extreme position.
Billot explains it explicitly and in detail so you reject him, in order to have the justification to kick out of the Church all those souls unknowingly in error but adhering to the Catholic Church, as if the Loving Mother could kick her child, clinging to her skirt, out of her House for making an innocent mistake. Along with the rest of your comment, it shows which type of spirit moves you.
P.S. To show that what Billot teaches is not some new doctrine, but taught by the Church since ancient times, I quote St. Thomas Aquinas, quoting St. Augustine:
"As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): 'By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth,' because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church" (Summa Theol., II-II, q. 11, art. 2, reply to objection 3).
Van Noort is talking about Catholics who manifest denial of dogma even if ignorantly and innocently, he makes this crystal clear because immediately proceeding this section he speaks of formal heretics and in speaking of material PUBLIC heretics he speaks of the impossibility of one who denied a single dogma of maintaining the nessecary bond of unity in faith (which means nothing to you).
You are trying sooooo hard to be "chwaritable and nithe" and make the Church as "big as possible". But in YOUR misplaced zeal you have been caught lying about Van Noort's plain meaning and imputing sin to those who hold his allowed opinion that, public material heretics (Catholics) are not members of the Church. Just being honest is better than trying to find "schismatic trad" mentalities to admonish. Your correction has collosally blown up in your own face.
1)Admit Van Noort was speaking of Catholics when referencing public material heretics.
2) Retract the imputation of sin to Catholics who hold the more common opinion according to Van Noort that public materially heretical Catholics are not members of the Church.
How could I admit to something Van Noort does not say? Nowhere does he mention that he is talking about Catholics. This is what you **want** him to say, but he is speaking in general on the baptized and doesn't mention the specific case of a Catholic who while keeping his submission to the Magisterium would unknowingly profess a heretical doctrine.
If Van Noort actually taught what you say, I would simply say I disagreed with him, but he doesn't.
You are making an interpretation of Van Noort, adding to what he wrote, then calling that addition the "more common opinion", and then accusing me of not adhering to your interpretation.
And you still haven't found a single author in favor of that extreme opinion.
"Public heretics are not members of the church they are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously therefore they lack one of the three factors; baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy, pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that unlike other sins, heresy schism and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin however gravity is such a several man automatically from the Body the Church as does schism or heresy or apostasy." (MCC 30)
Here he is talking about Protestants, Orthodox, and Apostates, agreed?
Then he immediately continues:
"By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth for example Mary's Divine maternity or several truths of divine and Catholic faith regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic) or willfully and guilty (a formal heretic) it is certain that public formal heretics are severed from Church membership it is the more common opinion that public material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. The theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong if public material heretics remain members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? for these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics in good faith remaining members of the Church."
This IS talking about CATHOLICS, anyone who is honest can see that. You are not honest, you lie. You say it is just talking about the "baptized in general".
Then Van Noort immediately concludes:
"When it comes to a question of a occult heretics remaining members of the Church theologians are in sharper disagreement and the intrinsic probability of their respective arguments seems better balanced than in the proceeding case. An occult heretic is one who denies a truth of the Divine and Catholic faith in his heart while professing the same truth with his lips. So a man might recite the Nicene Creed with the rest of the faithful, but deny the doctrine of the Trinity internally. Even if he were to deny such a truth externally but his defection from the faith was secret, known only to one or two intimates, he would also be classified as an occult heretic. The more common opinion is that such heretics remain members of the Church."
This section is clearly also talking about CATHOLICS, The "faithful" and he speaks of it in connection with the "proceeding case" because it is dealing with internal heretics both occult and material. Once someone is a public formal heretic it is CERTAIN they are not members of the Church (from above). But what we are dealing with here is the more common opinions for both public material heretics AND occult heretics according to Van Noort WHO YOU DISTORT.
You also have lied in stating I said you had to accept this opinion. You can reject the opinion that is ALLOWED. You CANNOT lie about it being an uncensored opinion. You CANNOT lie about Van Noort's plain meaning, you CANNOT impute sin to those who follow the opinion.
