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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 28

Author Topic: I am considering sedevacantism  (Read 23490 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 13823
  • Reputation: +5568/-865
  • Gender: Male
Re: I am considering sedevacantism
« Reply #315 on: November 21, 2017, 11:45:33 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: An even Seven on November 21, 2017, 11:42:37 AM
    This right here shows his ignorance of what this Dogma means (subjection to the Roman Pontiff). He has no idea what the difference is between being subject to the Pope and being obedient to him.
    Spoken like a true dogmatic sede - in circles.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #316 on: November 21, 2017, 11:51:34 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: GJC on November 21, 2017, 11:43:52 AM
    I have made it crystal clear many times.. there is no such thing as "SEDEVANCANTISM". That is a made up moniker, that though you didn't invent, you nonetheless place on people. I have stated I believe we are in an interregnum now. End of the story.

    Now this question you keep avoiding: If you are not following blind/faithless leaders then tell me 1) who, 2) what and 3) why you are resisting?
    Wrong, we are not in an interregnum and there is a man made doctrine - it is called "sedevacantism" and is practiced by few. 

    I have answered your questions every post, AGAIN - I strive to resist offending God (2) the "what"), which means I resist all NOers (1) the "who") who want me to accept the NO (3) the "why").
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #317 on: November 21, 2017, 12:04:01 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    You're the one who said being subject to the pope is being subject to God.

    AES: First, one is made subject to the Pope through Baptism ignoramus. Second, the Pope can't be a heretic because a heretic isn't Catholic. Third, you are subject to a heretic by your own admission, you are a heretic. Fourth, to be in the same church as Francis is the same as being in communion with any protestant, muslim, etc... leader out there.

    FYI, you are in no position, i.e., you have no authority to decide the status of the pope based on your knowledge of his sins. Do you understand that yet reject that fact outright?

    There is no possible way out of it. If you think the pope is God or a God, then rejecting the pope is rejecting God. Rejecting the pope as a heretic is rejecting God as a heretic.

    AES: I know that as a son of the devil you can't help but lie so let me reiterate that the Pope is not God. The Pope derives his power of universal pastor from God and God puts him in the Chair. Therefore, to be disobedient to the Pope is to disobey God. You deny everything the Church has taught in regards to the Primacy of and obedience owed to the Chair of Peter.

    To be subject to the pope is the dogma, but not if it means offending God - do you understand at all?


    I do not reject the unity of faith, I wholly echo St. Jerome's words which YOU POSTED:  
    “I, acknowledging no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with Your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth.”

    You do not echo the words above, you are among the scattered because you reject this teaching, preferring your own wrong and non-Catholic opinion instead.

    AES: Did you miss the part that says "that is, with the chair of Peter"? I am in communion with every valid Pope and their teachings since the Church started. If a heretic seems to be elected, it is null and void. This does not mean one stops being in communion or fellowship with the Chair of Peter. Nor should it mean that you are now in communion with a heretic just because he looks like a pope. Your ignorance of Church Teaching is truly an abominable sight. You can't even see the words that are there because of you spiritual blindness.

    No, I did not miss the part about the Chair - did you miss the part about "and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth." Do you propose that "you" to be a Chair now?

    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #318 on: November 21, 2017, 12:25:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • I feel that we're in a state of doubt and confusion.

    I believe that there's a strong positive doubt about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants ... a doubt sufficient to justify our categorical withdrawal of submission to their Magisterium.  Refusal of submission is not schismatic when it's founded on grave positive doubts regarding the legitimacy of a pope (about his election or his person).  Since I do not have certainty of faith regarding their legitimacy, I cannot accept even their dogmatic definitions with the certainty of faith.  That's the meaning of the maxim:  papa dubius papa nullus ... a doubtful pope is no pope (at least in the practical order).

    Yet I will not go sedevacantist because that would be to usurp an authority that's not given to me but to the Church alone ... to ultimately determine the legitimacy of any given pope.  So I suspend my judgment while entertaining grave doubts.  This really does solve all the legitimate objections to both R&R and SVism.  I do not NEED to solve this problem, nor am I competent to do so.  I must merely have justification in conscience for my refusal of submission to their Magisterium.  This position brings me great peace of soul.  R&R is in a lot of ways completely non-Catholic.  Sedevacantism, on the other hand, does not recognize that papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact and must be established with the certainty of faith by the Church, and not by any individual going off half-cocked and hurling accusations of heresy from the hip.

    I have called this position, tongue-in-cheek, sededoubtism.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #319 on: November 21, 2017, 12:31:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 21, 2017, 06:03:25 AM
    What about this dogma, given to us by Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam in 1302?
    "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

    If you choose sedevacantism which you are considering, since you cannot be subject to one you do not believe exists, how, per the above dogma, will you be able to get to heaven?

    This is a completely false argument.  I get to heaven the same way that someone who happened to die during any other papal interregnum would get to heaven.  Even if the See isn't currently occupied, one maintains a state of submission to the Roman Pontiff.  Similarly, if anyone died during the Great Schism while a subject of one of the Antipopes, he too could be saved.  Why?  Because the submission required is normally both formal and material, but in the case of a vacant See (interregnum) or material error regarding the identity of the true pope (Great Schism), the formal submission remains even if the material submission is broken.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #320 on: November 21, 2017, 12:32:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: happenby on October 21, 2017, 09:03:39 AM
    While it is true Francis is out of his Catholic mind, it is also ridiculous to pretend he isn't Pope.

    No, it is by no means ridiculous.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #321 on: November 21, 2017, 12:36:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 01:19:51 AM
    including Pius XII 

    So you reject Pius XII too, eh?  Despite the fact that he was peacefully accepted by the Universal Church without ANY dissent during his reign?  It's this kind of thing that opened my eyes up to the folly of straight sedevacantism.  I knew a guy who rejected Pius IX.  I knew others who rejected Pius XI and even St. Pius X.  Where does this stop?  What principles does SVism have that would prevent someone from embracing nonsense like this?  None.  Any uneducated lay man or lay woman could start deposing popes any time he or she imagines that the Pope's Magisterium has broken with Tradition.

    You do know that a theologian alive during the reign of Pius XII said that it would be heresy to reject the legitimacy of Pius XII ... because papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact.

    So, do you believe in the Assumption with the certainty of faith?  If Pius XII was not legitimate, then you cannot believe that dogma with the certainty of faith.  Consequently, you would be a heretic on that count alone.
    Logged

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #322 on: November 21, 2017, 12:41:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 12:25:53 PM
    I feel that we're in a state of doubt and confusion.

    I believe that there's a strong positive doubt about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants ... a doubt sufficient to justify our categorical withdrawal of submission to their Magisterium.  Refusal of submission is not schismatic when it's founded on grave positive doubts regarding the legitimacy of a pope (about his election or his person).  Since I do not have certainty of faith regarding their legitimacy, I cannot accept even their dogmatic definitions with the certainty of faith.  That's the meaning of the maxim:  papa dubius papa nullus ... a doubtful pope is no pope (at least in the practical order).

    Yet I will not go sedevacantist because that would be to usurp an authority that's not given to me but to the Church alone ... to ultimately determine the legitimacy of any given pope.  So I suspend my judgment while entertaining grave doubts.  This really does solve all the legitimate objections to both R&R and SVism.  I do not NEED to solve this problem, nor am I competent to do so.  I must merely have justification in conscience for my refusal of submission to their Magisterium.  This position brings me great peace of soul.  R&R is in a lot of ways completely non-Catholic.  Sedevacantism, on the other hand, does not recognize that papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact and must be established with the certainty of faith by the Church, and not by any individual going off half-cocked and hurling accusations of heresy from the hip.

    I have called this position, tongue-in-cheek, sededoubtism.
    Is there an existing thread exploring this idea?  Preferably one in which people aren't being antagonistic toward each other?   I am interested in learning more and seeing the arguments for and against it.

