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

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16

Author Topic: On SV  (Read 12993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sneakyticks

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
On SV
« on: July 03, 2014, 06:23:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • There Ladislaus, here is the new thread.
    Logged

    Offline Sneakyticks

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 290
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    On SV
    « Reply #1 on: July 03, 2014, 06:35:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus
    I've explained it before.  I have come to the conclusion that there's serious doubt about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants, and I consider it highly likely that the Holy See is vacant.  But I stop short of asserting this as anything more than my personal opinion and defer to the authority of the Church.  I do not have the right to make a definitive determination regarding the matter.


    Just what are you in doubt of?

    Logged

    Offline Sneakyticks

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 290
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    On SV
    « Reply #2 on: July 03, 2014, 06:37:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: Sneakyticks
    When and how long where you a SV?


    I became a Traditional Catholic in about 1989.

    I think it was in 1991 that I became a sedevacantist.  I started to pull back in 1993 and went back towards sedeplenism in 1996.  I have since gradually gone ended up at sede-doubtism.


    And what were you before 1989?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    On SV
    « Reply #3 on: July 03, 2014, 10:33:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Sneakyticks
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: Sneakyticks
    When and how long where you a SV?


    I became a Traditional Catholic in about 1989.

    I think it was in 1991 that I became a sedevacantist.  I started to pull back in 1993 and went back towards sedeplenism in 1996.  I have since gradually gone ended up at sede-doubtism.


    And what were you before 1989?


    I was Novus Ordo until then.

    I'll rejoin tomorrow.  I had to be out for several hours this evening.
    Logged

    Offline Sneakyticks

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 290
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    On SV
    « Reply #4 on: July 04, 2014, 10:43:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • You appear online now.

    Maybe you could tell me if you think the Novus Ordo is the real Church.

    Logged

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3628/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    On SV
    « Reply #5 on: July 04, 2014, 11:14:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Sneakyticks
    You appear online now.

    Maybe you could tell me if you think the Novus Ordo is the real Church.



    How could it be?
    Logged
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/

    Offline Sneakyticks

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 290
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    On SV
    « Reply #6 on: July 04, 2014, 02:10:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: MyrnaM
    Quote from: Sneakyticks
    You appear online now.

    Maybe you could tell me if you think the Novus Ordo is the real Church.



    How could it be?


    Of course it isn't but that is what these people HAVE to say if they will not admit sedevacantism.

    Their position is sort of a nothing position, a sort of foolish limbo.
    Logged

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3628/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    On SV
    « Reply #7 on: July 04, 2014, 02:32:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Sneakyticks
    Quote from: MyrnaM
    Quote from: Sneakyticks
    You appear online now.

    Maybe you could tell me if you think the Novus Ordo is the real Church.



    How could it be?


    Of course it isn't but that is what these people HAVE to say if they will not admit sedevacantism.

    Their position is sort of a nothing position, a sort of foolish limbo.


     :applause:
    Logged
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/

    Offline Sneakyticks

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 290
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    On SV
    « Reply #8 on: July 04, 2014, 05:59:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Where did you go Ladislaus?

    Why dont you explain what you mean here:

    Quote
    the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith.  Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment, regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    On SV
    « Reply #9 on: July 04, 2014, 08:58:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Sneakyticks
    Where did you go Ladislaus?


    I've been away all day visiting relatives.

    Quote
    Why dont you explain what you mean here:

    Quote
    the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith.  Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment, regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be.


    I've explained this many times.  Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact.  It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.

    This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism.  Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical.  All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma.  Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
    Logged

    Offline Sneakyticks

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 290
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    On SV
    « Reply #10 on: July 05, 2014, 12:25:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: Sneakyticks
    Why dont you explain what you mean here:

    Quote
    the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith.  Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment, regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be.


    I've explained this many times. Theologians


    Hold it right there.

    What business do you have saying what theologians teach when you reject them all when it comes to bod-bob-eens-etc. and you believe we can do away with their unanimous/commonly held teachings with impunity?

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.


    You are just regurgitating what Szijarto has said elsewhere.

    Cekada already dealt with all this nonsense a long time ago.

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=42&catname=10

    Logged

    Offline Alcuin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 269
    • Reputation: +91/-0
    • Gender: Male
    On SV
    « Reply #11 on: July 05, 2014, 02:31:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Sneakyticks
    You are just regurgitating what Szijarto has said elsewhere.


     :roll-laugh1:
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10057
    • Reputation: +5252/-916
    • Gender: Female
    On SV
    « Reply #12 on: July 05, 2014, 08:05:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: Sneakyticks
    Where did you go Ladislaus?


    I've been away all day visiting relatives.

    Quote
    Why dont you explain what you mean here:

    Quote
    the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith.  Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment, regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be.


    I've explained this many times.  Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact.  It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.

    This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism.  Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical.  All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma.  Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.


    This pushes the false idea that sedevacantism is only about heretical popes.  Considering the number of threads you have taken part in, etc. you know that this is not true.  So why do you use this as an example? This analogy just doesn't work.
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    On SV
    « Reply #13 on: July 05, 2014, 09:27:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Sneakyticks
    What business do you have saying what theologians teach ...


    You're clearly not honestly seeking the truth, and so I'm not going to waste my time debating this with you.

    You asked me what dogmatic fact was, and so I was defining it based on what theologians teach about dogmatic fact.  If I'm not allowed to do this, then there's no point in further discussion.  You're just a bitter, angry person who's filled with spite towards those in the Novus Ordo and there's nothing that I can write that'll change your attitude.  Father Jenkins articulates the position I have taken very well.  Someone here posted a video of his exposition of the subject.  If you're interested in the truth (though it doesn't appear that you are), just search this forum for that video.  I've got better things to do (such as clean my toilet) than to argue with the likes of you.


    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    On SV
    « Reply #14 on: July 05, 2014, 09:37:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Nishant made a good point about universal acceptance of a Pope being the criterion for legitimacy.  It make sense as the a priori establishment of the dogmatic fact of legitimacy.  I think about this often and haven't come to a final resolution on the subject.

    Let's say that a Pius XIII came along and declared BoD to be heretical.  You, I suspect, would just reject Pius XIII as a heretic and thus refuse his dogmatic teaching.  If this hypothetical Pius XIII came along and delcared BoD to be dogma, then I would immediately reject my former opinion and accept the teaching.  Thus the difference between sedevacantism and sededoubtism.  With straight sedevacantism established as permissible you couldn't have any a priori guarantee of the truth of any dogmatic papal teaching.

    By the way, Sneaky, if you were to convince me that Suprema Haec represents true Catholic teaching, then I would immediately cease to be a Traditonal Catholic and would accept Vatican II as substantially free form error.  Every error and heresy that can be attributed the the V2 papal claimants can be traced back to and logically follows from the Suprema Haec ecclesiology.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
    « previous next »