Thank you to Mr. Wright for editing and publishing the article.
I would describe the Indefectibility of the Roman See as a suit of armor and shield that the Pope always wears, and Infallibility as the sword that he takes out of its scabbard, when necessary, and wields to lead the Church Militant in spiritual combat, to confirm his brethren and to condemn error.
Our Sedeplenist brothers should reflect especially on that quote from Pope Pius XII at the end of the article. If they try to apply it to the Conciliar-Synodal Church, they will necessarily conclude that it does not "maintain and transmit whole and inviolate, through centuries and tens of centuries, even to the end of time, the whole body of truth and grace", which means that it does not have "the assurance, guaranteed by Divine promises" of doing this. This means that it is not the Catholic Church but a counterfeit, and that the head of this counterfeit Church, the leader of the Revolution against the True Church, is not the head of the Catholic Church.
This should be taken as pure speculation, but I think it's the best argument that could square the metaphorical circle.
One of the only weaknesses of scholastic thought is that it concerns itself very much with what God will do rather than what he might choose to do. With that in mind... What If the Petrine protection normally functions in a sort of "Petrine maximalist" mode, preserving the Pope and the See from all error... but. In this period of great disobedience, what if all the 'legitimate'* popes after VII were operating only on a 'minimalist' Petrine protection?
We know that God handed over the Church to be tried by the Adversary for one or two periods of time, amounting to around a century.
*by 'legitimate' I mean 'not formally heretical or apostates', so disqualifying Bergoglio, Prevost, and maybe JPII, though the Church should probably hold a cadaver synod to determine if Assisi et al constituted formal defection from the faith and / or loss of office.
The metaphorical circle doesn't need squaring. The Holy See is vacant.
Personally, I find very dangerous the attitude that treats "scholastic thought" in that way, and yet treats the alleged vision of Pope Leo XIII as an axiomatic certainty.
The see is currently empty. Scholastic philosophy is the best, most exact, and safest method of Theology ever developed. I certainly have never had Our Lord appear and tell me I have done Him good service.
With that being said. Scholastic thought has the bad habit of treating Our Lord as a principle rather than a person, in virtue of His divine attributes.
Scholasticism, at least as it is popularized, is fond of saying God will do X rather than God will do X but may do Y.
Regarding the alleged vision of Leo XIII, I find it curious to note that the time between the indefinite end of Vatican I (Postquam Dei munere, Oct 20, 1870) and the introduction of the Novus Ordo (promulgated in 1969) was 99 years.
"We know that God handed over the Church to be tried by the Adversary for one or two periods of time, amounting to around a century."
But keep in mind, that like Job, God knew his adversary would not prevail.
The Papacy/Peter is the rock in which the Church is built on, and the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Saying God could/would/might/may allow the Holy Ghost, the soul of the Church, to teach error to the universal flock is akin to saying God is the maker and author of evil. "Squaring" the circle that does not need squaring only creates bigger circles that could never be squared.
This scholarly yet genuinely pastoral approach to the age-old Catholic teaching on the indefectibility of the Roman See being intimately connected with the indefectibility of the Church brought for me a clarity in this unprecedented crisis that I have long sought but did not know. Indeed, the truth does set you free. By acknowledging the hesitations and fears of those Catholics seeking to be as authentic as possible about tackling this elephant in the room, this article lays out what is not promised in the statement the truth will set you free. Nowhere is it promised that coming to know the truth will make you feel good; nowhere is it promised that coming to know the truth will not jarring. But the truth is still there, it is still the reality of the situation, acknowledged by the individual or not.
