Author Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 80636 times)

ubipetrus · « **Reply #165 on:** November 28, 2015, 12:11:24 PM »

Quote from: obscurus

Has anyone ever written a scholarly refutation of sedevacantism?

Can't be done, at least honestly. I am sure that this new book will only prove to be yet another example of what happens when someone sets out to prove a thesis which is just not true. Sooner or later, they are going to have to misrepresent the facts, for example by misusing their quotes sources or by harping on the faults and deficiencies of particular sedevacantists as though their failings would be proof of some inadequacy of the position itself.

Amakusa · « **Reply #166 on:** November 28, 2015, 12:16:12 PM »

Quote

Has anyone ever written a scholarly refutation of sedevacantism?

I have, in French. It is very easy. Sedevacantism is even more heretic than R&R...

TKGS · « **Reply #167 on:** November 28, 2015, 01:14:49 PM »

Quote from: Amakusa

Quote
Has anyone ever written a scholarly refutation of sedevacantism?

I have, in French. It is very easy. Sedevacantism is even more heretic than R&R...

Of course you did. And we all believe you. :wink:

MMagdala · « **Reply #168 on:** November 28, 2015, 01:42:41 PM »

I believe him. I have no reason not to.

Amakusa · « **Reply #169 on:** November 28, 2015, 01:42:46 PM »

1° A pope accepted by the whole Church cannot be an antipope.
2° John XXIII and Paul VI were accepted by the whole Church.
3° Therefore they cannot be antipopes.

1° Christ promised to St. Peter that he had prayed so that his faith should not fail.
2° Obviously, this prerogative was transmited to all his successors.
3° Therefore John XXIII and Paul VI cannot have become antipopes after their election.

You see, refuting sedevacantism is simple...
The above-mentioned reasons also show the impossibility of sedeprivationism, namely the thesis of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers.

You like discussions, but you dislike the truth.