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
You're not familiar with the Satan unchained for 100 years vision of Pope Leo xiii then?

Or revelation 20:7

There is something special according to those.
(01-22-2013, 11:48 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2013, 10:34 AM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]There is always sin.  There are not always trials like the one we are going through now.  Universal, widely publicised and affecting every Catholic in every parish and in an environment where Science provides an alternative naturalistic explanation and religion itself and the belief in a higher power is under question.

I simply don't believe that the Arian Heresy had such dramatic effects on Christian's morals and faith as this crisis.  This has attributes which make it far more devastating to the man in the pew.

Even if every bishop and every priest in the Church were a model of orthodoxy and moral living, we would be facing a crisis because of the nature of secular society.  We are inundated with atheism, materialism, liberalism, feminism and a host of evil ideas. They are in our governments, our entertainment and educational institutions.  We are in a war where the battlefield is our minds and few of us have the weapons to fight well.  I think less complaining about our leaders and more taking responsibility for what we ourselves can do would go a long way.
Roman society around the time when Our Lord walked the earth until after the Peace of Constantine was repugnantly immoral, but the Church, Churchmen, and most laymen did well in keeping the Faith then, and heresy and apostasy were not tolerated.
(01-22-2013, 07:53 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantism is clearly and seriously wrong. 
That is not clear nor is it self-evident.  Multiple canonists disagree with you.

Quote: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. 

Antipopes and heretics attack the doctrine and immutable truths of the Church. Concern as to whether or not we have an antipope imposing however subtly teachings contrary to previous Catholic teaching, is indeed valid, if one is concerned with the current Crisis in the Church. If you don't believe that the Church has been a crisis for the last fifty years and including that there something wrong with the actions and many words that the last several popes have done and said. If one is a Traditional Catholic one recognises the problems with the New Sacraments, new Mass and the documents and deeds of the Church within the last fifty years.
Guys, Church history just so happens to line up exactly with my ideology. In the early Church, every Catholic was an orthodox ultramontanist who fought constantly for the Social Reign of Christ the King, and, in truth, it would not be inaccurate to say that the Church of Pius X simply fell out of the sky fully formed one day in A.D. 33. If you don't believe me, that is only because you are a Modernist. This is all there is to say on the subject. Vox, you can lock this thread now since it serves no further purpose.
(01-22-2013, 01:52 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]You're not familiar with the Satan unchained for 100 years vision of Pope Leo xiii then?

Or revelation 20:7

There is something special according to those.

All that is known from first hand accounts is that Pope Leo apparently had a vision, after which he wrote the Prayer to St. Michael and had the Leonine prayers added to the end of the Mass.  We do not know if the popular version of the vision is what he actually saw and even if it were, there would be no obligation to believe it. 

I'm not sure why you would think that Revelation 20:7 applies to recent times.  This is not a thousand years after the time of Christ.
(01-22-2013, 02:28 PM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2013, 11:48 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2013, 10:34 AM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]There is always sin.  There are not always trials like the one we are going through now.  Universal, widely publicised and affecting every Catholic in every parish and in an environment where Science provides an alternative naturalistic explanation and religion itself and the belief in a higher power is under question.

I simply don't believe that the Arian Heresy had such dramatic effects on Christian's morals and faith as this crisis.  This has attributes which make it far more devastating to the man in the pew.

Even if every bishop and every priest in the Church were a model of orthodoxy and moral living, we would be facing a crisis because of the nature of secular society.  We are inundated with atheism, materialism, liberalism, feminism and a host of evil ideas. They are in our governments, our entertainment and educational institutions.  We are in a war where the battlefield is our minds and few of us have the weapons to fight well.  I think less complaining about our leaders and more taking responsibility for what we ourselves can do would go a long way.
Roman society around the time when Our Lord walked the earth until after the Peace of Constantine was repugnantly immoral, but the Church, Churchmen, and most laymen did well in keeping the Faith then, and heresy and apostasy were not tolerated.

Of course there was immorality and heresy in the Church at this time.  However, it was overshadowed by persecution.
(01-22-2013, 03:08 PM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2013, 07:53 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantism is clearly and seriously wrong. 
That is not clear nor is it self-evident.  Multiple canonists disagree with you.

While some canonists might write of a theoretical possibility of sedevacantism, no Catholic in good standing denies that Benedict XVI is the pope.

(01-22-2013, 03:08 PM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: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. 

Antipopes and heretics attack the doctrine and immutable truths of the Church. Concern as to whether or not we have an antipope imposing however subtly teachings contrary to previous Catholic teaching, is indeed valid, if one is concerned with the current Crisis in the Church. If you don't believe that the Church has been a crisis for the last fifty years and including that there something wrong with the actions and many words that the last several popes have done and said. If one is a Traditional Catholic one recognises the problems with the New Sacraments, new Mass and the documents and deeds of the Church within the last fifty years.

Having discussions here about whether or not Pope Benedict is a heretic and an antipope gives an apparent legitimacy to serious errors.  Sedevacantism is not a legitimate theological opinion. It is objectively in error.  It is a danger to the Faith, an attack on the Church and a stain on the reputation of traditional Catholicism.  It is possible to recognize problems in the Church without rejecting the Pope.  Following the ecclesiology of St .Robert Bellarmine, one is not even Catholic, if one rejects the Pope.
And therefore, if we understand Cardinal Bellarmine as strictly as you want to understand him, St. Vincent Ferrer was not even a Catholic.
(01-22-2013, 04:34 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]And therefore, if we understand Cardinal Bellarmine as strictly as you want to understand him, St. Vincent Ferrer was not even a Catholic.

He did not willingly deny the pope. 
One can argue that, from a certain point of view, neither do the sedevacantists.  If one genuinely cannot see how a man who has done some of the things the Vatican II popes have done could be truly exercising the Petrine office, which Our Lord promised us would never lose the faith, then they would not be willing to deny the pope-- it would simply be something that appeared an undeniable outcome to them.

This is not to say the error would be invincible, but it's certainly possible.  Sedevacantism doesn't have to be about malice, any more than any other error does.
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