Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: roscoe on December 22, 2013, 06:55:38 PM
-
Hello icterus-- I have only read some of your posts & i agree with U that E rev around S.
Could U tell us who the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is at this time? :confused1:
-
There's no such thing as a heliocentrist. :smoke-pot:
-
No one has ever presented Any evidence from the Bible, a Pope, Church Council, Father, Doctor, Saint, historian, INQ, Bps Pastoral Letter, nor Catholic Encyclopedia or Dictionary that there is or ever has been such a person as a 'sede vacantist' or a state of affairs known as 'sede vacantism' before the V2 era.
I vaguely recall that this has happened about 265 times or so in Church history. Give or take.
-
There's no such thing as a heliocentrist. :smoke-pot:
There are some who believe in helio-centrism but i am not one. Why are u trying to derail this topic?-- start another one if that is what u want to discuss. Me thinks u are afraid that he will agree with U that it is the anti-pope Francis.
When someone shows that there is a Pope, Church Father, Doctor, Saint, etc who has used the term 'sede vacantism' or 'sede vacantist' ( note the absence of the term 'sede vacante') then i will accept that there is such a state of affairs or person so called.
This has never been shown BY ANYONE IN ALL MY TIME IN THIS FORUM.
-
The words state of affairs should more properly read philosophy.
-
There's no such thing as a heliocentrist. :smoke-pot:
There are some who believe in helio-centrism but i am not one. Why are u trying to derail this topic?-- start another one if that is what u want to discuss. Me thinks u are afraid that he will agree with U that it is the anti-pope Francis.
When someone shows that there is a Pope, Church Father, Doctor, Saint, etc who has used the term 'sede vacantism' or 'sede vacantist' ( note the absence of the term 'sede vacante') then i will accept that there is such a state of affairs or person so called.
This has never been shown BY ANYONE IN ALL MY TIME IN THIS FORUM.
so what term would you use when it happens that a pope loses his office for heresy , when his election becomes null and void without a declaration?
Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559:
“6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
-
There's no such thing as a heliocentrist. :smoke-pot:
There are some who believe in helio-centrism but i am not one. Why are u trying to derail this topic?-- start another one if that is what u want to discuss. Me thinks u are afraid that he will agree with U that it is the anti-pope Francis.
When someone shows that there is a Pope, Church Father, Doctor, Saint, etc who has used the term 'sede vacantism' or 'sede vacantist' ( note the absence of the term 'sede vacante') then i will accept that there is such a state of affairs or person so called.
This has never been shown BY ANYONE IN ALL MY TIME IN THIS FORUM.
so what term would you use when it happens that a pope loses his office for heresy , when his election becomes null and void without a declaration?
Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559:
“6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
I do not understand the question? Pls note that Paul IV DOES NOT USE EITHER THE TERM 'SEDE VACANTIST' OR 'SEDE VACANTISM'.
-
There's no such thing as a heliocentrist. :smoke-pot:
There are some who believe in helio-centrism but i am not one. Why are u trying to derail this topic?-- start another one if that is what u want to discuss. Me thinks u are afraid that he will agree with U that it is the anti-pope Francis.
When someone shows that there is a Pope, Church Father, Doctor, Saint, etc who has used the term 'sede vacantism' or 'sede vacantist' ( note the absence of the term 'sede vacante') then i will accept that there is such a state of affairs or person so called.
This has never been shown BY ANYONE IN ALL MY TIME IN THIS FORUM.
so what term would you use when it happens that a pope loses his office for heresy , when his election becomes null and void without a declaration?
Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559:
“6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
I do not understand the question? Pls note that Paul IV DOES NOT USE EITHER THE TERM 'SEDE VACANTIST' OR 'SEDE VACANTISM'.
I know, I'm asking what term would you use to describe the situation Pope Paul IV described.
-
I would call such a person an anti-pope.
-
I would call such a person an anti-pope.
yes, so are you saying the seat is occupied by an anti pope and that the term sedevacant doesn't make sense?
