FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Benevacantism, Etc.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(05-28-2020, 09:53 PM)LionHippo Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-28-2020, 05:37 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-28-2020, 04:51 PM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: [ -> ]Have you checked out the Taylor Marshal video I posted? Whether he is or isn't, I have to think it appears as though there's no way B16 doesn't think he's papa in some shape or form.it

It makes not a whit of difference what Benedict thinks, or Dr Marshall, Bishop Gracida, the Cattle Broker, you or I or any one on FE. The Church teaches, infallibly, that the the Bishop of Rome, (who everyone, including Benedict, agrees is Francis) is always the Pope and the Pope is always the Bishop of Rome. Even when the Popes lived in Avignon and didn't set foot in Rome, they were still Bishops of Rome, whilst there was a resident Bishop of Avignon in the same city.

"the Cattle Broker" is so convinced of her position that I almost feel sorry for her.

You know what? Fine. If that's the best you've got, how can I bother with you? All the best. Cheers.
(05-28-2020, 10:07 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]"the Cattle Broker" is so convinced of her position that I almost feel sorry for her.


Hey she's just trying to make sense out of others who are fine with a man who claims to be pope and has nothing but love for heretics and disdain for Catholics.  She's not content with the "he's a heretic worse than Luther, but still da papa!" line so many R&R's are.

Admittedly, I haven't read her in a few months, but I doubt her position has changed, nor am I really interested in what she's up to.  I remember a lot of "reading into" Benedict's letters that supposedly "proved" he was still pope, reaching out to Latinists to decipher random passages, and digging up obscure academic works about a planned subversion of the papacy, etc.

She is not correct, and she actually provides false hope for anyone onboard with her theory.  I'm not sure what she expects to happen - that Benedict just announces one day that he's still pope?  That the current pope dies and Benedict is reinstated somehow?  Nothing like this is going to happen. 

The reality is that at the end of Pope Francis's term, a college of a great number of Pope Francis-picked cardinals will elect the next pope, who will continue in the spirit of his predecessor.
(05-28-2020, 10:19 PM)LionHippo Wrote: [ -> ]Admittedly, I haven't read her in a few months, but I doubt her position has changed, nor am I really interested in what she's up to.  I remember a lot of "reading into" Benedict's letters that supposedly "proved" he was still pope, reaching out to Latinists to decipher random passages, and digging up obscure academic works about a planned subversion of the papacy, etc.

She is not correct, and she actually provides false hope for anyone onboard with her theory.  I'm not sure what she expects to happen - that Benedict just announces one day that he's still pope?  That the current pope dies and Benedict is reinstated somehow?  Nothing like this is going to happen. 

The reality is that at the end of Pope Francis's term, a college of a great number of Pope Francis-picked cardinals will elect the next pope, who will continue in the spirit of his predecessor.

Yep, which is why Benevacantism is a stepping-stone to sedevacantism.  I said it on other places, I'll repeat.  Thanks to Francis, we are all sedevacantists.

I can't wait for the successor to Francis (massive sarc).  It probably will be Tagle or someone who will definitely not be Traditional (don't let the santa claus costume and SP encyclical fool you, BXVI was no Traditionalist...he was just the least NO of JPII and Francis) and definitely not an Italian.

Either way I think Louie Verracchio and Barnhart better start their mea culpas soon when they make their way to SSPX or sede.

But then again, you have to admit. It is strange that Benedict/Ratzinger is still alive even after all this time. The true death-knell of Benevacantism will be when Benedict dies and Francis still lives. Benevacantists are hoping Francis dies before Benedict for them to be justified.
(05-28-2020, 10:41 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, which is why Benevacantism is a stepping-stone to sedevacantism.  I said it on other places, I'll repeat.  Thanks to Francis, we are all sedevacantists.

I can't wait for the successor to Francis (massive sarc).  It probably will be Tagle or someone who will definitely not be Traditional (don't let the santa claus costume and SP encyclical fool you, BXVI was no Traditionalist...he was just the least NO of JPII and Francis) and definitely not an Italian.

Either way I think Louie Verracchio and Barnhart better start their mea culpas soon when they make their way to SSPX or sede.

But then again, you have to admit.  It is strange that Benedict/Ratzinger is still alive even after all this time.  The true death-knell of Benevacantism will be when Benedict dies and Francis still lives.  Benevacantists are hoping Francis dies before Benedict for them to be justified.

Well, even if Pope Francis were gone tomorrow, it obviously would not mean an automatic reinstatement of Benedict, assuming a mid-90s year old man would be interested in taking back his role of leading the world's 1.3 billion Catholics.  It would be like pulling a 70-year old pitcher out of retirement and asking him to win the World Series when you're already down 3 games to 0.

And even if Benedict DID become Pope, in order for him to be a "success" to Traditionalists, he'd almost have to enshrine their "list" of Traditional teachings, un-doing the things of Pope Francis they didn't like, etc., by just making ex-cathedra declarations so as to protect them from any more attacks.  Otherwise, after him, everything could be changed around again when the cardinals elect a new pope.
(05-28-2020, 10:51 PM)LionHippo Wrote: [ -> ]Well, even if Pope Francis were gone tomorrow, it obviously would not mean an automatic reinstatement of Benedict, assuming a mid-90s year old man would be interested in taking back his role of leading the world's 1.3 billion Catholics.  It would be like pulling a 70-year old pitcher out of retirement and asking him to win the World Series when you're already down 3 games to 0.

