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
(01-22-2013, 04:44 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]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.

If  I understand you correctly, I made a similar point earlier in the thread.  While I claim that  sedevacantism as an objective error, I am not claiming that all SVs are culpable.  Only God can know this.  Those who are not culpable would probably be Catholic.
(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.

It is amazing how easy we can tolerate trials we did not have to undergo.

Of course a hundred long year scourge of heresy and confusion was not that "dramatic"...you did not live through it.

The Protestant "Reformation" had a massive impact on the Church and included many wars and persecutions as leaders adopted the heresy in order to further their own power. But that is easy to bear...we are not witnessing it.

This is not to mention the little things which are not well preserved. One does not see what caused St. Peter Damian to write Liber Gomorrhianus, or the errors which surrounded St. Thomas Aquinas, but they existed and just because we do not experience them, that does not mean that they did not exist.

Just to clarify, since many Fishies consider the likes of Anthony Cekada to be the equivalent of the Magisterium, here's what he had to say about the alleged "vision" of Pope Leo XIII:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=16&catname=1

The relevant section reads:

Quote:A pamphlet dealing with a diabolical pos­ses­sion, written in the early 1930s and still popular in tra­ditional Catholic circles, relates the following about the St. Michael prayer:

A rather peculiar cirumstance induced Pope Leo XIII to com­pose this powerful prayer. After cele­brating Mass one day he was in conference with the Cardinals. Sud­denly he sank to the floor. A doctor was summoned and several came at once. There was no sign of any pulse-beating[;] the very life seemed to have ebbed away from the already weakened and aged body. Suddenly he recovered and said: “What a horrible picture I was permit­ted to see!” He saw what was going to happen in the future, the misleading powers and the ravings of the devils against the Church in all countries. But St. Michael had appeared in the nick of time and cast Sa­tan and his cohorts back into the abyss of hell. Such was the occasion that caused Pope Leo XIII to have this prayer recited over the en­tire world at the end of Mass.[14]

The foregoing passage appears as a digression in an ac­count of an exorcism. The author gives no date for the alleged vi­sion.

      An article written in 1933 repeats the same ac­count, vir­tually word for word, adding: “And so, shortly after 1880, Leo decreed the general prayer to St. Michael.”[15] Note the date given for the sup­posed vision: 1880 — four years be­fore Leo XIII pre­scribed the Prayers af­ter Low Mass without the St. Michael prayer, and six years before the prayer itself was ac­tu­ally prescribed.

      A more recent variant of the story adds an­other de­tail: It quotes a dialogue between Our Lord and Satan that Pope Leo supposedly heard during the vision. One writer says the dia­logue occurred at the foot of the altar, where Leo stopped af­ter Mass. He gives no date.[16] An­other writer tells the same story, but he gives a date: 13 October 1884.[17]

      Still another writer tells essentially the same variant of the story as these two writers, but he has the event taking place when “the aged Pontiff was in a conference with the Car­di­nals.”[18]

      And the most recently circulated version of the story gives yet another date for the sup­posed vision: 25 September 1888.[19] Here again, remember that the St. Michael prayer in fact appeared two years earlier (in 1886) than this ac­count would have it.[20]

      Now while all six accounts cited connect the St. Michael prayer with a supposed vision, they differ as to when, where, and how the al­leged vision took place. None of them, more­over, gives a source, even the two ac­counts from the 1930s. All six au­thors merely assert that the incident took place.

      Taken together, these factors should be a cause for suspi­cion.

      In 1934 a German writer, Father Bers, in­vesti­gated the origins of the story of Leo’s vi­sion. “Wherever one looks,” he observed, “one may find this claim — but nowhere a trace of proof.”

      Sources contemporaneous with the institu­tion of the prayer were silent on the matter. Father Bers quoted a priest who visited with Leo XIII when the prayer was instituted in 1886:

“When the prayers which the priest says after Mass were be­ing instituted, I happened to have a short audi­ence with the Holy Father. During the conversation Leo XIII men­tioned what he was go­ing to prescribe and re­cited all the prayers from memory. This he did with such deep-seated con­vic­tion of the power of the cosmic rulers of this dark­ness and of the beguilement which they cause, that I was quite struck by it.”[21]

Commenting on this passage, Father Bers con­cluded:

Therefore it can be safely assumed that the Holy Fa­ther would have spoken of the vision if he had had it — or that at least the reporter would have mentioned it — since it would have been most relevant to the general purport of the state­ment. Conse­quently, the argument “from silence” seems to indicate clearly that the “vision” had been in­vented in later times for some rea­son, and was now feeding upon itself “like a perpetual sick­ness.”[22]

      The problems with the story connecting the in­stitu­tion of the St. Michael prayer and a sup­posed vision of Leo XIII may be summarized as follows:

      • Writings which promote the story give no ref­er­ences to sources.

