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
(01-21-2013, 09:40 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 09:07 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 09:00 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 08:53 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 08:38 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 08:07 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]I voted yes, because I think the truth would in out over the sedevacantists, but many others have put forth good points as to how giving them a voice might be scandalous and dangerous to the cause of Catholic Tradition.
I see your point. But on the flipside, it may lend itself to rattling the Faith of a few Catholics who are not as doctrinally "bullet proof" as others.
I voted no. Why risk it?

If you're worrying about Catholics faith being rattled, you should be more focused on banning these pictures:

The idea of a pope taking part in or enabling false worship is far more scandalous than the idea that there is currently no pope.  #thinkaboutit

What are you implying? #asifwedidntknowcryptosv

But aren't you outraged by the pic of the pope kissing the koran? And the clown Episcopalian service? And the Masons in their aprons?  Don't act like you haven't seen them a thousand times!! I know you share everyone's outrage at such shenanigans!!!

#fakeoutrageisfun
Believe me, I don't lose sleep on account that the pope spoke with Jews in public.

I know right.  To think the putative Vicar of Christ would speak to Jews in public, something Our Lord would never do.  It's perfidious is what it is.

#jewscontroltheworld
(01-21-2013, 09:44 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I have nothing else to say.  The forum speaks for itself.  If this thread doesn't make the need for such a subforum obvious, nothing will.   Smile

You have enough platforms to spread your falsehood.  You do not need another one here.
(01-21-2013, 09:46 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantists are not people who claim that it is possible for there to be no pope.  They are people who deny that Benedict XVI is the pope.  This is not a "theological opinion" comparable to limbo.  It is unCatholic and unacceptable.

That may be so.  I don't believe it's what the forum rules say, though.

Was it unCatholic and unacceptable for St. Vincent Ferrier to support the wrong pope during the Great Western Schism?

No offense intended, Jayne, but the people showing the most emotional, "gut" reaction here are definitely those opposing giving the SVs a voice.
(01-21-2013, 09:56 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 09:46 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantists are not people who claim that it is possible for there to be no pope.  They are people who deny that Benedict XVI is the pope.  This is not a "theological opinion" comparable to limbo.  It is unCatholic and unacceptable.

That may be so.  I don't believe it's what the forum rules say, though.

Was it unCatholic and unacceptable for St. Vincent Ferrier to support the wrong pope during the Great Western Schism?

No offense intended, Jayne, but the people showing the most emotional, "gut" reaction here are definitely those opposing giving the SVs a voice.
From the Catechism (1929 Just in Case)

Yet is must be maintained according to Catholic teaching and Church history (see any standard Catholic Apologetics text book) that although there was during this period of confusion, two or even three claimants to the papacy, yet in actual fact there was only one Legitimate Pope, the others being antipopes. In such cases of common error, no matter how they are created, the Church supplies the jurisdiction for the benefit of the people (Canon 209. Practical Commentary of the Code, Law. Woywod. Vol. 1. p. 80.) . Thus we can understand why there was really no schism, for the majority of the people desired unity under one head and intended no revolt against papal authority. Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is the true pope? Even saints and theologians were divided on the question.... Unfortunately, led by politics and human desires, the papal claimants launched excommunications against each other" (The New Catholic Dictionary 1929).

Further during this same period their was also a warning sounded that "no mere human being has any right to judge him (the reigning Pontiff of the time) . . . nor has an assembly of bishops, and still less, one of the Cardinals . . . They are trying to force the hand of the Holy Ghost" (The New Catholic Dictionary 1929, P. 471).

Something tells me I'm speaking to a wall. But it's worth a shot..
(01-21-2013, 09:56 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 09:46 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantists are not people who claim that it is possible for there to be no pope.  They are people who deny that Benedict XVI is the pope.  This is not a "theological opinion" comparable to limbo.  It is unCatholic and unacceptable.