The statements connected with the Society of St. Pius X's consecration of four priests as bishops without papal mandate are what jarred my thought process to dive deeper into the indefectibility of the Church. I began to find it perplexing that the SSPX leadership could speak so forcefully and even correctly of the True Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ and a conciliar church, a modernist church, AND, at the same time, plead for permission to proceed from those who are promulgating heresies from the conciliar church, the modernist church. As well-intentioned as they may be in trying to continuing navigating as authentic Catholics in the context of decades of confusion, it hit me (perhaps a jolt from the Holy Ghost) that there cannot exist the two churches -- the True Church and the conciliar church -- in one entity. Or to put it more plainly, the man generally acknowledged as occupying the Seat of St. Peter cannot be head of both the True Church and the head of the conciliar church at the same time. In short, the step the SSPX does not yet seem willing to take is to admit its seeming acts of disobedience are to protect the flock from the Pope. And that is the thing that is so scary. Yet think of the possibilities if the SSPX ever comes, officially, to embrace the truth of the indefectibility of the See of St. Peter.
Pope St. Gelasius I makes the best point for me: When heretics say the Church is wrong we, who are sure she cannot be wrong, show no hesitation in defending her teachings. (Otherwise all is doubtful).
Also, showing how things like Pastor Aeternus would mean differently under the flawed premise of an erring Church is a useful perspective. It might even penetrate the fog for some.
There is only one conclusion: Sede vacante est.
Firstly, the doctrine of the possibility of an ipso facto deposition of a heretical Pope from the Papal office seems, while likewise maintaining that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, would undermine the utility of the office altogether for the good of the faithful. It reminds me of the a section from Torquemada's Summa de Ecclesia, where, after showing that only one who is 'pertinacious' in his error should be properly called a heretic, he says that the Pope can be called pertinacious in his error, and thus properly a heretic, if 'he solemnly defines an error, and assert it to be held as Catholic by Christians' (Book IV, Part II, Ch. XVI). The fact that Torquemada and the Decretalists of his age did not identify the indefectibility of the Roman Church in the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is precisely the reason that such a statement could be coherently made. Yet, in light of Vatican I, the sedevacantist claim seems to go something like this: that the Roman Pontiff is completely unable to err on matters of faith and morals, such that if he should err on matters of faith and morals, it should be revealed that he is no longer the Roman Pontiff.
Secondly, even if it were to be posited that the formulation of Papal infallibility in Vatican I were to allow for the case of a manifestly heretical Pope, it seems to be rather implausible to further claim that the same formulation in Vatican I could allow for a situation where the Pope would be a heretic, and the rest of the hierarchy would likewise refuse or be unable to carry out a sentence against him that would declare him to have been ipso facto deposed from the Papal office.
You speculate that a heretical Pope losing office (it is not a deposition, it is a tacit resignation) "would undermine the utility of the office altogether for the good of the faithful", yet maintaining possession of said office would actually lead the faithful to spiritual ruin, and that is no speculation because it is a manifest current fact - many faithful, misled into thinking that the Modernist heretics were/are popes, have followed them into heresy, even apostasy.
In the same way, what you label as "implausible" is actual manifest fact.
Contra factum not valet argumentum.
In addition, the claim that we hold "that the Roman Pontiff is completely unable to err on matters of faith and morals" is not true, and you have not read such a thing on this site.
I would then simply ask, what is the correct interpretation of the infallibility of the Pope, as it is defined according to Vatican I?
The interpretation was given by Vatican I itself. The Pope is infallible "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church." Also, "by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium." The OUM can be universal either in time (e.g. a line of popes teaching a doctrine) or in space (the Pope and the episcopate each in their own diocese teaching the same doctrine).
This article is about indefectibility, not infallibility.
I suppose that the interpretation of the circumstances of infallibility do not really pertain to my original point.
My original point was that the divine protection from error really does nothing to the benefit of the faithful if it can be said to have been revoked upon teaching error.
Let's say one observes that that the Roman Pontiff, who has been peacefully and universally accepted as being the Pope upon a canonical election, has taught something that under the conditions of infallibility. Should the teaching be given religious assent?
The sedevacantist standard seems to be: if the Pope has taught something in the UOM, AND it is not heretical, then it should be piously believed. But then the office of the pope is superfluous, and there is no unique authority in the successor of Peter that should be heeded to. If one can only assent to the doctrines of one that is believed to be the Pope so long as it is first judged that the teaching is not heretical, then the teaching is always going to be subject to one's own judgment first. But this is exactly the same standard that the teachings of any other bishop, or any other se, should be held to, and therefore the Roman See and the Roman Pontiff would not be unique in the divine protection against error that has been afforded to them.
