Does "essence" mean the same thing in Orthodoxy as it does in Roman Catholicism?
#11
(01-27-2021, 02:53 PM)Melkite Wrote: Schism is one of those things that's black or white.  You're either in or out.  It's not mitigated by length of time. 

I'd also argue there's no such thing as schismatic teaching.  There's heretical teaching taught by schismatics, and non-heretical teaching taught by schismatics.

I agree with you on all counts. Sedevacantists and schismatics are both outside the Church.

My point was that one is less wrong than the other. Lutherans and Hindus are both wrong, but Lutherans are far less wrong. Practically speaking, it might be easier for a Lutheran to accept the fullness of the faith. On the other hand, someone with 80% of the truth may be more reluctant to repent and accept the other 20% than someone who realizes he only has 10% of the truth.
Reply
#12
(01-27-2021, 02:31 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-27-2021, 01:53 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(01-20-2021, 10:50 PM)Echo Wrote: I'm a contributor for a Catholic YouTube show called "Reason and Theology." There are several videos on there discussing the essence-energies distinction.

If you are a contributor, can you explain to me then why Lofton is so hostile to sedevacantism?  It seems he would rather convert to Orthodoxy, Protestantism, or Islam than ever entertain the ideas of sedevacantism.

Out of curiosity, why would sedevacantism be preferable to Orthodoxy?  If the official Catholic Church is also the actual Catholic Church, then wouldn't sedevacantism be just as schismatic as the Orthodox?
It doesn't matter to me, but it seems R&T is open to hearing all arguments with "Charitable dialogue" except that never is extended to sedes, where they are never invited on and when it is discussed it is discussed with a subdued hostile tone.

Again strikes me as hypocritical.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply
#13
(01-27-2021, 03:10 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(01-27-2021, 02:31 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-27-2021, 01:53 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(01-20-2021, 10:50 PM)Echo Wrote: I'm a contributor for a Catholic YouTube show called "Reason and Theology." There are several videos on there discussing the essence-energies distinction.

If you are a contributor, can you explain to me then why Lofton is so hostile to sedevacantism?  It seems he would rather convert to Orthodoxy, Protestantism, or Islam than ever entertain the ideas of sedevacantism.

Out of curiosity, why would sedevacantism be preferable to Orthodoxy?  If the official Catholic Church is also the actual Catholic Church, then wouldn't sedevacantism be just as schismatic as the Orthodox?
It doesn't matter to me, but it seems R&T is open to hearing all arguments with "Charitable dialogue" except that never is extended to sedes, where they are never invited on and when it is discussed it is discussed with a subdued hostile tone.

Again strikes me as hypocritical.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Because us sedes are automatically, unquestionably, defacto schismatics because we don't believe that a heretic like Bergoglio, Benedict, JPII or Paul VI are popes. And therefore we are lepers that need to be scorned and vilified. At least, that's the impression I get from 99.9% of "trads" who pay lip-service to Francis as "Pope" but otherwise act like sedevacantists in principle.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#14
I know it is hard to be a sedevacantist.

About ten years ago, I was very briefly sedevacantist.  I was even in contact with Gerry Matatics and flirting with the home alone position.  I worked myself into such an intellectual and spiritual corner that I was overwhelmed by the absurdity of my situation.  I saw Orthodoxy as the only viable alternative and converted in 2010.

I am now back in the Catholic Church.  My faith has undergone a change.  I focus on prayer and living the Gospel, and on obeying the teaching of the Church. I accept that the Church is a field of wheat and weeds. Sedevacantism no longer tempts me at all.  I simply see it as something that would take my focus off the Gospel.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Evangelium's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply
#15
(01-27-2021, 05:20 PM)Evangelium Wrote: I know it is hard to be a sedevacantist.

About ten years ago, I was very briefly sedevacantist.  I was even in contact with Gerry Matatics and flirting with the home alone position.  I worked myself into such an intellectual and spiritual corner that I was overwhelmed by the absurdity of my situation.  I saw Orthodoxy as the only viable alternative and converted in 2010.

I am now back in the Catholic Church.  My faith has undergone a change.  I focus on prayer and living the Gospel, and on obeying the teaching of the Church.  I accept that the Church is a field of wheat and weeds. Sedevacantism no longer tempts me at all.  I simply see it as something that would take my focus off the Gospel.

I'm glad to hear you found your way back to Catholicism.