And even if Benedict DID become Pope, in order for him to be a "success" to Traditionalists, he'd almost have to enshrine their "list" of Traditional teachings, un-doing the things of Pope Francis they didn't like, etc., by just making ex-cathedra declarations so as to protect them from any more attacks.  Otherwise, after him, everything could be changed around again when the cardinals elect a new pope.

It's really just R&R gone off the rails.

Francis: There's something to glean from other religions.
R&R: You're Wrong! We resist you!

Benedict: I've resigned, I am no longer Pope.
R&R: You're Wrong! We resist you!
(05-28-2020, 11:56 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]It's really just R&R gone off the rails.

Francis: There's something to glean from other religions.
R&R: You're Wrong! We resist you!

Benedict: I've resigned, I am no longer Pope.
R&R: You're Wrong! We resist you!

It's a problem of seeing that there's undeniable things that are going wrong that we don't have competence to make the final judgement over. A 12 year old can't tell his dad that he's not his dad any more even if the dad is abusive and then refuse to take out the trash. That father is obviously a horrible father and guilty of horrible sin, but he's still a father nonethless and his son still has a moral obligation to obey in lawful things. So to with abusive spiritual fathers. Otherwise we fall into the trap of Donatism which sedevacantism is essentially a resurgence of.

We don't have to like Pope Francis. We don't have to go along with when he's obviously promoting evil things like idolatry. We just have to realize that as far as a reasonable person can tell, he's the valid successor of Peter and we don't have the competence to judge otherwise. It sucks. As St. Robert Bellarmine said it's "a most miserable condition." But if it's anything other than that then I can't see how you don't end up throwing out indefectibility with the bath water.
(05-29-2020, 09:08 AM)Joe T Wrote: [ -> ]It's a problem of seeing that there's undeniable things that are going wrong that we don't have competence to make the final judgement over. A 12 year old can't tell his dad that he's not his dad any more even if the dad is abusive and then refuse to take out the trash. That father is obviously a horrible father and guilty of horrible sin, but he's still a father nonethless and his son still has a moral obligation to obey in lawful things. So to with abusive spiritual fathers. Otherwise we fall into the trap of Donatism which sedevacantism is essentially a resurgence of.

We don't have to like Pope Francis. We don't have to go along with when he's obviously promoting evil things like idolatry. We just have to realize that as far as a reasonable person can tell, he's the valid successor of Peter and we don't have the competence to judge otherwise. It sucks. As St. Robert Bellarmine said it's "a most miserable condition." But if it's anything other than that then I can't see how you don't end up throwing out indefectibility with the bath water.

The only problem with your analogy is that it presupposes the man claiming to be the father, actually is.

R&Rs want to think sedes thought process is "I don't like this man, ergo #NotMyPope AKA #NotThePope"  When Sedes are arguing that Francis is not a validly ordained priest, hence cannot be a bishop, hence could not be a cardinal, ergo, cannot be pope.

I'd be careful linking sedevacantism with the heresy of Donatism.  Donatism states that because Bishop Barron spouted heresy, or Francis did something sinful, they lose their office and most importantly can no longer validly offer the sacraments.  Sedevacantists are not saying because Francis isn't pure he's not the Pope, they are saying that a manifest heretic cannot be the Pope.  They are also not saying that the Church is forever without a Pope until the consummation (some do, again a Donatist/Jansenist theme does run amongst certain sedevacantists) but that it is interrupted.
(05-29-2020, 01:26 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]... When Sedes are arguing that Francis is not a validly ordained priest, hence cannot be a bishop, hence could not be a cardinal, ergo, cannot be pope.

Not really a very good argument, unless you are a Sedeprivationist. Cardinals have not historically needed to be bishops or even priests, and a male Catholic can be elected Pope, but only becomes Pope formally when consecrated as a Bishop since the office of the Papacy is conferred with the Bishopric of Rome. So that would work if one were a Sedeprivationist.

So it will always fall back on the heresy argument anyway if one wants to assert Sedevacantism. One would still need to establish that a particular man is not a Catholic so inelligible to be elected. And of course, the normal manner would be to argue he is a heretic, and a public manifest heretic.

Materially the argument does not change whether the man who claims to be Pope is a Bishop who is a heretic or a layman who is a heretic. The inability to be Pope stems at least primarily from his heresy.

That said, I've never heard Sedevacantists start from the premise of the invalidity of the new rites of ordination. Usually that is a separate argument and conclusion that is made after they determine that they think the papal claimant a heretic, so methinks, that this is perhaps not a very profitable line of argumentation.
(05-29-2020, 09:16 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]Not really a very good argument, unless you are a Sedeprivationist. Cardinals have not historically needed to be bishops or even priests, and a male Catholic can be elected Pope, but only becomes Pope formally when consecrated as a Bishop since the office of the Papacy is conferred with the Bishopric of Rome. So that would work if one were a Sedeprivationist.

So it will always fall back on the heresy argument anyway if one wants to assert Sedevacantism. One would still need to establish that a particular man is not a Catholic so inelligible to be elected. And of course, the normal manner would be to argue he is a heretic, and a public manifest heretic.

Materially the argument does not change whether the man who claims to be Pope is a Bishop who is a heretic or a layman who is a heretic. The inability to be Pope stems at least primarily from his heresy.

That said, I've never heard Sedevacantists start from the premise of the invalidity of the new rites of ordination. Usually that is a separate argument and conclusion that is made after they determine that they think the papal claimant a heretic, so methinks, that this is perhaps not a very profitable line of argumentation.

You're right. I am not a sedevacantist, so I don't necessarily for them.