Diamond versus a typical "Catholic in good standing". Who seems more rational ?
#51
I like the Dimond brothers and most of their material. I admire their zeal for evangelization. What of it.
Reply
#52
(01-15-2012, 03:06 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 02:53 PM)Spencer Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:03 PM)GeorgeT Wrote: Also, one must wonder if a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize a sede as a Catholic.

Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.

To that question I answer no. Catholics of 100 years ago would not recognize the changes. They would indeed think they were Protestant.
I could not imagine any of the apostles of Christ attending the new mass.

Could you imagine them refusing to recognize the pope, and then further refusing to elect a new one?

You're going back to square one. That objection has already been addressed.
Reply
#53
(01-15-2012, 06:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:06 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 02:53 PM)Spencer Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:03 PM)GeorgeT Wrote: Also, one must wonder if a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize a sede as a Catholic.

Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.

To that question I answer no. Catholics of 100 years ago would not recognize the changes. They would indeed think they were Protestant.
I could not imagine any of the apostles of Christ attending the new mass.

Could you imagine them refusing to recognize the pope, and then further refusing to elect a new one?

You're going back to square one. That objection has already been addressed.

Is that right?  Where?
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#54
(01-15-2012, 03:24 AM)Tapatio Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:03 PM)GeorgeT Wrote: Also, one must wonder if a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize a sede as a Catholic.

Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.

They are considered. And they are also out of context. In the history of the Church, they have always been around (outside of the Church). It is the easy way out.

It is actually a very difficult position to hold given its conclusions. It is anything but the "easy way out." Knowing what the right thing is to do doesn't mean it has to be so difficult that only a theologian can figure it out. The Church is universal. Knowing what is the right thing to do shouldn't be so obscured that only the intellectual can understand it.  
Quote:Pick and choose the Popes you want and the ones you don't. No big deal really.

It's a bit more complicated than that, I'm afraid.
Quote: Normally we would wait until history tells us what Pope was an anti-pope. Even St. Athanasius did this.

St. Athanasius wasn't dealing with public and notorious heretics. The pope wasn't even found to be a formal heretic, to say nothing of a public, notorious, or manifest one. The situations don't compare.

Quote:No. I have seen first hand what the anti-montanians (Sedes in Mexico) say and do.
In fact, they claim that the seat is not only vacant it is finished. Sede-Finita.

What they do is not really of relevance, though. There are various degrees of traditional Catholics "in good standing," too, but that doesn't mean that we should compare them to the SSPX to show that what the SSPX is doing is wrong. If a discussion specifically concerns the SSPX, then only the SSPX should be analyzed, not some other traditional group that is similar in some way.

Quote:This, as I said, is not new. Sedes have been circling the Church ever since St. Peter was crucified.

I don't think that's true. One of the arguments that people use against sedevacantism is that it never has existed in the Church before the 19th century. If it had existed, then it would have been condemned as a formal heresy by the Church. But the fact of the matter is that it has not been condemned. In fact, theologians teachings post-Vatican I have taught that sedevacantism cannot be accused of schism (much less heresy) if the sedevacantist has an objective doubt as to the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff.
Quote:To be a sede is "the easy way out".

Not really.
Quote:Faithful catholic 100 years ago, were not sedes. 

Faithful popes 100 years ago weren't teaching public heresy, either. I'm not sure what the point is here.
Quote: They were true and duked it out till the next Pope.

This crisis is unprecedented. We have never had cases involving un-coerced public apostasy from the Chair of Peter before. To compare it to other periods of Church history that aren't even remotely similar is a specious objection.

Quote:But they didn't throw the towel at the first sight of a major problem.
Now the problem that the current sedes have (this is historical now), is that just as the jehovas witness change the date for armageddon,  the sedes even after 5 Popes, still say the chair is Vacant. (Oh, and they'll keep on going.)