I'll keep this short so I don't derail this thread further, I want to clarify that while I hold the position of sedeprivationism (very much like SeekerofChrist), I am not in the camp of believing in the whole "una cum issue" or that all NO Holy Orders are invalid, or that you absolutely cannot go to the SSPX (or FSSP, or ICKSP) for the sacraments. I do think it is spiritually detrimental to adhere to post-Vatican II teachings or rites, but I cannot say with absolute certainty that they are "invalid" or that you should just stay home and read the Latin Missal. The notion of Francis being in essence a licit "pope-elect" until he converts and drops Vatican II is about as close as I can reasonably assent to his legitimacy.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
Reply
#16
(01-27-2021, 03:10 PM)austenbosten Wrote: It doesn't matter to me, but it seems R&T is open to hearing all arguments with "Charitable dialogue" except that never is extended to sedes, where they are never invited on and when it is discussed it is discussed with a subdued hostile tone.

Again strikes me as hypocritical.
In defense of R&T I believe they were supposed to have Derksen(Novus Ordo Watch) on a few months ago.  Lofton also mentioned in one of the episodes that they reached out to Bp. Sanborn but he wasn't interested.

Maybe people should petition Bp Sanborn to go on.  A debate probably wouldn't be fruitful,  but a discussion may clear up the terms of the larger conversation.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MacPasquale's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#17
(01-27-2021, 07:36 PM)MacPasquale Wrote:
(01-27-2021, 03:10 PM)austenbosten Wrote: It doesn't matter to me, but it seems R&T is open to hearing all arguments with "Charitable dialogue" except that never is extended to sedes, where they are never invited on and when it is discussed it is discussed with a subdued hostile tone.

Again strikes me as hypocritical.
In defense of R&T I believe they were supposed to have Derksen(Novus Ordo Watch) on a few months ago.  Lofton also mentioned in one of the episodes that they reached out to Bp. Sanborn but he wasn't interested.

Maybe people should petition Bp Sanborn to go on.  A debate probably wouldn't be fruitful,  but a discussion may clear up the terms of the larger conversation.

Unfortunately, on the most recent episode of Francis Watch His excellency stated that he is currently busy with moving the Holy Family Seminary to Pennsylvania from Florida, so his time for podcasts is pretty limited. Although I think it would be very fruitful if he did something like that to clarify stereotypes and misconceptions of his position.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#18
(01-27-2021, 07:36 PM)MacPasquale Wrote: In defense of R&T I believe they were supposed to have Derksen(Novus Ordo Watch) on a few months ago.  Lofton also mentioned in one of the episodes that they reached out to Bp. Sanborn but he wasn't interested.

Maybe people should petition Bp Sanborn to go on.  A debate probably wouldn't be fruitful,  but a discussion may clear up the terms of the larger conversation.

That has been his stance for awhile but honestly it does strike me peculiar that they are unable to find a sede who has time on his hands when they have spent months with EO, Islam, Mormons and what have you.

Also ML has basically a contra-sedevacantism video but nothing on Islam or EO...so again while I do want to believe ML...I'm finding it harder with each passing day.


Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Reply
#19
(01-27-2021, 09:08 PM)austenbosten Wrote: That has been his stance for awhile but honestly it does strike me peculiar that they are unable to find a sede who has time on his hands when they have spent months with EO, Islam, Mormons and what have you.

Also ML has basically a contra-sedevacantism video but nothing on Islam or EO...so again while I do want to believe ML...I'm finding it harder with each passing day.
Lofton actually has been doing some contra EO videos recently.

I think the problem is there really isn't a big pool to draw from when I comes to competent, semi public SV/SP figures.  Now that Fr Cekada is gone and Bishop Sanborn is overworked, the pool has been drained of half its water(I don't think I'm being too hyperbolic).

I'm not a sedevacantist but I wouldn't want to see them just toss anyone on.  What's worse; not having a sedevacantist on at all; or having a Diamondite or some kid who skimmed through Denzinger after looking at some scandalous TIA articles present sedevacantism?
[-] The following 1 user Likes MacPasquale's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#20
(01-27-2021, 10:38 PM)MacPasquale Wrote: Lofton actually has been doing some contra EO videos recently.

I think the problem is there really isn't a big pool to draw from when I comes to competent, semi public SV/SP figures.  Now that Fr Cekada is gone and Bishop Sanborn is overworked, the pool has been drained of half its water(I don't think I'm being too hyperbolic).

I'm not a sedevacantist but I wouldn't want to see them just toss anyone on.  What's worse; not having a sedevacantist on at all; or having a Diamondite or some kid who skimmed through Denzinger after looking at some scandalous TIA articles present sedevacantism?

Good to know and thanks for informing me. I wonder if ML has tried to get Aussie SV John Lane on. His videos with Louie Veracchio are very informative.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)