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
It took me awhile to think about this and I have come to the conclusion that it may be useful if it is debated with some guidelines. Just remember there are many lurkers here on FE, and to many this is scary territory especially for those rediscovering their faith. It was for me anyway.
(01-23-2013, 02:48 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously, it's less an assumption and more a judgement along the lines of "the sky is blue."  Benedict XVI is the bishop of Rome, universally recognized as the Pope of the Catholic Church.  Unlike the Western Schism, there is not an open question as to who the Pope is at this moment.  It is well known.

It is well-believed, yes; but you again assume that what is believed by most is sufficient to make something known, which presumes that the popular belief makes it a fact. This didn't work during the Arian heresy; it certainly doesn't work today.

See Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, n. 6:I-II.

As it pertains to your justification of your circular reasoning as employed in another discussion with me, such reasoning can only be applied to the principles of reason that are self-evident. The principles of contradiction and the excluded middle come to mind.

You can't pick a dogmatic fact (an application of Church teaching to a particular historical reality given the presence of certain conditions)* and then assert that it is self-evidently true. Certain conditions are necessary. Disputing the applicability of a dogma to a particular historical reality due to the absence of those conditions does not constitute error. Arguing that the proposition (that person x is the successor of St. Peter) is self-evidently true side-steps the necessary conditions that allow the dogma to be applied in the first place.


* The recognition of the pope as such, given certain conditions, is an example of a dogmatic fact (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia: Dogmatic Fact).
(01-24-2013, 08:54 PM)candyapple Wrote: [ -> ]It took me awhile to think about this and I have come to the conclusion that it may be useful if it is debated with some guidelines. Just remember there are many lurkers here on FE, and to many this is scary territory especially for those rediscovering their faith. It was for me anyway.

For the ininitiated lurkers who are rediscovering their faith, either they believe this is the Dimond brothers playground or they about-face.


 
Error has no rights. Sedevacantism is an error.  Therefore, it has no rights.  Polls don't change that. Q.E.D.
(01-24-2013, 09:28 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 02:48 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously, it's less an assumption and more a judgement along the lines of "the sky is blue."  Benedict XVI is the bishop of Rome, universally recognized as the Pope of the Catholic Church.  Unlike the Western Schism, there is not an open question as to who the Pope is at this moment.  It is well known.

It is well-believed, yes; but you again assume that what is believed by most is sufficient to make something known, which presumes that the popular belief makes it a fact. This didn't work during the Arian heresy; it certainly doesn't work today.

See Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, n. 6:I-II.

As it pertains to your justification of your circular reasoning as employed in another discussion with me, such reasoning can only be applied to the principles of reason that are self-evident. The principles of contradiction and the excluded middle come to mind.

You can't pick a dogmatic fact (an application of Church teaching to a particular historical reality given the presence of certain conditions)* and then assert that it is self-evidently true. Certain conditions are necessary. Disputing the applicability of a dogma to a particular historical reality due to the absence of those conditions does not constitute error. Arguing that the proposition (that person x is the successor of St. Peter) is self-evidently true side-steps the necessary conditions that allow the dogma to be applied in the first place.


* The recognition of the pope as such, given certain conditions, is an example of a dogmatic fact (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia: Dogmatic Fact).

That Benedict XVI is the Bishop of Rome and sits in the See of Peter is an established fact; that is not circular, it is a base level judgement based on observing objective reality..  As Dr. Bombay says, errors have no rights.
It's reasonable to say that sedevacantism is an error because there is a real Pope. It is reasonable to say that
it is overwhelmingly, unquestionably evident.  But it seems to me unreasonable to think that just saying this over and over
is an actual argument that has some kind of legitimacy against those who think there there are reasons for thinking otherwise.

If it is not important for sedevacantists to change their mind, then there should be no sedevacantist forum.

If it is important, then isn't the following syllogism is of concern:

1) A man who teaches heresy can not be a Pope
2) This man teaches heresy
===
3) This man cannot be a pope

Don't premises 1 and/or 2 need to be attacked to defeat sedevacantists?

On fisheaters premise 2 is attacked by many.  In this way sedevacantism is already attacked/debated.
Should premise 1 also be debated?  Isn't it of concern?  (not a rhetorical question)

I think there is almost overwhelming evidence that there is a Pope.  I think that that actual evidence can be and should be stated and restated. I think the evidence is a part of the argument (that the man was elected; that almost all think he is Pope; that Christ's promise for the Church seems thwarted for 50 years otherwise, etc).

But to me just saying "but he IS Pope" is not satisfactory, simply because of that syllogism.
That syllogism still bothers me.
(01-25-2013, 12:36 AM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]It's reasonable to say that sedevacantism is an error because there is a real Pope. It is reasonable to say that
it is overwhelmingly, unquestionably evident.  But it seems to me unreasonable to think that just saying this over and over
is an actual argument that has some kind of legitimacy against those who think there there are reasons for thinking otherwise.

If it is not important for sedevacantists to change their mind, then there should be no sedevacantist forum.

