Author Topic: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever? (Read 10578 times)

LeDeg · « **Reply #25 on:** July 27, 2020, 06:58:30 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 27, 2020, 06:50:40 PM

Well, I have a lot more issues with R&R than that one. I just summarized one succinctly to make the point. Simple obedience is not the same as submission to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church. Pope Liberius did not have "100 other errors".

Agreed. In fact, it would seem that the canard of Pope Liberius falling into error stems from Michael Davies basing his research on Cardinal Newmans research 12 years prior to becoming Catholic. In other words, when he was a heretic. This erroneous view has been trumpeted around by the likes of the Remnant newspaper and publishing Michael Davies famous little book on St Athanasius and distributing it around trad book stores.
Louie V and John Lane just did a video on this. It certainly changed my perspective on the Arian crisis and what I thought I knew.

forlorn · « **Reply #26 on:** July 27, 2020, 07:53:27 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 03:46:40 PM

Your problem with R&R stems from the misconception you articulate above (ie., That you erroneously believe R&R has practically severed communion with the hierarchy):

If in addition to semi-Arianism, St. Athanasius also had to resist 100 other errors of Pope Liberius, you are implying such resistance would be wrong.

That is illogical.

So is it erroneous to believe that Bp. Williamson was excommunicated?

Even if the excommunication was unjust, Bp. Williamson still ought to, by law and duty, act as if under excommunication. He does not. How is this not an issue to you?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #27 on:** July 27, 2020, 08:05:36 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on July 27, 2020, 07:53:27 PM

So is it erroneous to believe that Bp. Williamson was excommunicated?

Even if the excommunication was unjust, Bp. Williamson still ought to, by law and duty, act as if under excommunication. He does not. How is this not an issue to you?

What?

Can you explain to me why one invalidly excommunicated ought to pretend he was validly excommunicated?

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #28 on:** July 27, 2020, 08:46:49 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 08:05:36 PM

What?

Can you explain to me why one invalidly excommunicated ought to pretend he was validly excommunicated?

You could argue that Bishop Williamson was unjustly excommunicated for consecrating 3 bishops without a papal mandate but you can't argue that it was an invalid excommunication. Unless you are arguing that the consecrations never happened. If he consecrated even one bishop without a papal mandate and Frank is the true pope, then it is certainly a valid excommunication even if it could somehow be argued that it was unjust.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #29 on:** July 27, 2020, 08:55:45 PM »

In fact, didn't the SSPX clergy write an open letter in 1988 saying they were proud to be excommunicated from the Conciliar Church? If JP Deuce was the true pope, then certainly those excommunications were valid. It's a crime to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate and especially so when it is against the expressed command of the pope. Unless there is a sede vacante and there is an urgent need for new bishops.

Supposedly the big problem with the SV position is that 60 years is too long. But there is no dogma that a long sede vacante contradicts. Whereas resisting the pope is certainly contrary to dogmatic Church doctrine concerning the papacy.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever? (Read 10578 times)

LeDeg

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

forlorn

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

SeanJohnson

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Clemens Maria

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Clemens Maria

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?