I don't see the similarity. If popes didn't commit public acts of apostasy 'sedes' wouldn't be questioning the occupancy of the Chair.
Quote:Hopefully some will revert back to the One True Catholic Faith and grab the bull by the horns and not just throw stones and jabs at the first sight of The Pontiff and run away.

You might take a look at the consistent teachings of the Church cited in my signature line. You might also take note of St. Robert Bellarmine's teachings on this matter. According to him (a Doctor of the Church renowned for his logic, learning, and teachings), Catholics have abandoned previous claimants to the papacy based on said claimant's defense of heresy. He uses this situation in the Church to support his teaching that such an action is right, good, and just if the pope espouses heresy in the external forum.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Wrote:"... Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic."

De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine, no. 15).
Reply
#55
(01-15-2012, 06:10 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 06:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:06 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 02:53 PM)Spencer Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:03 PM)GeorgeT Wrote: Also, one must wonder if a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize a sede as a Catholic.

Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.

To that question I answer no. Catholics of 100 years ago would not recognize the changes. They would indeed think they were Protestant.
I could not imagine any of the apostles of Christ attending the new mass.

Could you imagine them refusing to recognize the pope, and then further refusing to elect a new one?

You're going back to square one. That objection has already been addressed.

Is that right?  Where?

Sure:
INP Wrote:Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.

In other words, you say that it is inconceivable that the Apostles wouldn't recognize the pope, but it is inconceivable that the pope would do what these popes have done.

If we want to go straight to what the Apostles taught, we would conclude that said prelates are heretics plain and simple ( Gal. 1:8 ).
Reply
#56
(01-15-2012, 06:31 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 06:10 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 06:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:06 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 02:53 PM)Spencer Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:03 PM)GeorgeT Wrote: Also, one must wonder if a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize a sede as a Catholic.

Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.

To that question I answer no. Catholics of 100 years ago would not recognize the changes. They would indeed think they were Protestant.
I could not imagine any of the apostles of Christ attending the new mass.

Could you imagine them refusing to recognize the pope, and then further refusing to elect a new one?

You're going back to square one. That objection has already been addressed.

Is that right?  Where?

Sure:
INP Wrote:Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.

In other words, you say that it is inconceivable that the Apostles wouldn't recognize the pope, but it is inconceivable that the pope would do what these popes have done.

If we want to go straight to what the Apostles taught, we would conclude that said prelates are heretics plain and simple ( Gal. 1:8 ).

I thought you meant you had answered the second part of the question, which is really the one that matters.  The first "question" where you quoted me wasn't really a question at all.  I wasn't asking if he could imagine both of those happening, but based on them doing the first, can he imagine them doing the latter?  If the sedes are right, they're the catholic church.  They have not only the jurisdiction and right but the obligation to elect a pope.  If I ever went sede, I'd join up with pope Michael quicker than one of the groups that just stays in an indefinite limbo.  To me that's is God's clear hand drawing a line and saying "It's already confusing enough.  You're not electing a pope."  It's easy to ignore the conclavists cuz there's what, a couple dozen of them?  Wouldn't be as easy to ignore sspv or cmri getting together and electing a pope.

I digress.  Why haven't the mainline sedes elected a pope?
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#57
(01-15-2012, 06:47 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I digress.  Why haven't the mainline sedes elected a pope?

As part of disciplinary ecclesiastical law, only cardinals may elect a pope.

However, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches as a basic principle to which the Church has appealed in times past concerning the relationship between ecclesiastical law and divine law , "since necessity knows no law, in cases of necessity the ordinance of the Church does not hinder" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q.8, A.6).

This is confirmed in light of the fact that the election of the Roman Pontiff by the College of Cardinals has not occurred without exception in the Church.

But even in light of this, before Pius XII bound the disciplinary law pertaining to the election of the Roman Pontiff via the College of Cardinals, traditionally, the clergy of the Roman See elected the Bishop of the Roman See.
Reply
#58
(01-15-2012, 07:03 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 06:47 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I digress.  Why haven't the mainline sedes elected a pope?

