Author Topic: I am considering sedevacantism  (Read 12668 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaynek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2802
  • Reputation: +1276/-718
  • Gender: Female
Re: I am considering sedevacantism
« Reply #405 on: November 22, 2017, 05:53:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Those are two examples on the same topic. In both cases the traditional doctrine is supported.
    .
    Removing "subsists in" and replacing it with "is" would make the text more in line with tradition.
    Also, in the explanation, using "vestiges" instead of "elements" would make it more traditional.
    .
    The liberals choose "subsists in" for the document and "elements" to explain it, as if that makes it in accord with tradition, when in fact, they're sneaking in a word that doesn't belong (elements in place of vestiges).
    .
    I think I understand that.  I am trying to get my head around the distinction that Ladislaus was making between two different ways of understanding what the expression "interpret in light of tradition" means.
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2802
    • Reputation: +1276/-718
    • Gender: Female
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #406 on: November 22, 2017, 05:55:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you believe the modernists that they did not intend change Catholic doctrine, you have missed the the last boat off of the island.
    Even I can tell that.  
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is


    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16578
    • Reputation: +7918/-563
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #407 on: November 22, 2017, 05:56:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you believe the modernists that they did not intend [to] change Catholic doctrine, you have missed the the last boat off of the island.

    They did not intend to follow canonical procedure to change it, they simply stopped teaching the old and started to teach the new.  And prior teaching was now subject to the new "deeper" understanding. (heretical).

    The council cannot be "read in the light of Tradition", because is was not written to conform but to overturn Traditional doctrine, and it is a false proposition to say that it can.  Its authors and the conciliar popes have admitted to this.

    You do not make a document Traditional by reading into it what you want it to say when it was intended to say another thing. To think that you can and make everything all right is an error.

    The conciliar church is a heresy because it is built upon ecumenism which is a grave heresy, in that it denies that the Church of God is present in the world. It instead proposes that the Church [is] broken and in pieces and will only be whole and present when the parts of the Truth which are contained in the various Christian [sects] and the other religions unite to bring it together.

    Lumen Gentium is not ambiguous it is heretical on its face, and in its words and intent.
    .
    Certainly LG was written with the intent to deceive -- and their scheme of deception included imprecise language that would hide their real objective. One way of attempting to make the best of it (which is really a waste of time, but anyway...) is to accuse this "seemingly awkward text" of being ambiguous, and then endeavoring to clear it up by using more traditional vocabulary. 
    .
    That's a nice intention, but it amounts to making a silk purse of a sow's ear. The authors deliberately chose awkward vocabulary in order to deceive, and in order to drag novelties into the Church right in the open for all to see. 
    .
    It seems to me that the only way of overcoming its defects and error is to trash the whole thing, not to attempt to fix it.
    .
    It was not the words that they were sneaking in, the unsuitable words were used to sneak in heterodox ideas, False ideas as a subtext to the seemingly awkward words on the page.
    .
    quote author=JPaul link=topic=46893.msg580451#msg580451 date=1511393299



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14515
    • Reputation: +7600/-2359
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #408 on: November 22, 2017, 07:13:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Those are two examples on the same topic. In both cases the traditional doctrine is supported.
    .
    Removing "subsists in" and replacing it with "is" would make the text more in line with tradition.
    Also, in the explanation, using "vestiges" instead of "elements" would make it more traditional.
    .
    The liberals choose "subsists in" for the document and "elements" to explain it, as if that makes it in accord with tradition, when in fact, they're sneaking in a word that doesn't belong (elements in place of vestiges).
    .

    Ah, but "subsists" makes perfect sense if you believe, as most Traditional Catholics do, that non-Catholics and infidels can indeed be within the Church.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14515
    • Reputation: +7600/-2359
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #409 on: November 22, 2017, 07:15:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The council cannot be "read in the light of Tradition", because is was not written to conform but to overturn Traditional doctrine, and it is a false proposition to say that it can. 

    Ha, I can read EVERY SINGLE WORD of Vatican II as completely Traditional if I hold the BoDer ecclesiology that most Traditional Catholics have.


