SSPX-MC, SSPV, CMRI and other Sede groups
#21
Quote:1. You are correct, it has not dogmatically or doctrinally defined it as such, but I think it’s clear by the almost unanimous appraisal of JP2’s, Ratzinger’s, and Bergoglio’s doing so by the Bishops that we can see the perspective this church has on the sins of the hierarchy. 


To be flippant, who cares? If they haven't bound the Church to believe it, and the necessary conditions for mortal sin have obtained in this case, then they are just mortal sinners. Plenty of popes and bishops have been sinners. Plenty of popes have done heretical/quasi-heretical things.


Quote:2. The visible church I am referring to is what is commonly called the Catholic Church, yes.


Okay, so the Church to whom I belong.


Quote:4. The “Pope” has forced heresy and apostasy onto the post-conciliar church through a change in doctrine (Vatican II and later teachings), worship (the New Mass), and discipline (an overall decrease in the usual disciplines and spiritual habits of Catholics).


Please show me where an error or heresy has been forced on the Church to believe which can't be reconciled with prior magisterial teaching? I care about published documents and stated decrees, not about backroom deals and drafted documents. 


Quote:5. The True Church? It is the Catholic Church. We have no formal successor to Peter at the moment, but there was never some promise that there would always be a Pope at every single moment. We are waiting for a true Pope, whether it be because of the recantation of heresy by the present “Pope” or by a new Pope (elected by the college of Cardinals) who will throw the Church out of this crisis.


Side question, but do you accept the validity of ordinations by the Catholic Church (as I understand that term), or do you think that the Bishops, priests and deacons are in the same situation as the Anglicans, having invalid orders.

Also, why doesn't the True Catholic Church (as you understand it) just proclaim someone to be the Successor of Peter and resolve the issue.


Quote:6. Jovan to answer your objection, I would suggest reading this short article: 


The authors basic argument is that interregnums have occurred, therefore 63 years of no pope is fine.

For comparison, the longest interregnum prior to this supposed interregnum was that between Clement IV and Gregory X. It was close to three years.

The problem is that for the six decades we have had claimants to the Papal Throne elected by people who claim to be Cardinals and this has been recognized by people who claim to be Bishops of the Church which claims to be Catholic. When Pius XII died, there was John XXIII; when he dies Paul VI; then John Paul I, then John Paul II, then Benedict XVI, and when he resigned Francis. When Francis dies, I'm going to guess there will be another man who claims to be Pope.

And these claims to the papacy have been accepted by traditional Catholics as well, like the Society of St. Pius X.
"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
[-] The following 1 user Likes Justin Tertius's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#22
I really wish they would fix the edit button issue.

All of my post come out terribly formatted when I post them.
"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
[-] The following 2 users Like Justin Tertius's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#23
(05-24-2021, 10:59 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote:
Quote:6. Jovan to answer your objection, I would suggest reading this short article: 


The authors basic argument is that interregnums have occurred, therefore 63 years of no pope is fine.

For comparison, the longest interregnum prior to this supposed interregnum was that between Clement IV and Gregory X. It was close to three years.

The problem is that for the six decades we have had claimants to the Papal Throne elected by people who claim to be Cardinals and this has been recognized by people who claim to be Bishops of the Church which claims to be Catholic. When Pius XII died, there was John XXIII; when he dies Paul VI; then John Paul I, then John Paul II, then Benedict XVI, and when he resigned Francis. When Francis dies, I'm going to guess there will be another man who claims to be Pope.

And these claims to the papacy have been accepted by traditional Catholics as well, like the Society of St. Pius X.

Yeah, I've read that argument before in articles short and long and I don't buy it. Not only for the reasons you point out JT, but because in every true interregnum in the past, there has been an active, ongoing attempt to elect a Pope and end it. Sixty-three years without a Pope and no attempt at resolving the crisis? How can that be reconciled with 'perpetual successors' as infallibly stated by Vatican I?

As laughable as they are, at least the conclavists are logical. 'There's no Pope? Well, we'll take care of that! We'll elect one.' 
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
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Justin Tertius
Reply
#24
(05-24-2021, 10:59 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote: The problem is that for the six decades we have had claimants to the Papal Throne elected by people who claim to be Cardinals and this has been recognized by people who claim to be Bishops of the Church which claims to be Catholic. When Pius XII died, there was John XXIII; when he dies Paul VI; then John Paul I, then John Paul II, then Benedict XVI, and when he resigned Francis. When Francis dies, I'm going to guess there will be another man who claims to be Pope.

