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

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 4571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PAT317

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 828
  • Reputation: +741/-114
  • Gender: Male
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #135 on: September 27, 2022, 09:26:27 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You labeled this as "Ladislaus' glossary" ... and that is what I took exception to, the implication that these are terms that I somehow coined or invented.

    Only thing that's somewhat unique to myself is the distinction between Father Chazal and classic R&R, but I have explained that repeatedly on this thread.  It is in fact, the entire point of the thread, pointing out that Father Chazal departs from the predominant R&R model, which hold that the popes have authority but may be disobeyed on case-by-case basis.  As for not all Traditional Catholics defining things this way, what I described is in fact that way R&R has been defined by its proponents for at least the past 20 years.  Archbishop Lefebvre's position was much more nuanced, as I have also pointed out on this thread, but among his followers, the subtleties have been lost, and the way it's repeatedly been defined is that we acknowledge the pope and his authority, but disobey various teaching/commands that are contrary to Tradition.

    I didn't mean to imply that you coined the terms at all.  I just meant what I said, that different Trads understand the terms differently.  I bet if I took a survey, asking Trads to write down their definitions of the terms, including you, +Sanborn, & Fr. Chazal, we would get a variety of different answers.  Anyway, if this thread had been started by Bp. Sanborn, I would have written "+Sanborn's glossary", and likewise with whatever poster started the thread.  I am sorry if you took it as some sort of personal slam, which I did not intend at all. 




    Quote
    And, yes, all Trads who are informed know what is meant by sedeprivationism. 


    Not many of the Trads I know.  


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12414
    • Reputation: +4891/-806
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #136 on: September 27, 2022, 10:52:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That would be refreshing: an actual quoting, and discussion, of the specific language in Pastor Aeternus.
    Since what he claims is taught at V1 is really not taught at V1, when he does not post what he claims is taught at V1 it will be because it's not taught at V1, but he will not let that stop him.
    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 DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1362
    • Reputation: +469/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #137 on: September 27, 2022, 11:23:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Since what he claims is taught at V1 is really not taught at V1, when he does not post what he claims is taught at V1 it will be because it's not taught at V1, but he will not let that stop him.

    We will see. 
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline songbird

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4294
    • Reputation: +1547/-318
    • Gender: Female
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #138 on: September 27, 2022, 12:41:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Vatican I gave 2 names of 2 popes, one being Honorius, as an anti-pope ,to show that popes can err.  Popes are given Graces for their position "might" they accept these graces for their Divine Office. Might is the word used to show the free will of popes.  Would this not be apart of the Papal Infallibility definition?  These anti-popes were not judged.  It was their outward fruits. Manifest heresies.  Would it be correct to say that those who say the seat is vacant, are saying the same ,as saying anti-pope?