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.
(02-11-2021, 09:16 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2021, 08:44 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]They do argue that the new rites of ordination and consecration are invalid.  Not all sedes actually make that claim, as I identify as a sedeprivationist while accepting the validity of the new rites.  Even if that were the case, though, you're still incorrect that the sedevacantist movement, the very bishops and priests that Augustinian was referencing, lacks a valid priesthood.  Again, one does not need a sitting pope or bishop for valid conferral of Holy Orders.
I didn't say that. They claim the See of Rome has defected and holds no valid orders, which again violates Catholic dogma.

If we want to look at it from a technical standpoint, all of the post-Vatican II popes have in fact been valid priests (per the position of sedevacantism) with the exception of Mr. Jorge Bergoglio, who was ordained in the 1970's after the new rite was established. So, technically speaking, the See of Rome still holds valid orders because Ratzinger, as a valid priest, is still technically a Novus Ordo Pope (albeit "Pope Emeritus"). In this sense giving some validity to the arguments of Benevacantists and a Providential purpose to the resignation and longevity of B16.

Though, the real problem, if the impossibility of defection of the Bishop of Rome is the intention of that dogma, arises once Benedict XVI dies.
(02-11-2021, 09:21 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2021, 09:16 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2021, 08:44 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]They do argue that the new rites of ordination and consecration are invalid.  Not all sedes actually make that claim, as I identify as a sedeprivationist while accepting the validity of the new rites.  Even if that were the case, though, you're still incorrect that the sedevacantist movement, the very bishops and priests that Augustinian was referencing, lacks a valid priesthood.  Again, one does not need a sitting pope or bishop for valid conferral of Holy Orders.
I didn't say that. They claim the See of Rome has defected and holds no valid orders, which again violates Catholic dogma.

If we want to look at it from a technical standpoint, all of the post-Vatican II popes have in fact been valid priests (per the position of sedevacantism) with the exception of Mr. Jorge Bergoglio, who was ordained in the 1970's after the new rite was established. So, technically speaking, the See of Rome still holds valid orders because Ratzinger, as a valid priest, is still technically a Novus Ordo Pope (albeit "Pope Emeritus"). In this sense giving some validity to the arguments of Benevacantists and a Providential purpose to the resignation and longevity of B16.

Though, the real problem, if the impossibility of defection of the Bishop of Rome is the intention of that dogma, arises once Benedict XVI dies.
To me it still all comes off as borderline gnostic absurdity. True Apostolic Christianity is pushed aside in favor of these endless rabbit holes, theories, and debates that desperately try to explain how heresy is not really heresy. That's just my take however. I'll step aside once again before I get myself in trouble again with the administrator. God bless.
(02-11-2021, 09:16 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2021, 08:44 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2021, 08:39 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2021, 08:14 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2021, 08:03 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote: [ -> ]As for the second part above, the whole point is that if your popes of the past 50+ years weren't really popes than none of those current bishops you mentioned (nor the priests under them) are validly ordained. By that logic you have no priesthood and no sacraments, unless you subscribe to one of the strange and obscure "true popes" or their lines of sede bishops like the Palmarians, etc. The lack of valid ordinations is what would render your ecclesiology obsolete and "invisible". 

I'm not sure where you're getting this.  In Catholic sacramental theology, ordinations conducted outside the Church's visible structures can be valid.  Whether they're licit, of course, is another matter.  Even if the Holy See is occupied by a legitimate pope, the bishops and priests in the sedevacantist movement are, or at least could be, valid clergymen.
This is the very claim sedevacantists themselves make. That almost the entire world is without valid priesthood and sacraments except for their own obscure handful.

"Since all sacraments other than baptism and holy matrimony ultimately depend on valid bishops, invalidating the rite of episcopal consecration was all the Modernists needed to do to ensure Catholics would be deprived of most of the sacraments in the long run, especially the Holy Eucharist/Mass and absolution in the confessional."

https://novusordowatch.org/2018/06/unhol...dinations/

They do argue that the new rites of ordination and consecration are invalid.  Not all sedes actually make that claim, as I identify as a sedeprivationist while accepting the validity of the new rites.  Even if that were the case, though, you're still incorrect that the sedevacantist movement, the very bishops and priests that Augustinian was referencing, lacks a valid priesthood.  Again, one does not need a sitting pope or bishop for valid conferral of Holy Orders.
I didn't say that. They claim the See of Rome has defected and holds no valid orders, which again violates Catholic dogma.