      • The various accounts contradict each other as to where the vision supposedly took place — after Mass at the foot of the altar, or in a conference with cardinals.

      • The various accounts are inconsistent about the date of the vision.

      • The dates the accounts give for the al­leged vi­sion (1880, 1884 and 1888) do not corre­spond with the date when the St. Michael prayer was actually instituted (1886).

      • There appears to be no corroboration for the story in a con­temporary account which one would expect to have men­tioned the event, had it indeed taken place.

      These considerations all tend to support the con­clu­sion Father Bers arrived at in the 1930s: “that the ‘vision’ had been invented in later times for some rea­son,” and that the story was simply feed­ing upon itself.

Is this a genuine interpretation of the available facts or simply a Work of Human Hands™?  I'm not sure, but I say, "Cekada locuta est, causa finita est."  Q.E.D.

Sedevacantists are wrong about the pope not being the pope because the pope is the pope.

Atheists are wrong about there being no God because there's a God.

Or, conversely: Catholics are wrong about there being a God because there's no God.

Forget the SV forum, we might need a logic forum.

(01-22-2013, 08:30 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantists are wrong about the pope not being the pope because the pope is the pope.

Atheists are wrong about there being no God because there's a God.

Or, conversely: Catholics are wrong about there being a God because there's no God.

Forget the SV forum, we might need a logic forum.

The first to sentences are correct because they are based on a correct premise.  The third sentence is false because it is based on a false premise.  There is no problem with logic here.
(01-22-2013, 08:30 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantists are wrong about the pope not being the pope because the pope is the pope.

Atheists are wrong about there being no God because there's a God.

Or, conversely: Catholics are wrong about there being a God because there's no God.

Forget the SV forum, we might need a logic forum.

I gotta say, I don't follow the logic behind this post.  Maybe I do need a logic forum.
(01-22-2013, 08:34 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2013, 08:30 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantists are wrong about the pope not being the pope because the pope is the pope.

Atheists are wrong about there being no God because there's a God.

Or, conversely: Catholics are wrong about there being a God because there's no God.

Forget the SV forum, we might need a logic forum.

The first to sentences are correct because they are based on a correct premise.  The third sentence is false because it is based on a false premise.  There is no problem with logic here.

As was explained in another topic recently, tautologies are not illogical; they are logical syllogisms where S and P are identical.  That is to say, either obviously true or false.  Since Benedict XVI is, factually speaking, the Pope, then sedevacantists are indeed wrong about him not being the Pope.

Since there is a God, factually speaking, then atheists are indeed wrong about there not being a God.  Saint Anselm made an entire treatise about this, his Proslogium: "God cannot be conceived not to exist. --God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. --That which can be conceived not to exist is not God."  http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ans...logium.asp

Tautologies are not circular reasoning: circular reasoning involves multiple syllogisms, where latter syllogisms in a cycle provide the terms that make up earlier syllogisms in the cycle, which are required to produce the latter terms.  Tautologies are much simpler, being statements of concrete judgements not relying on syllogisms.  We can judge, spontaneously based on reality, that Benedict XVI is the Pope, no syllogism required.  Hence, not circular reasoning.
(01-22-2013, 08:43 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2013, 08:30 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantists are wrong about the pope not being the pope because the pope is the pope.

Atheists are wrong about there being no God because there's a God.

Or, conversely: Catholics are wrong about there being a God because there's no God.

Forget the SV forum, we might need a logic forum.

I gotta say, I don't follow the logic behind this post.  Maybe I do need a logic forum.

Learning logic never hurts.  Smile
(01-22-2013, 08:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2013, 08:43 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2013, 08:30 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantists are wrong about the pope not being the pope because the pope is the pope.

Atheists are wrong about there being no God because there's a God.

Or, conversely: Catholics are wrong about there being a God because there's no God.

Forget the SV forum, we might need a logic forum.

I gotta say, I don't follow the logic behind this post.  Maybe I do need a logic forum.

Learning logic never hurts.  Smile

Using logic seems to hurt some people though.
(01-22-2013, 08:30 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantists are wrong about the pope not being the pope because the pope is the pope.

Atheists are wrong about there being no God because there's a God.

Or, conversely: Catholics are wrong about there being a God because there's no God.

Forget the SV forum, we might need a logic forum.

This.
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