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

Author Topic: Fr. Jenkins articulates Moderate (aka Opinionist) Sedevacantism  (Read 7407 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Fr. Jenkins articulates Moderate (aka Opinionist) Sedevacantism
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2020, 04:18:59 PM »
Talk about being judgmental!  

We have had anti-popes in the Church before, what's the diff?

Re: Fr. Jenkins articulates Moderate (aka Opinionist) Sedevacantism
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2020, 06:27:00 PM »
Talk about being judgmental!  

We have had anti-popes in the Church before, what's the diff?
I'm glad you brought this up. What is the difference between saying:
1. The "popes" since 1958 have been anti-Popes because Siri was elected and accepted, threatened and forced into a non-binding withdrawal. The Church is in eclipse. The Pope is in hiding.
and
2. The Chair of Peter has been vacant since 1958 (may vary).


Re: Fr. Jenkins articulates Moderate (aka Opinionist) Sedevacantism
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2020, 08:18:02 PM »
At one point he states that he does not consider dogmatic sedevacantists to be Traditional Catholics because they are usurping an authority they do not have.

I don't understand. If it is a usurpation of authority to say that someone has to agree with your opinion in order to be Catholic, how is Fr. Jenkins not doing exactly the same thing when he says that dogmatic sedevacantists are not Catholic because of what they believe? How is he not usurping authority in deciding who is traditional Catholic and who isn't?

I agree, Yeti. Those who consider themselves non-dogmatic XYZ's but still condemn those evil dogmatic XYZ's, appear to be disingenuous hypocrites.

Given the case of those confused contemporaries who refuse to condemn the robber-conciliar heretics, and rather maintain communion with them, albeit in lip service only; these deny the dogma, that the Church professes one true Faith, in actu. Jenkins would have to argue against such or whatever else reasoning and abstain from condemning opponents of his opinion, which in no way is more authorized than any other opinion.


Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Jenkins articulates Moderate (aka Opinionist) Sedevacantism
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2020, 05:59:17 AM »
.
The problem here is that Fr. Jenkins is raising his opinion to the status of dogma, inasmuch as he says that people who go against his analysis (dogmatic sedes) are not traditional Catholics. It would be reasonable to say he disagrees with them or that they are wrong, but by saying they are not traditional Catholics he is usurping authority he himself does not have.
I did not take it that way. He said: "I don't even consider those people to be traditional Catholics at all, because they are usurping authority they don't have".

He is correct, they are usurping authority that they don't have, which is something that traditional Catholics simply don't do.

He is saying that dogmatic sedes continue to insist that their opinion is taught by or is a teaching or part of a teaching of the Church - even after being corrected, those who do such a thing he does not consider to be traditional Catholics at all - he has this opinion because it is something that traditional Catholics simply don't do, not because it is a fact or certain. He is only offering his opinion, not making an official proclamation. As such, he is not usurping any authority.  

He is only offering his opinion, because he says "I do not even consider", he does not say "I'm telling you they are not Catholic", nor does he site any canon or teaching, nor is he in any way communicating that they are in fact, positively not traditional Catholics.

     


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Jenkins articulates Moderate (aka Opinionist) Sedevacantism
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2020, 07:17:11 AM »
You'll note that he didn't say the dogmatic sedes weren't Catholic, just that they weren't Traditional Catholics.  We'd have to ask him what he meant by that and what his definition of Traditional Catholic is.  Traditional Catholics is a bit of a slippery term which can mean different things to different people.

And, no obviously, I don't agree with his position on the Thuc bishops.  That's just because I don't agree with his conclusion that they are doubtful.  But let's say you did agree.  If, for instance, you had some faithful who received the Sacraments from someone ordained by, say, one "Bishop" Ambrose Moran, wouldn't you tell the faithful that they needed to re-confess sins that had been confessed to that man?  Problem is that the +Thuc lines through +des Lauriers and +Carmona are unquestionably valid.