-
The topic awaits the reply of icetrus. Possibly he has answered the question in another discussion i have not read.
-
edit
-
I would call such a person an anti-pope.
yes, so are you saying the seat is occupied by an anti pope and that the term sedevacant doesn't make sense?
I have nowhere used the term 'sedevacant'
I am referring to those who are referred to as 'sede vacantIST' or a philosophy referred to as 'sede vacantISM'.
I hope this clears up any misconception.
-
I would call such a person an anti-pope.
yes, so are you saying the seat is occupied by an anti pope and that the term sedevacant doesn't make sense?
I have nowhere used the term 'sedevacant'
I am referring to those who are referred to as 'sede vacantIST' or a philosophy referred to as 'sede vacantISM'.
I hope this clears up any misconception. [/quote
no I'm confused, you object to the term sedevacant being used to describe the current crisis correct ?
I believe like yo we have an anti pope, what position would best decribe mine?
-
I do not believe there is no Pope, but I do not know who he is.
There remains no wine drinking emoticon to choose from. :cheers:
-
Roscoe, sorry I am late, I didn't see this topic on my scan through the forum.
I think Francis is all probability the Pope.
So, I think Francis is the Pope.
And, it terrifies me.
Thanks for asking.
I'll be glad to discuss whatever else.
-
Anti-pope :detective:
-
So...why'd you ask? surely my opinion about this is not very interesting.
-
Just for a frame of reference. I personally cannot comprende how it could be possible for a true Pope to terrify someone. :confused1:
-
There's no such thing as a heliocentrist. :smoke-pot:
There are some who believe in helio-centrism but i am not one. Why are u trying to derail this topic?-- start another one if that is what u want to discuss. Me thinks u are afraid that he will agree with U that it is the anti-pope Francis.
When someone shows that there is a Pope, Church Father, Doctor, Saint, etc who has used the term 'sede vacantism' or 'sede vacantist' ( note the absence of the term 'sede vacante') then i will accept that there is such a state of affairs or person so called.
This has never been shown BY ANYONE IN ALL MY TIME IN THIS FORUM.
Apparently i was correct--- both ladislaus and icterus recognise francis. :scared2:
-
I do not believe there is no Pope, but I do not know who he is.
There remains no wine drinking emoticon to choose from. :cheers:
still confused, we agree Francis is an anti pope, how could there be a pope??? the seat is vacant
from wikipedia
Sedevacantism is the position, held by a minority of Traditionalist Catholics,[1][2] that the present occupant of the papal see is not truly pope and that, for lack of a valid pope, the see has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
is there something wrong with this definition?
-
Roscoe, sorry I am late, I didn't see this topic on my scan through the forum.
I think Francis is all probability the Pope.
So, I think Francis is the Pope.
And, it terrifies me.
Thanks for asking.
I'll be glad to discuss whatever else.
Discuss how you reached your conclusion. Was there ever a time that you doubted that Francis was the Pope?
-
gooch--Wikipedia is not a Catholic source and i would not expect them to know that there is No Such Thing as 'sede vacantism'.
As one who recognises Gregory XVII as Pope until 1989 i definitely do think there is something wrong.
-
Captain wrote:
Discuss how you reached your conclusion. Was there ever a time that you doubted that Francis was the Pope?
Yes, I've had and continue to have my doubts. However, looking into the matter of heresy, I do not think, starting with Pius XII (I have not looked into claims that any earlier Popes were in fact anti-Popes) I do not think the matter is clear enough for me to make a judgement. I've read JPII and Benedict pretty extensively and read the sede claims about them. In the end, I do not feel one can pin down actual, certain heresy. Rather, it's a series of actions that smack of heresy (Kissing a Koran...that is the one that makes me a little ill. Re-habilitating Teilhard's 'cosmic liturgy'. Etc. Lots of them.) but when you try to pin down the heresy, it's a slippery goose.
Same with Francis. There's a barely believable way out of every loophole.
I do not feel that I can take the evidence in hand and declare any of these men to be heretics. And, for myself, I think I would need to be able to do exactly that to become a sede.
