Author Topic: Sedevacantism 101  (Read 2022 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
  • Reputation: +603/-63
  • Gender: Male
    • TraditionalCatholic.net
Sedevacantism 101
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2016, 08:37:43 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • Thank you very much for correcting this deception.  The complete quote certainly supports the sede vacante position.  
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline Sbyvl

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 118
    • Reputation: +101/-15
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantism 101
    « Reply #16 on: July 22, 2016, 12:02:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: MyrnaM
    Not to worry Cantarella, no one is deposing Francis, and that is the problem.  


    True, this is because it is not possible. The process of deposing the one elected and accepted as pope, necessarily begins with the Church accusing him, which, because no one can do that, the process to depose a pope can never even get started. It's dead in it's tracks right at the starting line. Most likely, this is why it has never been done or even attempted.  

    The sedevacantists have a problem which has no solution.

    The question now becomes, why is a problem without a solution a problem at all?  - or, is a problem without a solution still a problem?



    Nobody on Earth can depose a reigning pope.
    I apologize for all rude, calumnious, uncharitable, and unchristian posts I have made, and I retract them.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10487
    • Reputation: +4144/-972
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantism 101
    « Reply #17 on: July 22, 2016, 12:27:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's what I said.
    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 MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6019
    • Reputation: +3488/-329
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Sedevacantism 101
    « Reply #18 on: July 22, 2016, 03:39:57 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    Quote from: Matto
    Someone saw my post and sent me this via PM:

    The citation is from Cardinal Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, thesis XXIX, §3

    “Finally, whatever one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions ... For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic"


    I think we should read the entire final sentence from Cardinal Billot rather than cut it off in the middle:

    "Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips [a man] of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever."

    It seems that the this provides an whole different understanding to the complete thought Cardinal Billot was trying to convey.  It's easy to distort what someone says by simply ending the sound byte in the middle.


    Thanks for the lesson TKGS,   we should not take these quotes at face value, let this be a lesson learned.  

    Offline Disputaciones

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1453
    • Reputation: +393/-165
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantism 101
    « Reply #19 on: July 22, 2016, 06:02:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    St. Bellarmine considered the case of a Bishop teaching his flock heterodox doctrine, this is, anything that is contrary to the precedent timeless doctrine. He concluded that people should not listen to him; although he acknowledges that they have no the power to actually depose him. The Catholic Principle of Non-Contradiction is what determines the action followed by the laity in such a case.

    Quote from: St. Bellarmine
    "It is true that the people should discern the true prophet from the false, but not by any other rule than the following: Observe carefully if what he teaches is contrary to what his predecessors have said,[70] or that which is said by other pastors, ordinaries, and above all the Apostolic See and the principal Church; for it is commanded that the people should listen to their pastors: Luke X: He who listens to you listens to me; and Matt. XXIII, do that which they tell you to do.  The people ought not to judge their pastors except when they introduce innovations or doctrines which are in disagreement with those of the other
    pastors."[71]

    "Moreover, it is necessary to observe that the people can clearly discriminate, by the rule that we have given, between true and false prophets.  But for all that they cannot depose of a false pastor if he is a bishop and substitute another in his place. For the Lord and Apostle only commanded that false prophets not be listened to by the people; but not that the people should depose them.  It has always been the practice of the Church to depose heretical bishops by councils of bishops or by an act of the sovereign pontiffs." (Cf. loc. cit., Note 15).


    Is that from De Romano Pontifice?


    Offline Arvinger

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 585
    • Reputation: +296/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantism 101
    « Reply #20 on: July 23, 2016, 09:29:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: MyrnaM
    Not to worry Cantarella, no one is deposing Francis, and that is the problem.  


    True, this is because it is not possible. The process of deposing the one elected and accepted as pope,


    That assumes that Francis was validly elected and accepted - both claims are doubtful at best.

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8525
    • Reputation: +1095/-835
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantism 101
    « Reply #21 on: July 25, 2016, 09:01:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    I have heard this argument so many times that I cannot count from sedevacantists and I think it is a good argument for sedevacantism. But he acts as if this argument ends all debate and proves that sedevacantism is true. I disagree. He does not adress the point which I think is a strong agrument for sedeplenism which is that it is a teaching of the Church that if the whole Church accepts a man as Pope it is proof that he is really the Pope. All of the concilar Popes (especially John XXIII and Paul VI. There were a few thousand sedevacantists who rejected the conciliar Popes I believe starting around the time the Novus Ordo came out but I don't think that there were enough for it to be significant) have been accepted by the whole Church so that should prove that they were and are true Popes. Even today of the billion people who claim to be Catholic all but a few thousand sedevacantists accept Francis, so pretty much the whole Church accepts him.


    This is illogical as it would make a valid papacy subjective, dependent on what the people think.  Our Lord did not set up a democracy.  This is different then when you have two Catholics who claim to be Pope and one is accepted by the vast majority.  That is not what makes a man pope.  Unless you can show me where it is taught that you can "pope" a public heretic in this manner?
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8525
    • Reputation: +1095/-835
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantism 101
    « Reply #22 on: July 25, 2016, 09:04:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    Quote from: Matto
    Someone saw my post and sent me this via PM:

    The citation is from Cardinal Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, thesis XXIX, §3

    “Finally, whatever one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions ... For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic"


    I think we should read the entire final sentence from Cardinal Billot rather than cut it off in the middle:

    "Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips [a man] of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever."

    It seems that the this provides an whole different understanding to the complete thought Cardinal Billot was trying to convey.  It's easy to distort what someone says by simply ending the sound byte in the middle.


    Another example of the intellectual dishonesty I have repeatedly seen in the R & R and the Feeney camps who stick to their preferred belief above that which the Church teaches.  
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8525
    • Reputation: +1095/-835
    • Gender: Male
    Sedevacantism 101
    « Reply #23 on: July 25, 2016, 09:05:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Sbyvl
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: MyrnaM
    Not to worry Cantarella, no one is deposing Francis, and that is the problem.  


    True, this is because it is not possible. The process of deposing the one elected and accepted as pope, necessarily begins with the Church accusing him, which, because no one can do that, the process to depose a pope can never even get started. It's dead in it's tracks right at the starting line. Most likely, this is why it has never been done or even attempted.  

    The sedevacantists have a problem which has no solution.

    The question now becomes, why is a problem without a solution a problem at all?  - or, is a problem without a solution still a problem?



    Nobody on Earth can depose a reigning pope.


    Correct.  When will those in the R & R camp get this?  If we can unite around facts instead of wishes we might get somewhere.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


     

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