As part of disciplinary ecclesiastical law, only cardinals may elect a pope.

However, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches as a basic principle to which the Church has appealed in times past concerning the relationship between ecclesiastical law and divine law , "since necessity knows no law, in cases of necessity the ordinance of the Church does not hinder" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q.8, A.6).

This is confirmed in light of the fact that the election of the Roman Pontiff by the College of Cardinals has not occurred without exception in the Church.

But even in light of this, before Pius XII bound the disciplinary law pertaining to the election of the Roman Pontiff via the College of Cardinals, traditionally, the clergy of the Roman See elected the Bishop of the Roman See.

I'm a peasant.  I don't really understand what this means.  You're saying that cardinals elect popes, and since the sedes have no cardinals they can't elect the pope?  That doesn't really answer the question.  Just raises another.  Why don't they have cardinals?
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#59
(01-15-2012, 07:13 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 07:03 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 06:47 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I digress.  Why haven't the mainline sedes elected a pope?

As part of disciplinary ecclesiastical law, only cardinals may elect a pope.

However, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches as a basic principle to which the Church has appealed in times past concerning the relationship between ecclesiastical law and divine law , "since necessity knows no law, in cases of necessity the ordinance of the Church does not hinder" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q.8, A.6).

This is confirmed in light of the fact that the election of the Roman Pontiff by the College of Cardinals has not occurred without exception in the Church.

But even in light of this, before Pius XII bound the disciplinary law pertaining to the election of the Roman Pontiff via the College of Cardinals, traditionally, the clergy of the Roman See elected the Bishop of the Roman See.

I'm a peasant.  I don't really understand what this means.  You're saying that cardinals elect popes, and since the sedes have no cardinals they can't elect the pope?  That doesn't really answer the question.  Just raises another.  Why don't they have cardinals?

No, it means that, per ecclesiastical law, only cardinals may elect the pope. But if some catastrophe were to happen such that the entire College of Cardinals were massacred by Saracens, or if a suicide bomber blew up a papal conclave (killing the entire College of Cardinals and the future pope), Pius XII's disciplinary law wouldn't mean the Church was over. For Pius XII bound the law with the power of God for the good of the Church. If that law were to then interfere with the continuity of the Church, the law would not bind until such a time as it again functioned for the good of the Church. (You see, God has thought of everything!)

This means that if all the cardinals were to, say, defect from the Faith, Pius XII's disciplinary law wouldn't destroy the continuity of the Church; for a dependent law does not derogate from an independent law any more than God can be strangled by His own law.

So, while that particular disciplinary law of the Church would be loosed during such a time whereby the observance of it would be impossible, the clergy of Rome, acting in accordance with the eternal law that clergy elect their Head, have elected the pope in times past.
Reply
#60
(01-15-2012, 03:06 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 02:53 PM)Spencer Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 03:03 PM)GeorgeT Wrote: Also, one must wonder if a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize a sede as a Catholic.

Sedevacantists don't exist just for the sake of existing. They exist in response to what is believed to be a new religion that came out of Vatican II.

Hence, the real question is whether a Catholic living 100 years ago would recognize the new liturgy, new sacraments, new theology, new philosophy, new council, new code of canon law, new episcopalian ecclesiastical structure, new ecumenism, new ecumenical gestures, etc. as being Catholic. If that Catholic didn't recognize those things as being Catholic, then he probably would recognize the sedevacantist as a Catholic.

The existence of sedevacantists can't be considered out of our current historical context involving a massive crisis in the Church.

To that question I answer no. Catholics of 100 years ago would not recognize the changes. They would indeed think they were Protestant.
I could not imagine any of the apostles of Christ attending the new mass.

Could you imagine them refusing to recognize the pope, and then further refusing to elect a new one?

I could only imagine that if we were indeed in the time of the great apostasy. The days of the anti-Christ.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)