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

Author Topic: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)  (Read 10587 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
  • Reputation: +2897/-667
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Q-
    You won't find a single theologian who agrees that the entire teaching Church can vanish, even for one second.....but 61 years?
    Straw man. I never believed that there is no magisterium left. I certainly think it’s probable that there are Latin Rite and Eastern Rite bishops that still possess Ordinary Jurisdiction.
    Sean, since you put forth your assertion that a long interregnum is impossible, it is you who has to cite theologians to support your case. I will save you the time, there are none. An interregnum of many years in no way contradicts doctrine.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47080
    • Reputation: +27910/-5205
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Siri baloney and delusions aside, what you should really be asaking yourself is, "How long can God allow the entire teaching authority to vanish from Earth without violating indefectability, perpetual successors, visibility, etc. etc?"

    Andwer: Not one milisecond.

    What teaching "authority" are you talking about ... the one that you completely ignore and admit has become filled with more error than truth?  This kind of teaching authority could vanish from the earth forever and we'd be better off without it.

    THIS is the actual question:  How long could God allow the entire Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church to become thoroughly corrupted and polluted with error, to the point of actively leading souls to hell?  Answer:  Not one millisecond.



    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What teaching "authority" are you talking about ... the one that you completely ignore and admit has become filled with more error than truth?  This kind of teaching authority could vanish from the earth forever and we'd be better off without it.

    THIS is the actual question:  How long could God allow the entire Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church to become thoroughly corrupted and polluted with error, to the point of actively leading souls to hell?  Answer:  Not one millisecond.
    In a nutshell, this is the death knell of the R&R position.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In a nutshell, this is the death knell of the R&R position.
    This is the clear laver of truth (i.e., the R&R position): 

    No matter how many times your father fails in his duties of state, he remains perpetually your father (even if you have to resist 90% of his commands).
    Same with the pope.

    But the sedes prefer to pretend their father is not really their father: Their cribs were switched shortly after birth in the neo-natal ward.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Siri baloney and delusions aside, what you should really be asaking yourself is, "How long can God allow the entire teaching authority to vanish from Earth without violating indefectability, perpetual successors, visibility, etc. etc?"

    Andwer: Not one milisecond.
    Isn't that practically your position too though?  Like what's the practical difference here exactly?


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Isn't that practically your position too though?  Like what's the practical difference here exactly?
    What do you mean?
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is the clear laver of truth (i.e., the R&R position):

    No matter how many times your father fails in his duties of state, he remains perpetually your father (even if you have to resist 90% of his commands).
    Same with the pope.

    But the sedes prefer to pretend their father is not really their father: Their cribs were switched shortly after birth in the neo-natal ward.
    Sean, this argument is possibly the worst argument that the R&R position has ever had. Every time I hear it, it’s like nails on a chalkboard. “Bad dad”.

    Your father is your father In perpetuity due to your biological connection. A pope is not perpetually the pope. For instance, you believe that Ratzinger was the pope but resigned. Now, according to you, he is no longer a true pope.

    Aside from that, if your father became a heretic, he would still be your father, but he would no longer be a member of the Church. If the pope became a heretic he would no longer be the holy father nor would he be a member of the Church.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What’s really frustrating for me is the fact that the goal posts got moved. When JPII was sitting in Rome, the argument was: “oh, you can’t prove he is a heretic, therefore he is still the pope.” Ratzinger, same thing. When Bergoglio came on the scene and displayed heresy so overtly that no one could make excuses anymore, I thought: finally, people will see these usurpers for what they truly are. No, that didn’t happen, the goal posts got moved. Suddenly, St. Robert Bellarmine’s writings got distorted and a heretic pope is no longer automatically deposed by Christ.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What’s really frustrating for me is the fact that the goal posts got moved. When JPII was sitting in Rome, the argument was: “oh, you can’t prove he is a heretic, therefore he is still the pope.” Ratzinger, same thing. When Bergoglio came on the scene and displayed heresy so overtly that no one could make excuses anymore, I thought: finally, people will see these usurpers for what they truly are. No, that didn’t happen, the goal posts got moved. Suddenly, St. Robert Bellarmine’s writings got distorted and a heretic pope is no longer automatically deposed by Christ.
    Well I don't take this position, but its also possible that Francis was the only antipope.

    And I'd also say even with him, I don't see how you can prove the heresy formal.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47080
    • Reputation: +27910/-5205
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What’s really frustrating for me is the fact that the goal posts got moved. When JPII was sitting in Rome, the argument was: “oh, you can’t prove he is a heretic, therefore he is still the pope.” Ratzinger, same thing. When Bergoglio came on the scene and displayed heresy so overtly that no one could make excuses anymore, I thought: finally, people will see these usurpers for what they truly are. No, that didn’t happen, the goal posts got moved. Suddenly, St. Robert Bellarmine’s writings got distorted and a heretic pope is no longer automatically deposed by Christ.

    That's a sign of intellectual dishonesty.  When one rationale falls by the wayside, you retreat to another one ... anything to justify a conclusion you have decided upon beforehand.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47080
    • Reputation: +27910/-5205
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No matter how many times your father fails in his duties of state, he remains perpetually your father (even if you have to resist 90% of his commands).
    Same with the pope.

    :facepalm:  Not this tired old nonsense again.  Last time I checked, my father wasn't the Vicar of Christ with God-given teaching authority.  We are not talking about simple papal commands, but about the Magisterium and the Church's Universal Discipline ... both protected by the Holy Spirit (unlike anyone's father).


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47080
    • Reputation: +27910/-5205
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well I don't take this position, but its also possible that Francis was the only antipope.

    And I'd also say even with him, I don't see how you can prove the heresy formal.

    Theoretically, but what Quo is saying that the REASONING keeps shifting.

    As for formal heresy, if you're speaking about heresy in the internal forum, then no one can EVER prove this.  Even the Church cannot judge the internal forum ... de internis Ecclesia non judicat.  One need only establish pertinacity in rejecting something that he knows (or should know) is contrary to the faith.  He's been repeatedly admonished about the heresy of Amoris Laetitiae ... even by some of his own Cardinals.  Notice that I said that it entails not only what one does know about Church teaching but about what one SHOULD know.  If one is ignorant of some truth that he should know in his state of life, then he is culpable for it.  If a priest gives bad advice in the confessional out of ignorance on some issue he SHOULD know given his state, then he is culpable for it.  As the Supreme Teacher of the Church, Bergoglio is required to know the faith inside and out.  Bergoglio has made it clear that he doesn't even really care about being "heretical" (as he joked about it one time).  He's clearly a lover of novelty ... which is one of the chief characteristics of heresy.

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's a sign of intellectual dishonesty.  When one rationale falls by the wayside, you retreat to another one ... anything to justify a conclusion you have decided upon beforehand.
    Lad, did you notice the same thing, that the argument changed?
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47080
    • Reputation: +27910/-5205
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Another Bergoglio doosie:  "God cannot be God without man."


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47080
    • Reputation: +27910/-5205
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lad, did you notice the same thing, that the argument changed?

    Yes, I've noticed the shifting arguments.  Heck, you can see the same poster shifting arguments in any given thread ... much less the larger overall R&R shift.

    Before the argument was that it couldn't be proven that they were pertinacious heretics.  Now, since Bergoglio put that one to bed, the argument is that the heretical pope remains in office.  Father Chazal conceded early on that the sedevacantists are right that Bergoglio is a manifest heretic, saying that it's obvious.  So the only thing to fall back on to avoid sedevacantism is that such a heretic remains in office.