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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 32

Author Topic: Benedict nearing death?  (Read 11531 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

Re: Benedict nearing death?
« Reply #40 on: December 29, 2022, 10:35:51 AM »
Quote from: Mr G on December 29, 2022, 07:58:35 AM
Here is what I have found out thus far regarding the belief in Universal Acceptance as regards to this situation:


Truth is not a democracy.  The Papacy is bestowed DIRECTLY by Christ only when the man elected in a legally valid conclave ACCEPTS the Office, it is NOT bestowed by the College of Cardinals, nor even by The Church itself.

Christ does NOT bestow the Petrine Office upon a man when the College of Cardinals LEGALLY AND LEGITIMATELY votes to elect him – Christ alone bestows the Office ONLY when the LEGALLY AND LEGITIMATELY elected man ACCEPTS.

In the same logical vein, Christ does NOT bestow the Papacy upon a man that is ILLEGALLY, ILLEGITMATELY, NON-CANONICALLY ELECTED, no matter what the College of Cardinals or even the Church Militant “peacefully accepts”.  To argue such is to totally and completely upend reality itself, namely saying that LIES BECOME TRUE when enough people believe and accept them. 

She then goes on to explain why the conclave was not legal nor valid:

Likewise, Christ does NOT withdraw the Petrine Office from a man who does NOT LEGALLY RESIGN, NO MATTER WHAT THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS OR CHURCH MILITANT “ACCEPTS”.  This is made crystal clear in Canon 332.2:

So, if a putative papal resignation is LEGALLY INVALID, the Petrine See remains 100% occupied, and thus per Canon 359 the College of Cardinals has absolutely ZERO METAPHYSICAL ABILITY TO CONVENE A VALID CONCLAVE.  If the Petrine See is occupied under ANY circuмstance, no real conclave can be called. Period.

LOGIC: Universal Peaceful Acceptance MUST Proceed from a LAWFUL CONCLAVE. Legality is the REQUIRED ANTECEDENT to UPA. | Barnhardt

That looks very legal Mr G.

So, where, for the sake of those of us not so well informed as to the situation with retired Benedict XVI and Francis, does that leave the papacy?
Logged

Offline Mr G

Re: Benedict nearing death?
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2022, 11:54:23 AM »
Here is Tony La Rosa's argument objecting to being classified as a "Sedevacantist" if Pope Benidict dies before Jorge:

"The term “Sedevacantist” did not exist before Vatican II.  It is a term applied to those who hold that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958 due to the alleged heresies of the conciliar popes.  If Benedict XVI dies first, I will not automatically become a “Sedevacantist”, the term as applied above.  Furthermore, even if Jorge Bergoglio was a saintly man, he would still be an antipope because he was invalidly elected.  Therefore, I don’t need the argument of “heresy” to defend my position.  If Benedict XVI dies, we will simply be in a period of “sedevacante”, as we were between the reigns of Pope Pius X and Pope Benedict XV.  If Jorge Bergoglio dies first, will those who accept him as pope become “Sedevacantists”?"

I Will Not Turn into a Sedevacantist if Benedict XVI Dies before Jorge Bergoglio – Ecclesia Militans


Thus, he is correct; if the term "Sedevacanstist" is restricted to those who believe the Chair of Peter is vacant since the death of Pius XII. Then in that case, those who hold Pope Benedict as the current Pope will not be considered Sedevacantist.
Logged

Offline PAT317

Re: Benedict nearing death?
« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2022, 12:29:37 PM »
Quote from: Mr G on December 29, 2022, 11:54:23 AM
Here is Tony La Rosa's argument objecting to being classified as a "Sedevacantist" if Pope Benidict dies before Jorge:

"The term “Sedevacantist” did not exist before Vatican II.  It is a term applied to those who hold that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958 due to the alleged heresies of the conciliar popes.  ...

Thus, he is correct; if the term "Sedevacanstist" is restricted to those who believe the Chair of Peter is vacant since the death of Pius XII. Then in that case, those who hold Pope Benedict as the current Pope will not be considered Sedevacantist.