If it is important, then isn't the following syllogism is of concern:

1) A man who teaches heresy can not be a Pope
2) This man teaches heresy
===
3) This man cannot be a pope

Don't premises 1 and/or 2 need to be attacked to defeat sedevacantists?

On fisheaters premise 2 is attacked by many.  In this way sedevacantism is already attacked/debated.
Should premise 1 also be debated?  Isn't it of concern?   (not a rhetorical question)

I think there is almost overwhelming evidence that there is a Pope.  I think that that actual evidence can be and should be stated and restated. I think the evidence is a part of the argument (that the man was elected; that almost all think he is Pope; that Christ's promise for the Church seems thwarted for 50 years otherwise, etc).

But to me just saying "but he IS Pope" is not satisfactory, simply because of that syllogism.
That syllogism still bothers me.

Not saying that it is an argument.  But, since it is a fact, argument won't get anywhere.
(01-25-2013, 12:36 AM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]It's reasonable to say that sedevacantism is an error because there is a real Pope. It is reasonable to say that
it is overwhelmingly, unquestionably evident.  But it seems to me unreasonable to think that just saying this over and over
is an actual argument that has some kind of legitimacy against those who think there there are reasons for thinking otherwise.

If it is not important for sedevacantists to change their mind, then there should be no sedevacantist forum.

If it is important, then isn't the following syllogism is of concern:

1) A man who teaches heresy can not be a Pope
2) This man teaches heresy
===
3) This man cannot be a pope

Don't premises 1 and/or 2 need to be attacked to defeat sedevacantists?

On fisheaters premise 2 is attacked by many.  In this way sedevacantism is already attacked/debated.
Should premise 1 also be debated?  Isn't it of concern?   (not a rhetorical question)

I think there is almost overwhelming evidence that there is a Pope.  I think that that actual evidence can be and should be stated and restated. I think the evidence is a part of the argument (that the man was elected; that almost all think he is Pope; that Christ's promise for the Church seems thwarted for 50 years otherwise, etc).

But to me just saying "but he IS Pope" is not satisfactory, simply because of that syllogism.
That syllogism still bothers me.

Its already been done, in the cornfield, Garrigou Lagrange amongst others believed that a pope could teach heresy and still be pope.
(01-25-2013, 09:56 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Its already been done, in the cornfield, Garrigou Lagrange amongst others believed that a pope could teach heresy and still be pope.

Garrigou Lagrange was a brilliant theologian and a superb professor of metaphysics. He was not however a Canon Lawyer nor did he write any commentaries on Canon Law because he did not have the approval of the Legislator to do so. I think that having a forum open to this topic will help clarify who the real authorities are that we can look to for answering the core question.

If this is a question of what the Church teaches, and I believe that for all of us it is, then we need to look at only the approved commentaries on the Law:
"Officially binding interpretation of codified law is reserved to the Legislator or to those to whom he commits the authority to so interpret the law. 1917 CIC 17. Establishment of a pontifical interpretation commission was effected by Pope Benedict XV, m.p. Cum Iuris Canonici (15 sep 1917), AAS 9/1 (1917) 483-484, Eng. trans., CLD I: 55-57. In the course of its enforcement, the Pio-Benedictine Code experienced scores of authentic interpretations. Note that there do not appear to have been any authentic interpretations issued after 1952 until at least the end of the Second Vatican Council."
http://www.canonlaw.info/masterpage1917.htm

Those authentic interpretations are well known and can be readily sourced in most Catholic University Libraries (and Traditional Catholic Seminaries): http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_cites17.htm
(01-25-2013, 01:14 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 09:56 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Its already been done, in the cornfield, Garrigou Lagrange amongst others believed that a pope could teach heresy and still be pope.

Garrigou Lagrange was a brilliant theologian and a superb professor of metaphysics. He was not however a Canon Lawyer nor did he write any commentaries on Canon Law because he did not have the approval of the Legislator to do so. I think that having a forum open to this topic will help clarify who the real authorities are that we can look to for answering the core question.

If this is a question of what the Church teaches, and I believe that for all of us it is, then we need to look at only the approved commentaries on the Law:
"Officially binding interpretation of codified law is reserved to the Legislator or to those to whom he commits the authority to so interpret the law. 1917 CIC 17. Establishment of a pontifical interpretation commission was effected by Pope Benedict XV, m.p. Cum Iuris Canonici (15 sep 1917), AAS 9/1 (1917) 483-484, Eng. trans., CLD I: 55-57. In the course of its enforcement, the Pio-Benedictine Code experienced scores of authentic interpretations. Note that there do not appear to have been any authentic interpretations issued after 1952 until at least the end of the Second Vatican Council."
http://www.canonlaw.info/masterpage1917.htm

Those authentic interpretations are well known and can be readily sourced in most Catholic University Libraries (and Traditional Catholic Seminaries): http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_cites17.htm

He was a theologian, the issue is primarily theological, not canonical,  contrary to what you believe.
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