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
(01-30-2013, 02:32 PM)columb Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantism is the big elephant in the room that everyone must ignore and I myself being a fence-sitter like to hear the arguments for, and against, expounded and debated with the truth being the end goal.

It really isn't a big elephant; almost nobody even knows it is a thing, and almost none of those who do take it seriously.  Benedict XVI and his predecessors have been universally acknowledged as Popes; it is not an open question.  Like was said above, it really is like arguing about whether Venus is made of cheese.
(01-30-2013, 10:46 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]In other words, some will simply assert that Venus is not made of cheese, some will apply arguments and experiments, and others will claim that Venus simply doesn't exist?

Well, those making the assertions will point out that Venus has uniform surface temperatures of 894 °F,  nearly three times the melting point of tough cheeses, and that the question is therefore ridiculous.  So, yes.
(01-30-2013, 11:55 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: [ -> ]I'll tell you right to your face, Vox: your definitional of Traditional Catholicism is wrong and should be changed. Sedevacantism, as it exists today, is un-Catholic. It looks like Traditional Catholicism but it isn't. Catholics are in submission to the Pope, who is currently his holiness Benedict XVI. Someone who doesn't acknowledge that fact is merely a Catholic in name only.

This point is worth thinking about.  I would support  this change in the definition.
(01-30-2013, 03:39 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 02:32 PM)columb Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantism is the big elephant in the room that everyone must ignore and I myself being a fence-sitter like to hear the arguments for, and against, expounded and debated with the truth being the end goal.

It really isn't a big elephant; almost nobody even knows it is a thing, and almost none of those who do take it seriously.  Benedict XVI and his predecessors have been universally acknowledged as Popes; it is not an open question.  Like was said above, it really is like arguing about whether Venus is made of cheese.

That then will work in favor of having SVism debated since those same authorities who are "unquestionably legitimate" hold that all beliefs have relevance, elements of truth and that the Holy Spirit does not refrain from using them; therefore to make exceptions would go against the very authority you claim allegiance to.

Most here -I think- whether or not they agree with Bishop Williamson's opinions on the "holocaust", would be against the fact that he was not permitted to produce any evidence in court in support of his position which could have vindicated him. Likewise, the SV's should have the same right to produce the evidence they believe supports their position.
I would not support that ammendment.

It proceeds from a false premise, that there is nothing more important than loyalty to the pope-- and a blind loyalty, at that.  Loyalty even when the pope is wrong, and on serious matters.

I'm assuming that since the aim of the forum and the site is traditionalism, that the question of the NO and the documents of VII (as they have been interpreted by all or the vast majority of the canonically regular hierarchy) are questions that we are allowed to ask, as far as whether or not they are Catholic.  It seems we all come down on one side of the fence or the other, but nevertheless they are open questions, yes?  If not, Vox, you might as well shut the forum down because you'll save a lot of money and everyone can go to CAF, or they can find a traditional Catholic forum.  If these aren't questions that can't be asked and discussed upon (since they are assumed or accepted as being fully Catholic) then there's really no crisis in the church, there's just a crisis in the minds of trads and they need to just get over it.

The idea that a sedevacantist who only attends the old rites, and only follows the doctrines and teachings prior to VII-- the idea that such a person is not Catholic, but that a person who attends the NO and supports the conciliar documents that are used UNIVERSALLY to promote condemned errors such as ecumenism and religious liberty IS Catholic... well, that's just laughable.  I don't assume bad will on either person, and I don't think that the person who "accepts" the NO and VII has somehow forfeited his catholicity (though I do think he is being misled) but I certainly think that calling the latter Catholic and the former not to be a grave error in judgement.  If a person takes this stance I can only assume ignorance, since what Catholic teachers and theologians have taken from VII is condemned, and what the hierarchy performs on Sundays perfectly mirrors a service that was condemned in early protestant England.  On the other hand, what SV's believe and practice has been taught for more than a thousand years by the greatest saints the Church has produced.

(01-30-2013, 04:26 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that a sedevacantist who only attends the old rites, and only follows the doctrines and teachings prior to VII-- the idea that such a person is not Catholic, but that a person who attends the NO and supports the conciliar documents that are used UNIVERSALLY to promote condemned errors such as ecumenism and religious liberty IS Catholic... well, that's just laughable.

The idea that a person who is not in communion with the Pope is not Catholic has been established for centuries.
(01-30-2013, 04:34 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 04:26 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that a sedevacantist who only attends the old rites, and only follows the doctrines and teachings prior to VII-- the idea that such a person is not Catholic, but that a person who attends the NO and supports the conciliar documents that are used UNIVERSALLY to promote condemned errors such as ecumenism and religious liberty IS Catholic... well, that's just laughable.

The idea that a person who is not in communion with the Pope is not Catholic has been established for centuries.

So St Vincent Ferrer was not Catholic.
(01-30-2013, 04:10 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 11:55 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: [ -> ]I'll tell you right to your face, Vox: your definitional of Traditional Catholicism is wrong and should be changed. Sedevacantism, as it exists today, is un-Catholic. It looks like Traditional Catholicism but it isn't. Catholics are in submission to the Pope, who is currently his holiness Benedict XVI. Someone who doesn't acknowledge that fact is merely a Catholic in name only.

This point is worth thinking about.  I would support  this change in the definition.
I second the motion.
(01-30-2013, 04:37 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 04:34 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 04:26 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that a sedevacantist who only attends the old rites, and only follows the doctrines and teachings prior to VII-- the idea that such a person is not Catholic, but that a person who attends the NO and supports the conciliar documents that are used UNIVERSALLY to promote condemned errors such as ecumenism and religious liberty IS Catholic... well, that's just laughable.

The idea that a person who is not in communion with the Pope is not Catholic has been established for centuries.

So St Vincent Ferrer was not Catholic.

We have done the St. Vincent bit of this endless loop a couple of times already in this thread.  There is nothing new to be said on this topic.  Which is why we don't need a forum for it.
(01-30-2013, 04:39 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 04:10 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 11:55 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: [ -> ]I'll tell you right to your face, Vox: your definitional of Traditional Catholicism is wrong and should be changed. Sedevacantism, as it exists today, is un-Catholic. It looks like Traditional Catholicism but it isn't. Catholics are in submission to the Pope, who is currently his holiness Benedict XVI. Someone who doesn't acknowledge that fact is merely a Catholic in name only.

This point is worth thinking about.  I would support  this change in the definition.
I second the motion.
Based on the democratic way of running the forum, maybe Vox can put this definition change up for a vote.
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