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3732
    • Reputation: +3651/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #410 on: November 22, 2017, 07:43:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Certainly LG was written with the intent to deceive -- and their scheme of deception included imprecise language that would hide their real objective. One way of attempting to make the best of it (which is really a waste of time, but anyway...) is to accuse this "seemingly awkward text" of being ambiguous, and then endeavoring to clear it up by using more traditional vocabulary.
    .
    That's a nice intention, but it amounts to making a silk purse of a sow's ear. The authors deliberately chose awkward vocabulary in order to deceive, and in order to drag novelties into the Church right in the open for all to see.
    .
    It seems to me that the only way of overcoming its defects and error is to trash the whole thing, not to attempt to fix it.
    ..
    quote author=JPaul link=topic=46893.msg580451#msg580451 date=1511393299
    That is precisely the point, it cannot be fixed.  The only sound thing to do is to reject the council in toto. To accept that it is a legitimate council of the Church and then pick and choose line by line what you will reject is schismatic.
    It would need to be rewritten and codified in clear Traditional language which means the whole of it is unnecessary and void. The council is a manifesto against the Catholic Religion and essentially a declaration of war against Christ's Doctrine.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3732
    • Reputation: +3651/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #411 on: November 22, 2017, 07:46:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ha, I can read EVERY SINGLE WORD of Vatican II as completely Traditional if I hold the BoDer ecclesiology that most Traditional Catholics have.
    Yes, it has triumphed over Traditional ecclesiology and the Catholic world swept away with salvation outside of the Church and the sacraments.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14515
    • Reputation: +7600/-2359
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #412 on: November 22, 2017, 08:02:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I hope you can expand on this some time when it is convenient.  I am trying to understand the implications of the distinction you made so more examples would be helpful.  

    A reminder about my question:

    I'll try.  I can't think of more examples off the top of my head.  Religious Liberty is the big one that most Traditional Catholics use.  There's Ecumenism but that's more a practical thing ... except with regard to the underlying ecclesiology.  Now, MOST of it revolves around ecclesiology.  And IMO V2 ecclesiology is perfectly Traditional if you hold the same ecclesiology that most Traditional Catholics still hold and which was quite prevalent even right before Vatican II.  That's the whole Father Feeney question; Father Feeney saw it well before it manifested itself in V2.


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 877
    • Reputation: +641/-124
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #413 on: November 22, 2017, 10:28:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, if P6 hadn't replaced the sacraments with pseudo-sacraments there would be no traditional Catholic movement.  The only guy to publicly resist V2 prior to 1968 was Francis Shuckhardt who formed a traditional religious congregation and publicly declared his belief that the Holy See was vacant.  It was only after they started messing with the sacraments that a significant movement began.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 877
    • Reputation: +641/-124
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #414 on: November 22, 2017, 10:32:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ironically, almost all of Fr. Feeney's followers accept the validity of the new pseudo-sacraments.  If I'm not mistaken only the West Coast branch reject the new sacraments.  What's the point of insisting on a strict interpretation of EENS if "for many" is equivalent to "for all"?

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6684
    • Reputation: +4120/-516
    • Gender: Female
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #415 on: November 22, 2017, 10:37:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ironically, almost all of Fr. Feeney's followers accept the validity of the new pseudo-sacraments.  If I'm not mistaken only the West Coast branch reject the new sacraments.  
    There are a few of us who no longer do. This in regards to Confirmation, Eucharist, Extreme Unction, & Orders.

    West Coast here  :)
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14515
    • Reputation: +7600/-2359
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #416 on: November 23, 2017, 09:28:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, if P6 hadn't replaced the sacraments with pseudo-sacraments there would be no traditional Catholic movement.  The only guy to publicly resist V2 prior to 1968 was Francis Shuckhardt who formed a traditional religious congregation and publicly declared his belief that the Holy See was vacant.  It was only after they started messing with the sacraments that a significant movement began.

    You're right of course.  Because that's where the average person experiences the Faith ... in the Mass and Sacraments.  Otherwise obscure theological issues such as "ecclesiology" would not have registered with the average layman.  People see clown Masses and immediately react.  I myself would probably never have become a Traditional Catholic were it not for the liturgical aberrations in my NO parish.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14515
    • Reputation: +7600/-2359
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #417 on: November 23, 2017, 09:30:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ironically, almost all of Fr. Feeney's followers accept the validity of the new pseudo-sacraments.  If I'm not mistaken only the West Coast branch reject the new sacraments.  What's the point of insisting on a strict interpretation of EENS if "for many" is equivalent to "for all"?

    I don't.  I consider a couple of them to be doubtful ... most signficantly the episcopal consecration.  As for the Mass, I think that now that the English speaking world has gone back to "for many" ... I think that the Mass could very well be valid, if offered by a valid priest ... especially when using "Anaphora" I, which is almost identical to the Tridentine Canon.  But now that you have a whole generation of priests ordained by bishops who were consecrated in the new rite, everything is a toss up.

    Offline Alcuin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 267
    • Reputation: +91/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #418 on: December 04, 2017, 03:52:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sexual morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!

    So, did you come to any conclusions after reading all the responses?

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4005
    • Reputation: +1840/-164
    • Gender: Female
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #419 on: December 04, 2017, 04:26:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, did you come to any conclusions after reading all the responses?
    Conclusions?   This was his one and only post on the site and he hasn't been online since the day after he posted it.
    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16