Author Topic: On SV (Read 14001 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #15 on:** July 05, 2014, 09:40:44 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

This pushes the false idea that sedevacantism is only about heretical popes.

By very definition sedevacantism involves the subject of heretical popes, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

2Vermont · « **Reply #16 on:** July 05, 2014, 09:42:06 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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.

Does Pius XIII also state Vatican II was heretical?

2Vermont · « **Reply #17 on:** July 05, 2014, 09:43:12 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
This pushes the false idea that sedevacantism is only about heretical popes.

By very definition sedevacantism involves the subject of heretical popes, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

It involves it but the main issue is Vatican II.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** July 05, 2014, 09:44:34 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: 2Vermont
This pushes the false idea that sedevacantism is only about heretical popes.

By very definition sedevacantism involves the subject of heretical popes, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

It involves it but the main issue is Vatican II.

But that ties back ultimately to papal legitimacy. Councils only have force to the extent that they are approved by papal authority.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** July 05, 2014, 09:49:08 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
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.

Does Pius XIII also state Vatican II was heretical?

Let's just say that he either did that or else rescinded it or whatever, essentially rolling the Church back to the state that it was in the 1950s.

For you, let's say that he rolled everything back but still considered the V2 popes to have been legitimate (albeit corrupt and scandalous and sinful), would you accept him then, if he appeared to be orthodox in ever other respect, and was universally accepted by all Catholics, if he did not validate sedevacantism and the illegitimacy of the V2 popes?

2Vermont · « **Reply #20 on:** July 05, 2014, 09:58:15 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
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.

Does Pius XIII also state Vatican II was heretical?

Let's just say that he either did that or else rescinded it or whatever, essentially rolling the Church back to the state that it was in the 1950s.

For you, let's say that he rolled everything back but still considered the V2 popes to have been legitimate (albeit corrupt and scandalous and sinful), would you accept him then, if he appeared to be orthodox in ever other respect, and was universally accepted by all Catholics, if he did not validate sedevacantism and the illegitimacy of the V2 popes?

I could probably accept that. I would hope that he would explain why he would still consider them legitimate while still promoting Vatican II (which he would clearly not....not promote VII that is).

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #21 on:** July 05, 2014, 10:51:54 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
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.

This.

These people think that the heretical pope issue is the ONLY thing.

I already told Ladislaus that SV can be proved from MANY different angles, without even getting into the heretical pope issue.

Did he care about that? No, he just keeps on harping with the heretical pope issue (in which he is dead wrong anyways) because he is a hypocrite and HE is the one who doesn't care about the truth.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** July 05, 2014, 10:56:31 AM »

Sedevacantism absolutely reduces to the heretical pope issue ... BY DEFINITION. Unless you're a Siri theorist (like I am actually). But the issue remains the same. You can't speak about sedevacantism without addressing the question of how we can know who is and who is not a legitimate pope. That's what sedevacantism IS.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** July 05, 2014, 11:01:30 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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.

Since you've entirely ignored this argument, I'll quote myself.

In the example given above, please explain why it would have been wrong for that person to reject Pius IX as a heretic based on the belief that infallibility was heretical (some people did in fact believe that, by the way).

2Vermont · « **Reply #24 on:** July 05, 2014, 11:10:55 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ladislaus
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.

Since you've entirely ignored this argument, I'll quote myself.

In the example given above, please explain why it would have been wrong for that person to reject Pius IX as a heretic based on the belief that infallibility was heretical (some people did in fact believe that, by the way).

Was Vatican I the first time the Church taught papal infallibility? Was 1854 the first time the Church taught the Immaculate Conception? Did these teachings contradict prior Church teachings? I have never heard that they did.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #25 on:** July 05, 2014, 11:19:28 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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 are the one who is not honestly seeking the truth. You are a complete phony and a fraud.

I had written a message saying that i just don't take you seriously at all because you're just a phony, but i did not post it.

Funny that now YOU say the same to me!

Quote from: Ladislaus

You asked me what dogmatic fact was, and so I was defining it based on what theologians teach about dogmatic fact.

I asked no such thing. I asked what your point was in saying what you said.

Quote from: Ladislaus

If I'm not allowed to do this, then there's no point in further discussion.

I caught you red-handed as the hypocrite that you are, using theologians when you reject what they unanimously/commonly teach, exposed you, and now you cry out foul.

Pathetic!

You didn't even bother to answer to that! How you reject their teachings but quote them when it is convenient for you. Well of course you didn't answer, because you're a phony and you have no answer!

There's no point in further discussion with the likes of you ANYWAYS, because you're just a phoney baloney.

Quote from: Ladislaus

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.

Cry me a river, hypocrite. You know nothing about me. I have told you i don't tolerate phony baloney people like you, liars, and dishonest to the core. I don't tolerate your baloney, false and already refuted arguments and never will, and this makes you think i am "bitter and angry".

You, on the other hand, have no problem tolerating lies and false arguments and breathing that fetid air 24/7. You have no problem living in that environment. You are an indifferentist. It's all the same to you what anyone believes as long as they don't touch your heretical opinions. As long as somebody is a "traditionalist" and "agrees to disagree" with you, you don't care one bit about SV or r&r.

I find your opinionism repulsive, and rightly so, since it is heretical and destroys the Church, and being the soft indifferentist that you are you find this shocking. Yes, because you don't care a whiff about the truth.

Filled with spite towards those in the Novus Ordo? What do you even mean by this?

Quote from: Ladislaus

If you're interested in the truth (though it doesn't appear that you are),

You just condemn yourself out of your own mouth everytime you say that.

Quote from: Ladislaus

I've got better things to do (such as clean my toilet)

More like keep on rambling about bod/bob/eens/etc. here with the same old people.

How much time do you waste here each day?

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #26 on:** July 05, 2014, 11:27:13 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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.

You're out of your mind. I have already said the Novus Ordo is in a whole other dimension when it comes to EENS.

They even reject what is said in the Protocol itself, which is what is repeated also in Lumen Gentium. They all reject that, the part about "therefore, those who know the Catholic Church to be the true Church but reject it will be condemned".

They are complete religious indifferentists. They believe all religions AS SUCH lead to Heaven. They make no account of invincible ignorance. They don't even believe in ORIGINAL SIN, hence they believe unbaptized babies go straight to Heaven. They do not believe people NEED to convert to the Church. No, they don't. They believe they will all meet in Heaven, Protestant, Hindu, Jew whatever.

How could you say what you say?

Because you are a madman who will say anything to reject bod/bob and the teaching en EENS.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #27 on:** July 05, 2014, 11:30:52 AM »

With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #28 on:** July 05, 2014, 11:54:48 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.

I already explained it to you, but you dont care.

You are at a point where it doesnt even register in your mind.

2Vermont · « **Reply #29 on:** July 05, 2014, 12:29:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.

I'm sorry, but this excuse grows old. There are so many sedes who post charitably or at least try to.

And let's be honest here: non-sedes aren't always the most charitable either.