FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sedevacantism Debate at this Forum
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
(01-23-2013, 04:23 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Jayne,
I would have to look into whether some clergy have actually petitioned Rome in the past before posting articles on the Web.  A question that arises, though, is what measure of obedience or piety/loyalty does one owe to another whom he views as not even being a superior?

Parmandur,
The Eastern Orthodox profess the Nicene Creed as well, and yet no one would argue that we share the same faith with them.

And yes, I've seen those arguments used on this forum several times over the past couple of years.  I don't want to drag anyone else into this, but I wonder if INP would concur with what I've said.


I've seen those discussions; you mischaracterize those who disagree with you, if you take away that as what they were saying.
Yes, bring it back.

If the theory of sedevacantism is wrong, it should pose no problem to dismantle it and show all of its errors so that no one is taken in by them.

In other words, you have nothing to lose by starting up that section again.    It can't get any uglier than other threads have gotten.  It if gets out of control, then get rid of it for good.

(01-23-2013, 04:59 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]I've seen those discussions; you mischaracterize those who disagree with you, if you take away that as what they were saying.

Perhaps.  Maybe my memory is poor.  I'll have to look for those threads to refresh it.
(01-23-2013, 05:30 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 04:59 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]I've seen those discussions; you mischaracterize those who disagree with you, if you take away that as what they were saying.

Perhaps.  Maybe my memory is poor.  I'll have to look for those threads to refresh it.

You are not recreating the actual arguments people are using, but a mistaken impression of them.
(01-23-2013, 05:09 PM)Lavalliere Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, bring it back.

If the theory of sedevacantism is wrong, it should pose no problem to dismantle it and show all of its errors so that no one is taken in by them.

Just like it was easy to dismantle the errors of protestantism so that no one was taken in by them. Or orthodoxy.  Or Mohammedanism.  Or Mormonism. 

Heresy does not need a platform on a Catholic forum.  Error has no rights.  Sedevacantism is an error.  Therefore, it has no rights.  Q.E.D.
(01-23-2013, 02:49 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 11:53 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 11:41 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 11:31 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me that you assume that which is to be proven.  Yes, Pope Benedict is recognized as the Bishop of Rome, but more is required for him to be the Pope in fact (i.e. the profession of the Catholic Faith).

This shows the problem. An SV sub-forum means a place where people will consider the fact that Pope Benedict is the pope is something to be proven and yet will never accept the proofs.  How could this be a good thing?

Why would some people never accept the proofs?  Is it because they are of bad will, or perhaps because the proofs are lacking in strength of argument?  And what of people who, when presented with damning evidence against the Supreme Pontiff, reply with, "Oh, it's too complicated for us to understand.  You must be interpreting document X incorrectly"?  That seems to go against the idea that we can objectively know the Faith and likewise recognize error.

One immediate rebuttal will be, "But the Holy Father is infinitely more intelligent than we are.  You are not qualified to criticize him."  What then when I refer to other men who are of his intellectual capacity and who vehemently disagree with him?  How shall their arguments be treated?

I likewise envision a second rebuttal to be, "But doctrine has developed, and we need to give the Magisterium time to work out the kinks in the admittedly novel points of doctrine which have appeared since 1964."  It's the Magisterium's task to teach clearly the truths revealed by God, and yet it has utterly failed in this regard for the last 50 years.  Besides that, there's nothing wrong with applying logic and known doctrines to the novelties to see if they are truly in continuity with what was taught in the past.  I think we're obliged to do this in order preserve our faith, for which we are personally responsible.

Actually, none of what you say here sounds like a real conversation that goes down on these forums.  Eye-roll

Amusingly, it sounds quite similar indeed, you and others that deny this are often the very same people who make such absurd arguments. I dislike sedevecantism as much as anyone else, but there are many on here who do engage in the kind of behaviour southpaw refers to, I've heard such arguments from the 'liberal' crowd on here and often when pushed they complain about how people are insulting them, invent things to complain about or simply run away with their tail behind their legs and pretend the thread never existed, they also act stupid when all else fails.
Acting stupid is always a legitimate option.
(01-23-2013, 08:49 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Amusingly, it sounds quite similar indeed, you and others that deny this are often the very same people who make such absurd arguments. I dislike sedevecantism as much as anyone else, but there are many on here who do engage in the kind of behaviour southpaw refers to, I've heard such arguments from the 'liberal' crowd on here and often when pushed they complain about how people are insulting them, invent things to complain about or simply run away with their tail behind their legs and pretend the thread never existed, they also act stupid when all else fails.

Actually not; SouthPaw failed to recreate the arguments of those who disagreed with him and posited a cartoon caricature.
(01-23-2013, 08:11 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 05:09 PM)Lavalliere Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, bring it back.

If the theory of sedevacantism is wrong, it should pose no problem to dismantle it and show all of its errors so that no one is taken in by them.

Just like it was easy to dismantle the errors of protestantism so that no one was taken in by them. Or orthodoxy.  Or Mohammedanism.  Or Mormonism. 

Heresy does not need a platform on a Catholic forum.  Error has no rights.  Sedevacantism is an error.  Therefore, it has no rights.  Q.E.D.

Keep smiling.
To be specific as to how he was incorrect:

(01-23-2013, 11:53 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]One immediate rebuttal will be, "But the Holy Father is infinitely more intelligent than we are.  You are not qualified to criticize him."  What then when I refer to other men who are of his intellectual capacity and who vehemently disagree with him?  How shall their arguments be treated?

Nobody claims that the Pope is "infinitely beyond" others intellectually, but he is a very subtle academic and needs to be read carefully.  That is not saying that he is beyond our capacity to understand, but merely a call to prudence and careful reading.  Frankly though, I haven't seen anything from "other men who are of his intellectual capacity" rebutting him, and certainly nothing from anybody of that description in the Sede camp.

Quote:I likewise envision a second rebuttal to be, "But doctrine has developed, and we need to give the Magisterium time to work out the kinks in the admittedly novel points of doctrine which have appeared since 1964."  It's the Magisterium's task to teach clearly the truths revealed by God, and yet it has utterly failed in this regard for the last 50 years.  Besides that, there's nothing wrong with applying logic and known doctrines to the novelties to see if they are truly in continuity with what was taught in the past.  I think we're obliged to do this in order preserve our faith, for which we are personally responsible.

When has anybody on this forum ever called on "doctrinal development" to defend VII: Electric Bugaloo?  Aside from random trolls.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35