This is a good point, and I think too often overlooked.  I am an advocate of defining terms in any discussion (for which I got hammered a while back).  One could give several definitions of "Sedevacantist", not even limited to "those who hold that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958 due to the alleged heresies of the conciliar popes". Because not all sedevacantists reject the same ostensible popes.  One could define sedevacantist as one who believes that a Catholic must reject as a non-pope anyone whom said-Catholic believes is a heretic.  It would be interesting to start a thread, asking posters to "define 'sedevacantist' in your own words" and see what folks come up with.  I agree with Tony that someone who considers Pope Benedict to be the real pope does not suddenly become a "sedevacantist" when he dies; he would just be like all Catholics have always been during any interregnum.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Benedict nearing death?
« Reply #43 on: December 29, 2022, 02:15:22 PM »
Quote from: Mr G on December 29, 2022, 11:54:23 AM
Here is Tony La Rosa's argument objecting to being classified as a "Sedevacantist" if Pope Benidict dies before Jorge:

"The term “Sedevacantist” did not exist before Vatican II.  It is a term applied to those who hold that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958 due to the alleged heresies of the conciliar popes.  If Benedict XVI dies first, I will not automatically become a “Sedevacantist”, the term as applied above.  Furthermore, even if Jorge Bergoglio was a saintly man, he would still be an antipope because he was invalidly elected.  Therefore, I don’t need the argument of “heresy” to defend my position.  If Benedict XVI dies, we will simply be in a period of “sedevacante”, as we were between the reigns of Pope Pius X and Pope Benedict XV.  If Jorge Bergoglio dies first, will those who accept him as pope become “Sedevacantists”?"

I Will Not Turn into a Sedevacantist if Benedict XVI Dies before Jorge Bergoglio – Ecclesia Militans


Thus, he is correct; if the term "Sedevacanstist" is restricted to those who believe the Chair of Peter is vacant since the death of Pius XII. Then in that case, those who hold Pope Benedict as the current Pope will not be considered Sedevacantist.

This is hilarious.

According to Mr. LaRosa, Ibranyi (who believes the last 102 pope have been antipopes) would not qualify as a sedevacantist either.

Nor would those who believe John XXIII was a true pope, but Paul VI through Francis weren’t, be considered sedevacantists.

Only those who say the chair has been empty since 1958 qualify (much to the chagrin of those who identify as sedevacantists with other start dates).

Sounds to me like Mr. LaRosa is having difficulty coming to terms with the inevitable logic of his position:

If you believe the man claiming to be pope is an antipope, and furthermore, that nobody else is currently pope, you are by definition sedevacantist (as every sedevacantist will attest).

That various sedevacantists have different start dates for their alleged “interregnums” is an entirely irrelevant detail.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Benedict nearing death?
« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2022, 02:24:02 PM »
Quote from: Mr G on December 29, 2022, 07:58:35 AM
Truth is not a democracy.  The Papacy is bestowed DIRECTLY by Christ only when the man elected in a legally valid conclave ACCEPTS the Office, it is NOT bestowed by the College of Cardinals, nor even by The Church itself.

Christ does NOT bestow the Petrine Office upon a man when the College of Cardinals LEGALLY AND LEGITIMATELY votes to elect him – Christ alone bestows the Office ONLY when the LEGALLY AND LEGITIMATELY elected man ACCEPTS.

In the same logical vein, Christ does NOT bestow the Papacy upon a man that is ILLEGALLY, ILLEGITMATELY, NON-CANONICALLY ELECTED, no matter what the College of Cardinals or even the Church Militant “peacefully accepts”.  To argue such is to totally and completely upend reality itself, namely saying that LIES BECOME TRUE when enough people believe and accept them. 

She then goes on to explain why the conclave was not legal nor valid:

Likewise, Christ does NOT withdraw the Petrine Office from a man who does NOT LEGALLY RESIGN, NO MATTER WHAT THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS OR CHURCH MILITANT “ACCEPTS”.  This is made crystal clear in Canon 332.2:

So, if a putative papal resignation is LEGALLY INVALID, the Petrine See remains 100% occupied, and thus per Canon 359 the College of Cardinals has absolutely ZERO METAPHYSICAL ABILITY TO CONVENE A VALID CONCLAVE.  If the Petrine See is occupied under ANY circuмstance, no real conclave can be called. Period.


LOGIC: Universal Peaceful Acceptance MUST Proceed from a LAWFUL CONCLAVE. Legality is the REQUIRED ANTECEDENT to UPA. | Barnhardt

Oh, give me a break.  Stop citing that crackpot Barnhardt as if she were some theologian.  While I don't agree with Universal Acceptance myself, and especially not "convalidation," your caps, italics, red print, and citation of Barnhardt as your theological authority are pathetic.

Some of the best theological minds believe in the principle of Univeresal Acceptance and even convalidation ... so whether you agree with it or not (and I don't actually), the arrogance of this post and of Barnhardt are breathtaking.

It's the same thing I say about those who arrogantly denounce sedeprivationism as "idiotic".  Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was arguably THE top theological mind in the Church leading up to Vatican II.  People are entitled to disagree, as he's obviouisly not infallible, nor is he the Magisterium, but the hubris that it takes to call his thesis "idiotic" is beyond the pale.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 32
« previous next »