Author Topic: The Dangers of Sedevacantism (Read 7582 times)

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #105 on:** May 20, 2014, 07:23:06 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher
I disagree, the resistance is anarchistic because it desires decentralization rather then centralization. It says that the SSPX has become too "centralized", well duh that is what will happen naturally because that is what is going to happen when you replace it with a substitute Church. The Church is monarchical, and without its head you are going to have some real serious divisions. This is all proof that SV"ism is correct.
Are you saying that the fact sedevacantists exist, despite their decentralized organization, proves that they hold the true faith, which unites far more than a visible monarchical, hierarchical structure evacuated of the faith could?

By resistance I meant the SSPX resistance against the Neo-SSPX, they desire decentralization for fear that centralization will lead to another Vatican II hi-jacking or infiltrators.

Now the government of the Church is monarchical, because of this without the head you will have precisely the situation which we currently have. No one is agreeing on anything, that has not already been defined before definitively. Another proof for SV'ism, because we are all effectively stuck to all the valid decrees, laws of pre-Conciliar hi-jacking of the papacy.

SV'ist decentralization is accidental, not necessarily desired. There is a real difference here between WANTING a decentralized organization (like +Williamson et al...) or having a decentralized movement simply because you don't have a head. In our case we already KNOW that we have no head currently, but in the resistance case they already believe they have a head, BUT in spite of that they still desire decentralization! So in essence they are against the very nature of the governmental structure of the Church. This is a symptom that they are wrong in their approach to ecclesiology. None of us desire to have the current situation, but we already have it. So decentralization is IPSO FACTO a reality for us, because we neither desire to form a parallel Church. Since we have no head, it is impossible to centralize, so even if we wanted to we can't, because we understand that the church is monarchical.

However this is something that folks who attend the SSPX chapel like about the SSPX, the fact that they are so centralized etc... This is why they hate the idea of SV'ism, because they fail to realize the reality of the current state of things. They desire a centralized theological system, based on Econe against that of the "chair" of Peter in Rome, this is absolutely nuts. While we readily admit our weakness, but we can't currently do much about it because we have no head. Not until the current claimants are deposed can we be able to have a valid election. Choose your method, acclamation, imperfect General Council etc...

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #106 on:** May 21, 2014, 11:02:48 AM »

Quote from: MariaCatherine

Quote from: Lover of Truth
She knows better than us that there has not been a Pope since at least 1964.

Where did she reveal this?

Apparitions are not where we get theology, they do not contradict theology and or confirm it but they are not where we go to learn the Faith, it would not be where a Pope would go to make a solemn definition. When debating SV apparitions are neither here or there as they do not and cannot contradict the authentic premises, such as Divine Law, upon which SV basis its conclusions. It is devoid of any sort of conclusion. You will say Fatima this but we will say La Sallette and any number of others that. Plus it is quite likely that the 3rd secret warned of the false council and the false popes that would promulgate, approve and maintain it under the guise of Catholicism.

Who's arguing that we get new theology from apparitions?

I didn't say she revealed it just that she is aware of objective facts pertaining to the Catholic Faith. Saint John the Baptist knows this as well, but unlike most of us they know the precise date and the reason (tacit resignation, heresy etc.)

You are arguing against SV, unless I misunderstand you, based upon private revelation. I maintain we look to the infallible and authoritative teachings of the Church for the teachings pertaining to Divine Law, doctrine etc. before we look to private revelation.

If private revelation does not square with the above that private revelation is declared unworthy of belief. If private revelation is approved it does not contradict Divine law or doctrine. But Divine Law teaches that a public heretic cannot be Pope. Therefore I maintain that to the extent that you use the apparitions at Fatima to discount the possibility of SV is the extent to which you are (knowingly or not) either denying Divine Law or believe that a the V2 crew in question are/were not public heretics.

Are you in fact using the apparitions of Fatima to discount the possibility of SV?

MariaCatherine · « **Reply #107 on:** May 21, 2014, 09:15:55 PM »

Not Our Lady's words alone, no. The other points have already been made elsewhere. That was something I hadn't noticed anyone mentioning, so I mentioned it.

Cantarella · « **Reply #108 on:** May 21, 2014, 10:04:49 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Do all of you HERE on this topic realize the reason you Catholics can not agree on much of anything is a consequence of having NO POPE, to unite us.

Because before Pope Pius XII, there never existed heresies and schisms in Church history. :rolleyes:

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #109 on:** May 21, 2014, 10:53:27 PM »

:reading: