Author Topic: sedebenediciplenism (Read 1462 times)

Geremia · « **on:** October 19, 2013, 09:38:38 PM »

proposed terminology:
sedebenediciplenism /sˌɛdɪbənɪdˈɪsɪplˌiːnɪzəm/ = the position where Benedict XVI is considered a true pope and Francis I is considered an anti-pope. Benedict XVI—initially not a true pope because of his leadership of the non-Catholic, schismatic Conciliar Church sect, although validly elected pope for the Catholic Church—became a true pope of the Catholic Church when he resigned his leadership role of the Conciliar Church on February 28, 2013. According to sedebenediciplenists, Benedict XVI did public penance for his ecuмenical sins by promulgating Summorum Pontificuм, cracking down on LCWR and related groups, and supporting the SSPX; thus, he is no longer a heretic and can be and is a valid pope of the Catholic Church.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2013, 09:40:12 PM »

LOL! Is this for real?

OHCA · « **Reply #2 on:** October 19, 2013, 09:56:13 PM »

Also, BXVI may have been a valid pope if the Siri theory is right as he was the first pope elected at a conclave after the death of Cardinal Siri (possibly Pope Gregory XVII) (d. 1989).

Geremia · « **Reply #3 on:** October 19, 2013, 10:08:27 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

LOL! Is this for real?

Just because it's hypothetical doesn't necessarily mean it isn't real. :scratchchin:

Geremia · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2013, 10:10:03 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Also, BXVI may have been a valid pope if the Siri theory is right as he was the first pope elected at a conclave after the death of Cardinal Siri (possibly Pope Gregory XVII) (d. 1989).

The plot thickens.

Although I don't really believe the Siri Thesis. Didn't Card. Siri recognize Paul VI as a valid pope? And wouldn't it be heresy for a true pope to recognize an anti-pope as the true pope?

Ambrose · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2013, 12:03:25 AM »

Quote from: Geremia

proposed terminology:
sedebenediciplenism /sˌɛdɪbənɪdˈɪsɪplˌiːnɪzəm/ = the position where Benedict XVI is considered a true pope and Francis I is considered an anti-pope. Benedict XVI—initially not a true pope because of his leadership of the non-Catholic, schismatic Conciliar Church sect, although validly elected pope for the Catholic Church—became a true pope of the Catholic Church when he resigned his leadership role of the Conciliar Church on February 28, 2013. According to sedebenediciplenists, Benedict XVI did public penance for his ecuмenical sins by promulgating Summorum Pontificuм, cracking down on LCWR and related groups, and supporting the SSPX; thus, he is no longer a heretic and can be and is a valid pope of the Catholic Church.

There are problems with this theory.

1. Ratzinger makes no claim to the papacy any longer.
2. The lawful electors do not, to the best of anyone's knowledge, accept his claim, and acclaim him as pope.
3. He has publicly professed heresy, (Dominus Iesus). He has never recanted of the heresy he professed in that docuмent.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2013, 12:59:05 AM »

.

Ambrose is right.

Benedict XVI abdicated the papacy the last day of February this year.
No pope is EVER required to get anyone's permission to abdicate.
He has gone on public record numerous times with many heresies,
mostly before he was elected to the papacy, none of which has he
ever abjured.

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2013, 06:18:08 AM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: OHCA
Also, BXVI may have been a valid pope if the Siri theory is right as he was the first pope elected at a conclave after the death of Cardinal Siri (possibly Pope Gregory XVII) (d. 1989).
The plot thickens.
Although I don't really believe the Siri Thesis. Didn't Card. Siri recognize Paul VI as a valid pope? And wouldn't it be heresy for a true pope to recognize an anti-pope as the true pope?

Not if he was coerced to do so.

2Vermont · « **Reply #8 on:** October 21, 2013, 09:36:10 AM »

I guess this thread is as good a place to ask this (rather than create a new one).

The abdication always bothered me (even before I seriously considered SV). I always thought there was more to the story.

When we look back at Church history, what were the reasons for abdication? Did any pope ever abdicate due to poor health? I can't imagine that all popes remained in good health for their whole pontificate. And if no one ever did so, isn't this another novelty of post Vatican II?

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #9 on:** October 21, 2013, 08:26:23 PM »

Love the new term

. Could not agree more :rolleyes:.