You need to do more studying, because the things you've written here don't make sense and show a lack of understanding of the notions involved.
The protection of the See from error is never revoked. The reason that the particular man would lose his office is precisely to protect the See from teaching heresy, and to protect the Church. Since he is no longer Pope, the Church would recognize that and act to remove him (something which she cannot do to a true Pope). That is not happening today because in addition to the Roman See, most other sees are also illegitimately occupied by heretics, and the rest of the bishops are simply afraid.
You have not correctly identified what we say. First of all, if something is part of the OUM, this means that it is already infallible. Second, if a Pope is teaching the Church as Pope, then we are obliged to accept that teaching and not subject it to our judgment ("He that heareth you, heareth me"). However, if his teaching is contradicting previous infallible teachings of the Magisterium, then we have a duty to adhere to the previous teaching, we infallibly know the new teaching is necessarily false, and theologians say that this proves that that person is no longer Pope.
Why? Because the See of St. Peter cannot teach heresy to the Church - that is indefectibility.
On the other hand, when the Pope issues a definition or condemns errors, that is infallibility. If a true Roman Pontiff teaches something under the conditions of infallibility, then it must be infallible - that is de fide.
Very well done, and given on my birthday. Thank you for the birthday gift. I have always read that the pope is infallible only in matters of faith and morals, and only when speaking Ex Cathedra. With regard to the contents offered above, is the Pope obligated to teach the truth in his ordinary teachings? I am particularly thinking about Francis and Traditiones Custodes. Francis deliberately lied when he sent out his cover letter claiming that he sent out a survey to all bishops (he never provided the survey questions, nor did he provide the actual answers) in which he said the bishops favored suppressing the Traditional Latin Mass. We learned later that the majority of the bishops actually favored retaining the TLM. He used this lie to justify issuing Traditiones Custodes. In Traditiones Custodes, Francis lied again when he claimed the Novus Ordo was the Mass of Vatican II. This was a deliberate lie, since he knew the Novus Ordo violated every provision of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II document issued by the Council Fathers detailing their direction for updating the Liturgy of the Mass organically. The Novus Ordo is the Mass of Paul VI since he signed off on it, but it is not, and never has been, the Mass of Vatican II.
Did these lies constitute a violation of the doctrine of indefectibility and, if so, did this mean Francis was no longer Pope, and thus nullifying all his acts following the issuance of Traditiones Custodes?
Please note the difference between infallibility and indefectibility.
The theoretical presence of error in the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium is not excluded by theologians, but the Pope teaching the Universal Church grave error and heresy most certainly is.
The NO can certainly be called the Mass of Vatican II because "Sacrosanctum Concilium" was written precisely to seek to legitimize future changes to the liturgy and to open the door for the creation of the NO rite (which was probably prepared long before in the Masonic lodges). The presence of some conservative language was there to fool the many bishops attached to the Roman rite, and it was mingled with the poison to change their attitudes and prepare them to accept the Protestantized rite.
Here is an analysis of SC by Louie Verrecchio:
https://akacatholic.com/liturgical-devastation-is-it-due-to-vatican-ii/
Jorge Bergoglio was never Pope of the Catholic Church because he defected into public heresy long before his election.
Then does that mean that Traditionis Custodes was not legitimately promulgated and may therefore be ignored by any priest who chooses to do so?
A person who is not the Pope and who is not even a member of the Church, but a public heretic, cannot promulgate anything at all.
"Our duty as Catholics is to keep the Faith of the Apostles ". Remember the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares.
You said of the “sedeplenists”;
“The solution, the way to RECOVER TRUE FAITH IN THE CHURCH, as we profess in the Creed, is not to run away from the infallible doctrines of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See and of the Church.”
This is YOU admitting that sedeplenists do not have “true faith” in an article of the Creed. That would mean they have a false profession of faith (even if held ignorantly and innocently). A critical defect that as I already pointed out to you, destroyed what the Church actually IS in their minds (as you point out above). You spilled a lot of ink showing this to people in this article (which was pretty good by the way).