They don't claim that the See of Rome has defected.  They claim that the men who purportedly hold the See of Rome of have defected, and that the See is currently vacant.  You might dismiss that as cognitive dissonance but I'd like to know how a pope potentially falling into heresy and losing his office as a result (which is what the sedes claim) violates Catholic dogma.  It didn't strike some of the canonists who discussed it in the pre-Vatican II era as a violation.
(02-11-2021, 09:56 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2021, 09:21 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2021, 09:16 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2021, 08:44 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]They do argue that the new rites of ordination and consecration are invalid.  Not all sedes actually make that claim, as I identify as a sedeprivationist while accepting the validity of the new rites.  Even if that were the case, though, you're still incorrect that the sedevacantist movement, the very bishops and priests that Augustinian was referencing, lacks a valid priesthood.  Again, one does not need a sitting pope or bishop for valid conferral of Holy Orders.
I didn't say that. They claim the See of Rome has defected and holds no valid orders, which again violates Catholic dogma.

If we want to look at it from a technical standpoint, all of the post-Vatican II popes have in fact been valid priests (per the position of sedevacantism) with the exception of Mr. Jorge Bergoglio, who was ordained in the 1970's after the new rite was established. So, technically speaking, the See of Rome still holds valid orders because Ratzinger, as a valid priest, is still technically a Novus Ordo Pope (albeit "Pope Emeritus"). In this sense giving some validity to the arguments of Benevacantists and a Providential purpose to the resignation and longevity of B16.

Though, the real problem, if the impossibility of defection of the Bishop of Rome is the intention of that dogma, arises once Benedict XVI dies.
To me it still all comes off as borderline gnostic absurdity. True Apostolic Christianity is pushed aside in favor of these endless rabbit holes, theories, and debates that desperately try to explain how heresy is not really heresy. That's just my take however. I'll step aside once again before I get myself in trouble again with the administrator. God bless.

In short, I don't disagree with you.
Just a random rant here simply because of what I read on Twitter-Caths.


There is nothing more insufferable than seeing a bunch of Zoomer "(insert obscure philosopher-saint with a Greek name)-Thomist" self-proclaimed theologian NO Caths mock Trads and Sedes because they want to be part of a Church that isn't rushing to emulate the failed model of the United Methodist Church.

ClassicalTheist
CTRefugees


While I agree some ultra-Trad Caths can just be as insufferable. The shame is that these NO Catholics would much rather worship in a mosque, EO DL, or a Protestant praise service, than ever attend a TLM with sedes or SSPX for some.
(02-21-2021, 04:25 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Just a random rant here simply because of what I read on Twitter-Caths.


There is nothing more insufferable than seeing a bunch of Zoomer "(insert obscure philosopher-saint with a Greek name)-Thomist" self-proclaimed theologian NO Caths mock Trads and Sedes because they want to be part of a Church that isn't rushing to emulate the failed model of the United Methodist Church. 

ClassicalTheist
CTRefugees


While I agree some ultra-Trad Caths can just be as insufferable.  The shame is that these NO Catholics would much rather worship in a mosque, EO DL, or a Protestant praise service, than ever attend a TLM with sedes or SSPX for some.
I don't know if this needs to be in the Benevacantism thread.  This seems to be more of an issue of Catholics getting involved with non-Catholic worship vs canonically irregular attendance(this seems like something relevant to the Tradisphere).

I'm not particularly apt at using Twitter.  Where were the tweets ClassicalTheist and CTRefugees claimed it's better to attend and EO DL, ect.. over a SSPX TLM.

I'm not asking this because I doubt your claim, I'm genuinely curious.
(02-21-2021, 11:49 PM)MacPasquale Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know if this needs to be in the Benevacantism thread.  This seems to be more of an issue of Catholics getting involved with non-Catholic worship vs canonically irregular attendance(this seems like something relevant to the Tradisphere).

I'm not particularly apt at using Twitter.  Where were the tweets ClassicalTheist and CTRefugees claimed it's better to attend and EO DL, ect.. over a SSPX TLM.

I'm not asking this because I doubt your claim, I'm genuinely curious.

That's an error on my part, I think when I said that I had more of Michael Lofton of R&T on my mind. However these guys strike me as being big fans of Lofton.


But keep saying Vatican II has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Cue the "ShE's NoT a ThEoLoGiAn/CaNoNiSt!" calls in 3.... 2.... 1....

New book: Benedict XVI: Pope "Emeritus"?
(02-27-2021, 05:09 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]Cue the "ShE's NoT a ThEoLoGiAn/CaNoNiSt!" calls in 3.... 2.... 1....

New book: Benedict XVI: Pope "Emeritus"?
Don't forget cattle broker jokes.