R&R discussion
#11
Continuation from last post. No edit function. 

Orthodoxy's survival works better within its system than Sedevacantism works within a Catholic system.  At best(sedeprivationalism) it's a loophole to make the Church unfalsifiable(not to say that a more extreme version of R and R wouldn't do the same).
Reply
#12
(04-28-2021, 07:09 PM)MacPasquale Wrote:
Quote:Yeah but they would be wrong and we’re right ;)

With all seriousness though, we are Catholic because we know the catholic faith from the pre-schism church is already preserved and traditional in the Catholic Church. That’s why we are Catholic, not Orthodox, because we know they are wrong in their diagnosis of Church History
Once again, swap Catholic and Orthodox and you'll find many Orthodox making the same confident statement.  The history is more complicated than that(I'm not saying Orthodoxy is somehow in the right or not in schism, I just disagree with this being clear-cut).


Quote:It’s hard to honestly say there hasn’t been a substantial and visible change from the Church before and after Vatican II and the implementation of the Novus Ordo. Cause... there has been. That can’t be denied.. it is why we are traditionalist Catholics.
If true, it could just mean Catholicism is wrong.  That doesn't mean the Church can continue to exist without a functioning hierarchy(legally designated benchwarmers included).  

Quote:The Eastern Orthodox, even if you are a just a FSSP-kind of traditionalist (let’s have our small chapel of tradition inside the Cathedral of the Novus Ordo), are much more heretical then Sedevacantists. To really say Sedes are in a worse spot than the Orthos is just plainly wrong. I don’t think those in the NO are in a worse spot than the Orthos.

The point wasn't to say that Orthodoxy is somehow better and less heretical than Sedevacantism(I don't actually believe that).  Never said it was.  Though, I should probably note when I'm playing devil's advocate.
As you said in your next comment, Sedeprivationism, which I believe in and is not really a loophole, solves the issues you have with Sedevacantism. Totalism isn't reasonable, the Thesis is correct in its theological/philosophical background and its practical application to the present crisis.
Yes I know that the Orthodox make the same argument for their own position. I know they're JUST as confident. But that doesn't help in the discussion now, does it? We have to test the claims, and I think Sede claims take well under fire.
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply
#13
Quote:As you said in your next comment, Sedeprivationism, which I believe in and is not really a loophole, solves the issues you have with Sedevacantism. Totalism isn't reasonable, the Thesis is correct in its theological/philosophical background and its practical application to the present crisis.
I agree that sedeprivationalism is the most consistent position if one feels they must absolutely reject the mainstream church(I held that position for 8 years for a reason).  I would go further and agree with Bp. Sanborn and say that most Trads(the ones who see the mainstream church as dangerous in it's official teachings) are practically sedeprivationist.


It does a better job at reconciling post French revolution additudes towards the papacy to the modern crisis as well as preventing to Church from going extinct.

The problem is you still end up with a situation where the Church is held in suspense which is not supposed to happen.  

I'm not just talking about the Pope, we both know that's not really the problem.  

I just don't see how a situation where everyone legally designated to the bishopric is guilty of heresy and unable to actually function as a bishop doesn't equate to the Church defecting.

Quote:Yes I know that the Orthodox make the same argument for their own position. I know they're JUST as confident. But that doesn't help in the discussion now, does it? We have to test the claims, and I think Sede claims take well under fire.
Sure it helps the discussion.  Orthodoxy was just used to illustrate a point, you can swap Orthodoxy out for any group you like.


Sede claims haven't really been attacked from that many angles.  Most of those who have seriously responded to sedevacantism have done so from the R&R position.  Most write it off before ever seriously looking at it.  A vacuum can make any claim convincing.
Reply
#14
Continuation of the last post...again.

Even when SV/SP is responded to there tends to be too much focus on the papacy.