That may be so.  I don't believe it's what the forum rules say, though.
Sedevacantists might be Catholic.  Only God knows their spiritual state.  The forum definitions allow for that.  Sedevacantism is not a Catholic belief.  

(01-21-2013, 09:56 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]Was it unCatholic and unacceptable for St. Vincent Ferrier to support the wrong pope during the Great Western Schism?

He was objectively wrong, just like sedevacantists.

(01-21-2013, 09:56 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]No offense intended, Jayne, but the people showing the most emotional, "gut" reaction here are definitely those opposing giving the SVs a voice.

These emotional gut reactions are a major cause of discussions getting ugly in the way Vox dislikes.  Love of the pope has been a traditional mark of Catholics for centuries.  A belief that attacks the pope is going to get emotional reactions and lead to ugliness.  That is just what Vox was asking about.
(01-21-2013, 09:44 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I have nothing else to say.  The forum speaks for itself.  If this thread doesn't make the need for such a subforum obvious, nothing will.   Smile

The poll be damned huh ?
There will always be people who attack St. Peter's succesor. And there will always be defenders.
Pope Benedict XVI, who is the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth, will I defend, always.
A protestant, sedevacantist or atheist subforum is futile in a traditional Catholic site.

(01-21-2013, 10:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantists might be Catholic.  Only God knows their spiritual state.  The forum definitions allow for that.  Sedevacantism is not a Catholic belief.  

Respectfully, St. Francis de Sales apparently entertained the hypothesis.  He's not a theologian I would be quick to dismiss as unCatholic.

(01-21-2013, 09:56 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]Was it unCatholic and unacceptable for St. Vincent Ferrier to support the wrong pope during the Great Western Schism?

He was objectively wrong, just like sedevacantists.[/quote]

Objectively wrong, but still Catholic.  Just like a lot of sedevacantists, I dare say.

Quote:
(01-21-2013, 09:56 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]No offense intended, Jayne, but the people showing the most emotional, "gut" reaction here are definitely those opposing giving the SVs a voice.

These emotional gut reactions are a major cause of discussions getting ugly in the way Vox dislikes.  Love of the pope has been a traditional mark of Catholics for centuries.  A belief that attacks the pope is going to get emotional reactions and lead to ugliness.  That is just what Vox was asking about.

Yes, that's fine.  What bothered me was your assertion that sedevacantist arguments tend to be emotionally loaded and thus (as was at least intimated) invalid, which you then followed with your own statements that seemed to me every bit as emotionally loaded.

I agree that love of the pope is traditional.  However, I suspect that even sedevacantism is compatible with love of, at least, "the man who would be pope."  What I am sure of is that it is also traditional for the pope to be unquestionably Catholic and traditional.  Whether you like it or not, whether we like it or not, there are those of us here who doubt that.  There's no getting around it.

And there are those of us who despite, or even because, of all of that, still pray for the man who would be pope.
I voted "yes'' in the poll. It is a legitimate position for a Catholic to espouse. Especially, if during such a time of great crisis as in the Great Western Schism, St Vincent Ferrer espouse ''sede vacant'' or that the Church was without a legitimate pontiff and that the pope that he had previously recognise (Benedict) had lost the papacy by schism by his ''pertinaciously dividing the Church'.
As an interesting side note: I find it rather intriguing that on this one particular issue Jayne is so vigorous in her opposition that all talk of  Sedevacantism must be quashed. As if one sees an insect is and yelling at a man to crush and kill before it gets half a room a way instead of being 3/4 of a room a way . . .

Huh?


I don't recall her feeling this strongly about much of anything in quite some time.

____________________________
At any rate, being as Pope Paul the IV had backed the notion of a future Roman Pontiff defecting and falling from the Papacy by heresy or having an invalid election due to his person being a heretic in "CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO", I think that I (along with a good deal of many other fellows that that are Traditional Catholics) ought to be just fine and dandy espousing the 'Sede vacante' view.

In Charity,
Virgil

Tip o' the hat
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