I'll continue to read sede arguments with interest.
As for why Francis terrifies me: I've lived under Hispanic Bishops several times. I find that the current generation of Hispanic Bishops (Gomez, Florez, Barnes, Ochoa, Siller, etc.) hold a weird, weird version of the Catholic faith that comes from almost pure classical liberalism.
They may (or may not) hold the Faith, but they're not going to insist that anyone else does.
I once had a nasty fight with a priest about heresy when I worked in a parish, and he took it to Bishop Barnes, and he came back with the most bizarre mis-interpretation of 'in non-essentials, diversity' ever.
So, yeah...I keep reading sede arguments.
-
gooch--
As one who recognises Gregory XVII as Pope until 1989 i definitely do think there is something wrong.
you lost me , you believe Gregory XVII was pope until 1989?
-
edit
-
gooch--
As one who recognises Gregory XVII as Pope until 1989 i definitely do think there is something wrong.
you lost me , you believe Gregory XVII was pope until 1989?
Yes
-
Captain wrote:
Discuss how you reached your conclusion. Was there ever a time that you doubted that Francis was the Pope?
Yes, I've had and continue to have my doubts. However, looking into the matter of heresy, I do not think, starting with Pius XII (I have not looked into claims that any earlier Popes were in fact anti-Popes) I do not think the matter is clear enough for me to make a judgement. I've read JPII and Benedict pretty extensively and read the sede claims about them. In the end, I do not feel one can pin down actual, certain heresy. Rather, it's a series of actions that smack of heresy (Kissing a Koran...that is the one that makes me a little ill. Re-habilitating Teilhard's 'cosmic liturgy'. Etc. Lots of them.) but when you try to pin down the heresy, it's a slippery goose.
Same with Francis. There's a barely believable way out of every loophole.
I do not feel that I can take the evidence in hand and declare any of these men to be heretics. And, for myself, I think I would need to be able to do exactly that to become a sede.
I'll continue to read sede arguments with interest.
As for why Francis terrifies me: I've lived under Hispanic Bishops several times. I find that the current generation of Hispanic Bishops (Gomez, Florez, Barnes, Ochoa, Siller, etc.) hold a weird, weird version of the Catholic faith that comes from almost pure classical liberalism.
They may (or may not) hold the Faith, but they're not going to insist that anyone else does.
I once had a nasty fight with a priest about heresy when I worked in a parish, and he took it to Bishop Barnes, and he came back with the most bizarre mis-interpretation of 'in non-essentials, diversity' ever.
So, yeah...I keep reading sede arguments.
The election of Frank is a Fraud. That alone is enough to qualify him as an anti-pope. :cowboy:
-
gooch--
As one who recognises Gregory XVII as Pope until 1989 i definitely do think there is something wrong.
you lost me , you believe Gregory XVII was pope until 1989?
Yes
do you have a link that supports your bizarre claim
-
Frank would be a lot closer to bizzaro than a true Pope could ever be.
This has been discussed & all the sources noted quite a few times in the past. Have u never seen any of the topics?
-
Frank would be a lot closer to bizzaro than a true Pope could ever be.
This has been discussed & all the sources noted quite a few times in the past. Have u never seen any of the topics?
Never seen it , now that I now what you're talking about I'll look closer next time, but I would have to disagree with your position, the logical conclusion is the see is vacant
the following makes sense to me
We believe that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope and unlawfully forced to resign - thus invalidating the “elections” of John XXIII and Paul VI. But his failure to oppose the apostasy, stand up for his office and denounce the Antipopes in the decades following those fateful days preclude Catholics from holding that he remained Pope in the decades following the 1958 and 1963 conclaves. Cardinal Siri may have been paralyzed by fear, uncertainty and confusion about his status and what to do about it; nevertheless one cannot recognize that he remained Pope in the years following his elections because, at least in the external forum, he did not stand up for his office or oppose the Antipopes.*
-
I'll start a new topic
-
Cardinal Siri died in 1989, I think that's what he means.