And these claims to the papacy have been accepted by traditional Catholics as well, like the Society of St. Pius X.
I think among the strongest arguments against those who hold that John XXIII was not Pope (or at least "not formally the Pope") is that his papacy was universally accepted in the entire Catholic world for the whole of his pontificate. This was never the case with the actual antipopes of the past.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Marmot's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#25
(05-24-2021, 04:36 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(05-24-2021, 10:59 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote: The problem is that for the six decades we have had claimants to the Papal Throne elected by people who claim to be Cardinals and this has been recognized by people who claim to be Bishops of the Church which claims to be Catholic. When Pius XII died, there was John XXIII; when he dies Paul VI; then John Paul I, then John Paul II, then Benedict XVI, and when he resigned Francis. When Francis dies, I'm going to guess there will be another man who claims to be Pope.

And these claims to the papacy have been accepted by traditional Catholics as well, like the Society of St. Pius X.
I think among the strongest arguments against those who hold that John XXIII was not Pope (or at least "not formally the Pope") is that his papacy was universally accepted in the entire Catholic world for the whole of his pontificate. This was never the case with the actual antipopes of the past.

I think that Memories would respond that this is just reception theory repackaged. But it seems to me there is a place for reception in the Catholic Church. Valid councils and valid popes are valid in themselves; external ratification doesn't confer validity upon them but recognizes it.

Something of a tangent, but it is analogous. Sacred Scripture is a pretty good example of reception. The Sacred Scriptures were received by the Church and had in themselves divine authority which wasn't conferred upon them by Church ratification. The Church's reception and eventual ratification of Sacred Scripture serves to delineate between what is actually inspired Scripture and what is merely human writing.

The object in question had Divine authority already and was merely recognized by an external entity (the Church.)
"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
[-] The following 1 user Likes Justin Tertius's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#26
(05-24-2021, 11:00 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote: I really wish they would fix the edit button issue.

All of my post come out terribly formatted when I post them.

I wonder if there could be a time limit edit? or a way of reverting edits?

The problem is not the few of us who would realize a mistake and correct it before people replied, but the people who would post something then come back to delete the post or so modify it that the thread was pointless.

It's often useful to be able to edit for a short time after if we realize we've made a boo-boo, or the formatting is all off.
Reply
#27
(05-24-2021, 06:01 PM)Justin Tertius Wrote:
(05-24-2021, 04:36 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(05-24-2021, 10:59 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote: The problem is that for the six decades we have had claimants to the Papal Throne elected by people who claim to be Cardinals and this has been recognized by people who claim to be Bishops of the Church which claims to be Catholic. When Pius XII died, there was John XXIII; when he dies Paul VI; then John Paul I, then John Paul II, then Benedict XVI, and when he resigned Francis. When Francis dies, I'm going to guess there will be another man who claims to be Pope.

And these claims to the papacy have been accepted by traditional Catholics as well, like the Society of St. Pius X.
I think among the strongest arguments against those who hold that John XXIII was not Pope (or at least "not formally the Pope") is that his papacy was universally accepted in the entire Catholic world for the whole of his pontificate. This was never the case with the actual antipopes of the past.

I think that Memories would respond that this is just reception theory repackaged. But it seems to me there is a place for reception in the Catholic Church. Valid councils and valid popes are valid in themselves; external ratification doesn't confer validity upon them but recognizes it.

Something of a tangent, but it is analogous. Sacred Scripture is a pretty good example of reception. The Sacred Scriptures were received by the Church and had in themselves divine authority which wasn't conferred upon them by Church ratification. The Church's reception and eventual ratification of Sacred Scripture serves to delineate between what is actually inspired Scripture and what is merely human writing.

The object in question had Divine authority already and was merely recognized by an external entity (the Church.)

The distinction between the "acceptance" of a man as Pope and the need to "receive" a man as Pope is one of cause and effect.

The common opinion of theologians was not that acceptance or recognition conferred the authority, but was an infallible sign of the authority having been conferred.

If a man were accepted as Pope by the vast majority of the Catholic world without any major questions or opponents or claimants, this would be a, seemingly certain sign he was the Pope, because the alternative is not admissible. If we can begin to doubt that a man who substantially no one questioned was Pope, then the dogmatic teachings he defined can also be called into question. Is the Assumption a dogma? That question turns on whether Pius XII was Pope. He had no claimants against this, nor did anyone doubt he was Pope, so if we can go back and question it now, then it would seem we could question any Pope when we do not like the dogmas he defined, or councils he called.

If the contradictory is not admissible, then this certainly suggests the truth of the original proposition, which was not that somehow acceptance conferred authority on the Pope, but was a sign of it already existing.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, Justin Tertius
Reply
#28
(05-24-2021, 09:31 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The problem is not the few of us who would realize a mistake and correct it before people replied, but the people who would post something then come back to delete the post or so modify it that the thread was pointless.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"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
#29
I used to be part of a small sede discussion groups and there's this man calling himself Athanasius I
https://magnuslundbergblog.files.wordpre...5/atha.jpg
Reply
#30
Sedevacantism is cringe
[-] The following 1 user Likes muffinman145's post:
  • oldrover
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)