We all distrust AI and clearly Matthew’s “Magisterium AI” is biased in favor of the post-conciliar structure’s false theology, but the answer it gave me when I asked it about Van Noort and the, “More common opinion of the theologians that public material heretics are NOT members of the Church.”, demonstrates aptly that you are indeed “no theologian” and actually seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Let me remind you that you said “Of course Van Noort is right”, but then you diverted and ran off when I pointed out to you that he can only be talking about CATHOLICS as material public heretics NOT “Protestants, or Eastern Schismatics” as you stupidly affirm that only “Protestants and Eastern Schismatics can be material heretics, no Catholics can be material heretics, because they have the correct rule of blah blah blah.”
The passage of Van Noort in question is the one of his that you kept saying I “don’t understand” because I don’t understand heretical intent, etc.
I present the words of Van Noot yet again:
"By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth for example Mary's Divine maternity or several truths of divine and Catholic faith regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guilty (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from church membership it is the more common opinion that public material heretics are likewise excluded for membership theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong if public material heretics remained members of the church the VISIBILITY and UNITY of Christ Church would perish if these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic church in the strict sense of the term. How would one ever locate the Catholic Church? How would the church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its VISABILITY?Where it's UNITY? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics in good faith remaining members of the church."
P. 153 Christ's Church. END VAN NOORT
So I point the A.I. to Van Noort’s body of work and this is what it returned.
From Magisterium A.I:
If a baptized Catholic publicly denies extra Ecclesiam nulla salus—“outside the Church there is no salvation”—but does so through ignorance, misunderstanding, or invincible error, he would be a public material heretic, not necessarily a formal heretic. The public error concerns the objective content of his profession; culpability concerns his subjective knowledge and obstinacy. 1
He would therefore not be a member of the Church in the strict visible sense according to the theological position Van Noort is describing, since membership requires profession of the true faith and unity in that one faith. 2
However, three qualifications are essential:
Merely asking questions, using imprecise language, or rejecting a distorted interpretation of the dogma is not necessarily heresy.
Material heresy does not imply personal guilt or damnation.
The doctrine itself does not teach that every person who is visibly outside the Church is culpable; invincible ignorance can exclude guilt, while salvation still comes through Christ and his Church. 3
So the precise conclusion is:
A Catholic who publicly and objectively denies the dogma, even innocently, can be classified by Van Noort as a public material heretic and therefore as outside visible membership in the Church; but his ignorance may preserve him from formal heresy and personal culpability.
END MAGISTERIUM A.I.
First Van Noort and the common opinion of the theologians is wrong (according to you)! And now Magisterium A.I. gets it wrong too!
So you can subsititute EENS for whatever you like, but the point still stands. A Catholic who adheres to heresy publicly even if innocently and ignorantly, would fit this definition of public material heretic and according to the more common opinion of the theologians is not a member of the Church.
So when people in the post-Vatican II structure adhere to Vatican II and they gobble up Religous Liberty, and false ecumenism, and blessings for homos, and the old covenant is still salvific, and the New Mass itself, which can be argued is heretical, they can be thought of “CHARITABLY” as public material heretics who are not members of the Church. One should pray for them to come to true faith and not presume they have no errors of their own. So, you mistake me for a hot-headed zealot trying to, “throw everyone out of the Church.” Hah, that is great! But really, I am just irritated that you won’t admit what Van Noort says, it makes you look dishonest or ignorant, and if you are dishonest why should anyone listen to you? If you are so ignorant of the more common opinions of the theologians like Van Noort, what business do you have trying to “teach” others? I tried to explain it to you several times, you are a smart guy right? So, why the sophisms and deflection?
So either state he (Van Noort) was wrong for saying public material heretics i.e., a Catholic holding innocently and ignorantly heresy - is not a member of the Church according to the more common opinion.
Or
State that YOU WERE WRONG to misidentify what Van Noort was saying about public material heretics as if it did not pertain to Catholics who have material heresy but rather those already OUTSIDE the Church i.e., formal heretics.
