FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Strange Vortex episode
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Just watched this Vortex episode and was a bit taken aback by the subject matter. Take a look for yourself. Strange days indeed!

"Are the Jews really to blame for the homosexual clergy sex abuse scandal? The Pope's alleged 'right hand man' thinks so."



Interesting.  Voris is wading a little into the waters of discussion against sedevacantists.  "The pope can preach heresy, but he cannot define heresy."

As usual, he approaches the edge, but never fully goes where I want him to go. 

I would like someone who is qualified and public to take on sedevacantism.  I want to hear what that would sound like.  I want to hear a retort to everything sedevacantists have to say. 

Why? 

Because it hasn't been heard before.  It hasn't happened yet.  Sedevacantists are unchallenged, for the most part.   
(11-17-2013, 06:22 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting.  Voris is wading a little into the waters of discussion against sedevacantists.  "The pope can preach heresy, but he cannot define heresy."

As usual, he approaches the edge, but never fully goes where I want him to go. 

I would like someone who is qualified and public to take on sedevacantism.  I want to hear what that would sound like.  I want to hear a retort to everything sedevacantists have to say. 

Why? 

Because it hasn't been heard before.  It hasn't happened yet.  Sedevacantists are unchallenged, for the most part.   

Well reason and faith challenge them... and totally nullify their "arguments."
(11-17-2013, 06:22 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting.  Voris is wading a little into the waters of discussion against sedevacantists.  "The pope can preach heresy, but he cannot define heresy."

As usual, he approaches the edge, but never fully goes where I want him to go. 

I would like someone who is qualified and public to take on sedevacantism.  I want to hear what that would sound like.  I want to hear a retort to everything sedevacantists have to say. 

Why? 

Because it hasn't been heard before.  It hasn't happened yet.  Sedevacantists are unchallenged, for the most part.   

They've been challenged, quite effectively in my opinion, by Salza, Ferrara, and others, at numerous times in the last decade.  Many of these articles are available online - Fatima Crusader, CFN, and The Remnant.

If you mean that they are not public *enough* - being Traditionalists - perhaps you have a point, but the non-Traditionalist crowd does not pay the slightest attention to sedes except to hold them in contempt.

Further, in my opinion, Voris is not nearly as qualified [EDIT: on this topic] as the above-mentioned apologists because he does not understand the root causes of the crisis.
I hit Post instead of Edit.
I don't know, I've never really been tempted much by sedevacantism but in my own studies a group like the SSPV have some pretty plausible arguments. I don't think enough Catholics are really intellectually equipped to take on sedevacantism, myself included. I always figured it just seemed so far fetched to take seriously, i'd much rather become Orthodox. Nonetheless some sedes are very reasonable and rational in their arguments and not for amateurs to take on.
(11-18-2013, 12:04 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know, I've never really been tempted much by sedevacantism but in my own studies a group like the SSPV have some pretty plausible arguments. I don't think enough Catholics are really intellectually equipped to take on sedevacantism, myself included. I always figured it just seemed so far fetched to take seriously, i'd much rather become Orthodox. Nonetheless some sedes are very reasonable and rational in their arguments and not for amateurs to take on.

A lot are not, because the arguments seem plausible *on the surface* when one does not know the caveats the theologians who made the statements the sedes reference gave as well as the important aspects of canon law.