Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Sedevacantism?  (Read 2178 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Sedevacantism?
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2021, 09:37:54 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2021, 09:35:20 AM
Not sure if this is a sincere question or trolliing, but ..

That definition is closer to R&R than to sedevacantism.

So, the difference between Sedevacantism and R&R is like the difference between an annulment and a divorce from an abusive spouse.

SVs hold that the V2 papal claimants are not legitimate, so the obligation to submit to them doesn't exist.  R&R hold that the obligation to submit remains in principle, but does not bind them to submit to unjust or evil commands.
I think this is a fair analogy for the Sede side, but I don't think its really fair to the R and R side.

R and R is more like staying married to the abusive spouse, but still not living together until they stop being abusive, or something like that.

Divorce would be more like what Martin Luther did.  Muh Pope is corrupt so I guess I don't have to be united to him anymore.
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Sedevacantism?
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2021, 09:39:57 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2021, 09:35:55 AM
Xavier, that you?   :laugh1:
Nah even XS wouldn't give such a lame definition.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Sedevacantism?
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2021, 09:40:46 AM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on March 20, 2021, 09:37:54 AM
I think this is a fair analogy for the Sede side, but I don't think its really fair to the R and R side.

R and R is more like staying married to the abusive spouse, but still not living together until they stop being abusive, or something like that.

Divorce would be more like what Martin Luther did.  Muh Pope is corrupt so I guess I don't have to be united to him anymore.

Well, R&R is only married on paper but separated ... although the SSPX is moving closer to the scenario that YOU describe.

Martin Luther is more like divorce + remarriage.
Logged

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Sedevacantism?
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2021, 09:46:18 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2021, 09:40:46 AM
Well, R&R is only married on paper but separated ... although the SSPX is moving closer to the scenario that YOU describe.

Martin Luther is more like divorce + remarriage.
I will be honest this is kind of why the SSPX Resistance position doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me as I currently understand it (and it is definitely possible that I don't understand it.)  I understand the EO position that a Pope simply isn't necessary (to be clear, I'm not saying its an *acceptable* position just that I get the internal logic.) I  get the NO/Indult position that there isn't a crisis or at least that the crisis comes down to misinterpretations and whatnot.  I get the so called "New SSPX" position of saying we're in a screwball situation so we keep as much unity with the Pope as we can without compromising (at least theoretically.)  And I get the Sede view that we don't have a Pope right now, and we need one, though I think David Bawden was right on the next step of "OK well then let's elect one" though I think the way he did it was kind of ridiculous (really the Sede bishops needed to do this.)  But I really don't get what I see from a lot of the Resistance which seems more like "OK, he's a Pope, but that means basically nothing?"  I know some people might say that's a strawman, and its possible my understanding is inadequate, but that's how this looks to me ATM
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Sedevacantism?
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2021, 09:48:20 AM »
Ah, I see the source of confusion.  With "divorce" I had in mind like a civil divorce, where you recognize that you're still married but are separated.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
« previous next »