I still say it is safer to follow the more common opinion of the theologians on this without making any pretense about one’s own membership status. While you call such a tolerated and uncensured more common opinion a “grave sin” of “injustice”, and “unchwaritablness”. You are calling sin what is no sin at all - which as you are aware is a hallmark of heretics.
For those confused, this is JMatha continuing the discussion from here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/savonarola-vs-alexander-vi-an-historical/comments
I write in this article: "what SOME of them [sedeplenists] end up believing in and confessing is not just a defected Roman Pontiff, but a defected Church... the way to recover true faith in the Church, as we profess in the Creed..."
Talk about reading comprehension. BTW, you still haven't read or understood Billot, otherwise you wouldn't be summarizing the doctrine like this:
"...no Catholics can be material heretics, because they HAVE THE CORRECT RULE of..."
You actually believe that a Catholic can become a heretic without pertinacity. If you ever want to actually learn something, start with this article by Mr. John Daly: https://web.archive.org/web/20210110135236/http://strobertbellarmine.net/pertinacity.html
The rest of your rant deserves no response and reflects very poorly on you.
Our discussion is over.
No you are missing the whole issue. It is your dishonesty here THAT is what this is about.
If I want to "actually learn" Van Noort isn't good enough eh? I need to read John Daly to understand eh? Lord save us from the audacity of these anonymous arm-chair theologians!
You have impugned the "more common opinion of the theologians" according to Van Noort. Stop citing Billot, other theologians have other opinions and sometimes it is one critical nuance that a theologian is using that makes all the difference. Billot works for your opinon, in the way that favors your understanding best, so you cite him on this as if he is the only authority whom has all the answers, but he isn't and he doesn't.
You are also imputing sin to others in your post's to Elaine, and myself and a certain "mindset" that YOU attribute to "schism of Lucifer of Caligari", snarky, and sly, but I caught you, so don't get all irrational and run off again, stand like a man (if you are one, which I doubt) and own up to your public mistake - even if anonymous, you still need to own up to your misrepresentation of Van Noort and imputing sin to others who have a different tolerated opinion than you do.
You have accused Catholics who follow the more common opinion in this of grave sins. Which is rash judgement. A judgment founded on an OPINON that YOU hold, but NOT defined Catholic teaching.
Retract your rash judgment of Catholics for holding a tolerated opinion. Admit what Van Noort actually says, that it IS the more common opinion of theologians that a Catholic who held a heresy even ignorantly and innocently is NOT a member of the Church."
That is what it says, but you keep evading.
Even if you disagree with him that is fine, just admit that you hold the lesser opinion that public material heretics DO belong to the Church. other opinions are tolerated. You can argue why VAN NOORT IS WRONG, but don't LIE and say I was wrong about what Van Noort said- that is what you did. No. I understood him PERFECTLY, but you keep running to other definitions by Billot, Just admit that Van Noort teaches, that it is the "more common opinion that public material heretics are not members of the Church." and in this it is crystal clear he is talking about CATHOLICS as this section is immediately preceded with the definition of FORMAL heretics which include Protestants, Eastern Schismatics, etc.
Otherwise, I accuse you of rash judgement of Catholics who hold this opinion, and dishonesty in misrepresenting what Van Noort says. If true, (as the evidence would then suggest) then such a person has ZERO business airing their pseudo-theological tracts publicly as both their honesty and judgement are in question.
If you want to leave it at that, so be it, may God have mercy on your soul.
I agree with Van Noort that material heretics (e.g. Protestants, Eastern Schismatics etc.) are outside the body of the Church. Just as other heretics, they reject the Church as their rule of faith. The problem is that you do not want to learn the difference between material heretics and Catholics in error. Van Noort says nothing about that so you take his silence to mean that he supports your extreme position.
Billot explains it explicitly and in detail so you reject him, in order to have the justification to kick out of the Church all those souls unknowingly in error but adhering to the Catholic Church, as if the Loving Mother could kick her child, clinging to her skirt, out of her House for making an innocent mistake. Along with the rest of your comment, it shows which type of spirit moves you.