It makes sense intuitively, but that's not really where it's weakness is.
Reply
#15
So how does Sedevacantism deal with the indefectability of the Church? It seems like most iterations of the theory, if you will, posit that Leo XIII was the last Pope (or maybe Cardinal Siri?). Of course, at this point that would mean there are no validly appointed cardinals, and there is no way for a Pope to be validly instituted given the traditional means. It seems that this would make the institution of the Church not only defected but also defunct, which seems to violate the "gates of hell" promise in the Gospel. I've always wondered what sedevacantists think of this problem.
Reply
#16
(04-29-2021, 01:55 AM)lukeg03 Wrote: So how does Sedevacantism deal with the indefectability of the Church? It seems like most iterations of the theory, if you will, posit that Leo XIII was the last Pope (or maybe Cardinal Siri?). Of course, at this point that would mean there are no validly appointed cardinals, and there is no way for a Pope to be validly instituted given the traditional means. It seems that this would make the institution of the Church not only defected but also defunct, which seems to violate the "gates of hell" promise in the Gospel. I've always wondered what sedevacantists think of this problem.

I think you mean that most sedes believe that Pius XII was the last pope. If Leo was the last pope, oy vey!

In regards to your question, I would suppose that they would say the clergy of Rome would appoint the Bishop of Rome, but...

After that, I think you'd have to get into the spectacular. Something miraculous would have to occur.
"Especially will I do this if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ... so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ." St. Ignatius of Antioch

"But Polycarp... waving his hand towards them, while with groans he look up to heaven, said, 'Away with the Atheists.'" Martyrdom of Polycarp
Reply
#17
(04-29-2021, 01:55 AM)lukeg03 Wrote: So how does Sedevacantism deal with the indefectability of the Church? It seems like most iterations of the theory, if you will, posit that Leo XIII was the last Pope (or maybe Cardinal Siri?). Of course, at this point that would mean there are no validly appointed cardinals, and there is no way for a Pope to be validly instituted given the traditional means. It seems that this would make the institution of the Church not only defected but also defunct, which seems to violate the "gates of hell" promise in the Gospel. I've always wondered what sedevacantists think of this problem.

I assume you meant Pius XII, not Leo XIII, though I have run across a guy who thinks Gregory XVI was the last valid Pope. As to electing a new Pope, whilst it's been the College of Cardinals for centuries, prior to that there were varying methods, election by the people of Rome, or by the clergy of the City for instance. Election by the College of Cardinals is simply a matter of man made law.

And, another thing I've pointed out before. The Pope, qua Pope, does not appoint Cardinals. The Bishop of Rome does. The Cardinals were originally just the most eminent clerics in the City of Rome. They existed long before they became Papal Electors, and they could still exist if their role in Papal elections was removed.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#18
(04-28-2021, 10:37 PM)MacPasquale Wrote:
Quote:As you said in your next comment, Sedeprivationism, which I believe in and is not really a loophole, solves the issues you have with Sedevacantism. Totalism isn't reasonable, the Thesis is correct in its theological/philosophical background and its practical application to the present crisis.
I agree that sedeprivationalism is the most consistent position if one feels they must absolutely reject the mainstream church(I held that position for 8 years for a reason).  I would go further and agree with Bp. Sanborn and say that most Trads(the ones who see the mainstream church as dangerous in it's official teachings) are practically sedeprivationist.


It does a better job at reconciling post French revolution additudes towards the papacy to the modern crisis as well as preventing to Church from going extinct.

The problem is you still end up with a situation where the Church is held in suspense which is not supposed to happen.  

I'm not just talking about the Pope, we both know that's not really the problem.  

I just don't see how a situation where everyone legally designated to the bishopric is guilty of heresy and unable to actually function as a bishop doesn't equate to the Church defecting.

Quote:Yes I know that the Orthodox make the same argument for their own position. I know they're JUST as confident. But that doesn't help in the discussion now, does it? We have to test the claims, and I think Sede claims take well under fire.
Sure it helps the discussion.  Orthodoxy was just used to illustrate a point, you can swap Orthodoxy out for any group you like.


Sede claims haven't really been attacked from that many angles.  Most of those who have seriously responded to sedevacantism have done so from the R&R position.  Most write it off before ever seriously looking at it.  A vacuum can make any claim convincing.
What happened at Vatican II was not necessarily what you said in bold. The minority of modernist Bishops easily swayed the majority of neutral Bishops, and the even smaller minority of ultra-conservative Bishops was shut off and not listened to. These neutral Bishops did not have the intention of destroying or changing the Church the way the modernists did, but the modernists planned their plot cleverly and made themselves seem like the true traditionalists (this would of course be seen again with the Novus Ordo Missae). Thus all the Bishops that agreed to the heresies of Vatican II were not necessarily heretics themselves, and they did continue to function as Bishops, but the reforms of Vatican II were not valid because:
1. They marked a substantial departure from the Church’s teaching
2. The Church cannot have substantial change, only accidental one as Bishop Sanborn explains

So it’s not like all of the Bishops agreed to the heresies and were heretics in themselves. Many were swayed by the loud minority of modernists who made their case vaguely and well. 

