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
Error has no rights.  Sedevacantism is an error.  Therefore, it has no rights.  Q.E.D.

#didyouseewhatididthere?
(01-21-2013, 10:39 PM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: [ -> ]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?

There have been previous infestations. That's why.
(01-21-2013, 10:40 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Error has no rights.  Sedevacantism is an error.  Therefore, it has no rights.  Q.E.D.

#didyouseewhatididthere?

Simple, elegant.
Sedevacantism, now, is not about the possibility of it, or historical thoughts on it, but whether or not it is the case now, and it is based on charges of heresy against the Pope.

That is the main issue: whether the Pope is a heretic or not.

Sedevacantists do not generally hold their idea to be infallible, so others cannot be held to it (by the same means they absolve themselves of guilt of sin if they were wrong, others must too be absolved), and the Pope is central to the teachings of the Church, I do not see how public discussion of this topic could be good.
(01-21-2013, 10:43 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 10:39 PM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: [ -> ]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?

There have been previous infestations. That's why.

Bingo.  The previous infestations didn't stay in one room, either.

As Dr. Bombay pointed out earlier "there is the problem of sub-forum creep."

If SSPX talk can't stay in the SSPX forum, what are the chances that sede talk would stay in the sede forum?  It didn't in the past, won't in the future if it's allowed.  It will increase the need for moderation.

I don't see any good reasons for a traditional Catholic forum to have a sedevacantist subforum. 

As tradne4163 said: "Sedevacantism isn't just a little boo-boo. It is an outright rejection of the heirarchy of the entire Church, from the Holy Father all they way down to most parish priests."

Rosarium pointed out "the Sedevacantist idea does not usually extent to one Pope, but a series of Popes, and includes an entire liturgical rite, and it attacks the foundation of the Church". 

Those statements are similar but if you read them carefully, each addresses points that the other doesn't. 

The arguments for a sede forum seem to boil down to "there were antipopes centuries ago," but we all know they don't want to discuss those cases.












(01-21-2013, 11:35 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]Rosarium pointed out "the Sedevacantist idea does not usually extent to one Pope, but a series of Popes, and includes an entire liturgical rite, and it attacks the foundation of the Church". 

The part in bold bothers me.  It seems like when it's inconvenient for it to be a whole rite, the Novus Ordo isn't, it's just one form of the Latin Rite.  But when it's inconvenient for it not to be a whole rite, then it is a whole rite.  I hate that kind of game.

Sorry-- lots of asides on this topic.

The others here are right:  if SV discussion is allowed, it won't stay in its subforum, any more than SSPX discussion does.
(01-21-2013, 10:39 PM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Sedevacantism is clearly and seriously wrong.  It involves attacking the Pope and literally undermining the foundation of the Church.  Our Lord said "On this rock I will build my Church" and sedes chip away at that rock. Of course, I feel strongly. 
Yes, but if only the proper debate venue is followed and adhered to:  Formal proposition, pro and con, then formal and polite rebuttals.  And a subforum by invitation.  I have a few arguments that would make SV untenable and indefensible.  Of course, SV is a theological theory and there's some meat in it.  But not to go too far and try to read the mind of God.  Whoever is elected has God's approbation:  "So you elected Benedict XVI, therefore, for now he is My pope."  I would think that's how God looks at who is at the helm of His Church.  I think the "only" time in the history of the Papacy where God the Holy Ghost intervened was the election of Pope St. Fabianus (236-250 AD):

Quote:Fabian was not among the frontrunners during the papal election. In fact, no one had considered him at all. During the deliberations, however, a dove flew in through an open window and landed on Fabian's head. The clergy knew a sign when they saw one, and they elected him by acclamation.

The Roman persecutions tapered off after the death of Emperor Maximinus Thrax, giving Fabian time to put the affairs of the dioscese of Rome in some sort of administrative order. He initiated some tidying up of the Christian cemetaries and even arranged to have Pontianus' body brought back from Sardinia.

Despite having a fabulous name, Pope Fabian was not the luckiest of pontiffs. When Decius became Emperor in 249, he made it his mission to slay the Christians. Fabian was arrested and killed shortly thereafter.

The conciliar popes were elected because God wanted it so.  He wanted to see how much Satan could destroy the Church after granting the infernal request 100 years and see how much damage could be wrought.  At this time I see vaguely that Benedict is trying the best he can to make repairs.

Just saying...
I wonder why God did that?  Why let Satan even have a go for 100 years?  Was He bored?  Curious?  Did He want to show off?

Why not simply say to Satan.  "No Satan, you crazy bastard.  Now back to Hell with you."

Forgive my analogy but God and Satan do seem to be playing the role of a couple of hillbillies in this vision, seeing whether the Ford Truck one owns is really as tough as they say.  Is this some spiritual world equivalent of, "Will it Blend?"

You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.  (But I might have a little side bet with Satan in 2000 years just to test that out.)

(01-22-2013, 08:54 AM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder why God did that?  Why let Satan even have a go for 100 years?  Was He bored?  Curious?  Did He want to show off?

Why not simply say to Satan.  "No Satan, you crazy bastard.  Now back to Hell with you."
The book of Job may be enlightening.


Quote:Forgive my analogy but God and Satan do seem to be playing the role of a couple of hillbillies in this vision, seeing whether the Ford Truck one owns is really as tough as they say.  Is this some spiritual world equivalent of, "Will it Blend?"
It is consistent with St. John and other public revelation.

I would say that the principle reason is sin. It is because of sin that such trials are allowed to take place.
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