R&R discussion
#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


Messages In This Thread
R&R discussion - by Sword of St. Michael - 04-28-2021, 10:48 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-28-2021, 11:21 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Bataar - 04-28-2021, 02:43 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Adventus - 04-28-2021, 04:20 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-28-2021, 04:41 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-28-2021, 05:06 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-28-2021, 05:28 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Adventus - 04-28-2021, 05:41 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Marmot - 04-28-2021, 04:49 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Sword of St. Michael - 04-29-2021, 10:30 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Marmot - 04-29-2021, 11:33 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Sword of St. Michael - 04-29-2021, 03:36 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Marmot - 04-29-2021, 04:26 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-28-2021, 07:09 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-28-2021, 08:00 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-28-2021, 07:21 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-28-2021, 10:37 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-29-2021, 08:01 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-28-2021, 10:47 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by lukeg03 - 04-29-2021, 01:55 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Justin Tertius - 04-29-2021, 02:00 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by jovan66102 - 04-29-2021, 02:04 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Bataar - 04-29-2021, 11:26 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Marmot - 04-29-2021, 11:54 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Adventus - 04-29-2021, 02:01 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-29-2021, 11:26 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by jovan66102 - 04-29-2021, 04:35 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-29-2021, 04:50 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)