P.S. To show that what Billot teaches is not some new doctrine, but taught by the Church since ancient times, I quote St. Thomas Aquinas, quoting St. Augustine:
"As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): 'By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth,' because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church" (Summa Theol., II-II, q. 11, art. 2, reply to objection 3).
You are still being dishonest.
Van Noort is talking about Catholics who manifest denial of dogma even if ignorantly and innocently, he makes this crystal clear because immediately proceeding this section he speaks of formal heretics and in speaking of material PUBLIC heretics he speaks of the impossibility of one who denied a single dogma of maintaining the nessecary bond of unity in faith (which means nothing to you).
You are trying sooooo hard to be "chwaritable and nithe" and make the Church as "big as possible". But in YOUR misplaced zeal you have been caught lying about Van Noort's plain meaning and imputing sin to those who hold his allowed opinion that, public material heretics (Catholics) are not members of the Church. Just being honest is better than trying to find "schismatic trad" mentalities to admonish. Your correction has collosally blown up in your own face.
1)Admit Van Noort was speaking of Catholics when referencing public material heretics.
2) Retract the imputation of sin to Catholics who hold the more common opinion according to Van Noort that public materially heretical Catholics are not members of the Church.
How could I admit to something Van Noort does not say? Nowhere does he mention that he is talking about Catholics. This is what you **want** him to say, but he is speaking in general on the baptized and doesn't mention the specific case of a Catholic who while keeping his submission to the Magisterium would unknowingly profess a heretical doctrine.
I agree with Van Noort, as I agree with the common opinion that material heretics are outside the body of the Church. Here are the teachings of some theologians on that: https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/Fenton/Membership%20in%20the%20Church%20(Fenton).pdf (pp. 300-302).
If Van Noort actually taught what you say, I would simply say I disagreed with him, but he doesn't.
You are making an interpretation of Van Noort, adding to what he wrote, then calling that addition the "more common opinion", and then accusing me of not adhering to your interpretation.
And you still haven't found a single author in favor of that extreme opinion.
Here is the full passage again from Van Noort:
"Public heretics are not members of the church they are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously therefore they lack one of the three factors; baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy, pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that unlike other sins, heresy schism and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin however gravity is such a several man automatically from the Body the Church as does schism or heresy or apostasy." (MCC 30)
Here he is talking about Protestants, Orthodox, and Apostates, agreed?
Then he immediately continues:
"By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth for example Mary's Divine maternity or several truths of divine and Catholic faith regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic) or willfully and guilty (a formal heretic) it is certain that public formal heretics are severed from Church membership it is the more common opinion that public material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. The theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong if public material heretics remain members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? for these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics in good faith remaining members of the Church."
This IS talking about CATHOLICS, anyone who is honest can see that. You are not honest, you lie. You say it is just talking about the "baptized in general".
Then Van Noort immediately concludes:
"When it comes to a question of a occult heretics remaining members of the Church theologians are in sharper disagreement and the intrinsic probability of their respective arguments seems better balanced than in the proceeding case. An occult heretic is one who denies a truth of the Divine and Catholic faith in his heart while professing the same truth with his lips. So a man might recite the Nicene Creed with the rest of the faithful, but deny the doctrine of the Trinity internally. Even if he were to deny such a truth externally but his defection from the faith was secret, known only to one or two intimates, he would also be classified as an occult heretic. The more common opinion is that such heretics remain members of the Church."
This section is clearly also talking about CATHOLICS, The "faithful" and he speaks of it in connection with the "proceeding case" because it is dealing with internal heretics both occult and material. Once someone is a public formal heretic it is CERTAIN they are not members of the Church (from above). But what we are dealing with here is the more common opinions for both public material heretics AND occult heretics according to Van Noort WHO YOU DISTORT.
You also have lied in stating I said you had to accept this opinion. You can reject the opinion that is ALLOWED. You CANNOT lie about it being an uncensored opinion. You CANNOT lie about Van Noort's plain meaning, you CANNOT impute sin to those who follow the opinion.