    If there isn't such a thread, would you mind starting one, Ladislaus?  Or, we could let nature take its course and let this thread morph into it. :)
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #323 on: November 21, 2017, 12:51:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: GJC on November 21, 2017, 12:26:41 PM
    How do you know that?
    Reality. The same way we all know that. They've been dying and being elected same as always.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #324 on: November 21, 2017, 01:10:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 12:31:13 PM
    This is a completely false argument.  I get to heaven the same way that someone who happened to die during any other papal interregnum would get to heaven.  Even if the See isn't currently occupied, one maintains a state of submission to the Roman Pontiff.  Similarly, if anyone died during the Great Schism while a subject of one of the Antipopes, he too could be saved.  Why?  Because the submission required is normally both formal and material, but in the case of a vacant See (interregnum) or material error regarding the identity of the true pope (Great Schism), the formal submission remains even if the material submission is broken.
    Why do people bring in the GWS as a reference I do not know. We have one pope, not two, three or more, only one. There is no comparison between today and the GWS. Today, there is no confusion as to who the pope is, the confusion that reigns within some peoples heads these days, is who isn't the pope. 

    To say adherence to the dogma is a false argument, is to say our eternal God the Holy Ghost, in the year 1302, did not foresee today's crisis when He perfectly worded the dogma. So do not say it is a false argument. It is at least as pertinent today as it always was. That is dogma.

    The sedes make the dogma irrelevant as this suits their opinion to do so, they claim it does not apply to this crisis, because in this case, the pope is a heretic so he is not the pope so the dogma cannot apply. As if the Holy Ghost forgot to add that little exception in there. Yes some of these same sedes will argue correctly that the dogma regarding the sacrament of baptism applies always, even for infants.

    The sedes have allowed themselves to be led into a church without a pope, more importantly, a church that has no chance of ever having a pope. Their fake interregnum is, by design, forever. 
      
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #325 on: November 21, 2017, 01:17:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 01:10:23 PM
    Why do people bring in the GWS as a reference I do not know. We have one pope, not two, three or more, only one. There is no comparison between today and the GWS. Today, there is no confusion as to who the pope is, the confusion that reigns within some peoples heads these days, is who isn't the pope.  
    I find it confusing.  How can I understand that the person who seems to be the pope does things that are the opposite of what a pope should do?  How can he be the pope?  How can he not be the pope?  

    I don't see a simple answer to this.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #326 on: November 21, 2017, 01:31:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 01:10:23 PM
    To say adherence to the dogma is a false argument, is to say our eternal God the Holy Ghost, in the year 1302, did not foresee today's crisis when He perfectly worded the dogma. So do not say it is a false argument. It is at least as pertinent today as it always was. That is dogma.

    It's not about the dogma itself.  I'm not questioning the dogma, merely your application of said dogma.  Explain, then, how someone who happens to die during a papal interregnum could be saved.  This happens a lot.  Are they just out of luck?  I had a daughter born during the interregnum between JP2 and B16; I'm sure a lot of Catholics died during that period as well.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #327 on: November 21, 2017, 01:34:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Jaynek on November 21, 2017, 12:41:23 PM
    Is there an existing thread exploring this idea?  Preferably one in which people aren't being antagonistic toward each other?   I am interested in learning more and seeing the arguments for and against it.

    If there isn't such a thread, would you mind starting one, Ladislaus?  Or, we could let nature take its course and let this thread morph into it. :)

    I don't think that there's ever been a dedicated thread on this notion.  It usually rears its head on the SV vs. R&R threads.  I basically find legitimate arguments on BOTH sides, and I find many of the criticisms of each side against the other to be legitimate as well.  I had been a sedevacantist for a few years (about 25 years ago now) ... but backed away due to the problems I saw with SVism.  Yet R&R has its own problems.  So I ended up here.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #328 on: November 21, 2017, 01:37:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: An even Seven on November 21, 2017, 01:16:22 PM
    Whatever Church you belong to, that believes that Heretics are Catholic and can be Popes, is not Catholic.

    Well, there's actually an entire school of thought (the papa haereticus ab Ecclesia deponendus school) among Catholic theologians, led by Cajetan, that believes exactly that, that even a heretical Pope remains pope until such a time as he would be deposed (ministerially) by the Church.  It's not an entirely improbable position.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #329 on: November 21, 2017, 01:38:57 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Jaynek on November 21, 2017, 01:17:04 PM
    I find it confusing.  How can I understand that the person who seems to be the pope does things that are the opposite of what a pope should do?  How can he be the pope?  How can he not be the pope?  

    I don't see a simple answer to this.

    I'm more concerned about what the Popes TEACH than about what they do.  They can DO things that would render them suspect of heresy, but the problem concerns the duty of Catholics to submit to their Magisterium.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 28
    « previous next »