Also, if I may ask, what position do you hold now? I ask since you said you were a sedeprivationist beforehand for 8 years.
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply
#19
(04-28-2021, 04:49 PM)Marmot Wrote: This is my personal view:
It would be a disorder if we were to prefer our personal opinion to what the Pope says. However, the things you mentioned are not mere opinions, they are matters that were settled long before we were born, often even explicitly in Sacred Scripture, or in the canons of Ecumenical Councils.

We don't have the right to pick a favourite historical Pope or bishop and prefer his judgment to that of the Pope, simply because we think he was more virtuous. However, we do have a right to prefer a doctrine in a certain magisterial act to that of the current Pope, because of the higher character of this particular magisterial act, compared to that of the current Pope.

Very true on them no being just an opinion. I use that term though based on the writings im finding that the pope can not err in teaching faith and morals. Thus the issue we run into with Pope Francis. If the Tradition is that the pope can't err in faith and mroals, not just ex cathedra, but also teaching it, then that means the sitting pope can't err in teaching on faith and morals. Pope Francis comes along, and it can be reasoned that he has erred in teaching faith and morals, as in reception of the Eucharist (Faith), capitol punishment (Morals), amazon synod (Faith and morals), etc. Thus my confusion.

If I hold to Tradition, then I have to agree that the pope can't err in faith and morals. Pope Leo and others even write that the pope is above that of councils, thus even they can't be used to judge him. I then have to hold that God will protect the church from a pope that teaches bad faith and morals. I then have to conclude one of a couple things. Either A), Tradition is wrong, which then makes all other aspects of the faith up for grabs, B) God is protecting the church and its just my opinion and I am wrong, vs the pope, or C) Francis is not the legit pope and thus that protection is not guaranteed.

Thus my problem. I have found many writings now from the Early Church Fathers, all the way to Pope Leo saying that the pope can NOT err in teaching faith and morals. This extends beyond that of ex cathedra. I have found no writings so far from popes, Dr's of the Church, etc, that state that the pope is able to err in teaching faith and morals, and the laity are able to decide on their own when he does and dosent by utilizing the treasure of the faith. Basically, I can't find any pope or authoritative teaching in the church that backs the R&R stance, but have found a bunch of teachings that back the stance that the pope can't err in what I and others in R&R state he is erring in, thus seeming to put myself on the wrong side of Tradition by having the R&R stance.
Reply
#20
(04-29-2021, 01:55 AM)lukeg03 Wrote: So how does Sedevacantism deal with the indefectability of the Church? It seems like most iterations of the theory, if you will, posit that Leo XIII was the last Pope (or maybe Cardinal Siri?). Of course, at this point that would mean there are no validly appointed cardinals, and there is no way for a Pope to be validly instituted given the traditional means. It seems that this would make the institution of the Church not only defected but also defunct, which seems to violate the "gates of hell" promise in the Gospel. I've always wondered what sedevacantists think of this problem.
The true church still exists. Groups such as Catholic Restoration, CMRI, SSPV, etc are all part of the true church. I know there are more, but those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Granted, the true church is lacking a leader at the moment and we hope and pray that will change some day.

Maybe this is part of the Sedeprivationism platform, but this is how it was explained to me. The pope currently serves two roles. The head of the secular Vatican City State and the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Depending on the situation, he may only serve one of those roles. If a foreign power were to take over the state and the pope would have to leave, he would no longer be the head of that state, but he would still be the Vicar of Christ. Likewise, if the pope were to be a public, manifest heretic, he would still be the head of that state, but would not be the Vicar of Christ. This is the state we are currently in. As one of the legal duties of that state, the pope has to promote cardinals to ensure the succession continues. Those cardinals he creates are valid cardinals even if they are heretics themselves. When it comes time to elect a new pope, if those cardinals elect an orthodox man to be the next pope, then he will be a valid pope. If they elect a Francis II, he will not be valid and we will be in the same situation we're in now.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)