Author Topic: SedePRIVATIONISM revealed in Holy Scripture? (Read 5701 times)

TKGS · « **Reply #10 on:** August 08, 2015, 05:35:03 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

...because then I'm not positively deposing a pope -- something only a future council of the Church can do.

I hate to break it to you, but this is heresy. A council cannot depose a pope. The only way the Church could elect a new pope is because she recognizes that the papal claimant has already defected from the faith and has tacitly resigned (if, that is, he ever was the pope).

I have not deposed the pope. I have merely recognized the situation as it exists in reality.

TKGS · « **Reply #11 on:** August 08, 2015, 05:42:37 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Sorry, no one is going to tell me that I have to follow a pope even when he reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within. I'm smarter than that. In a word, "Watch me."

A pope who "reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within" is not a Catholic.

I don't tsk-tsk you. I simply cannot understand why you and other anti-sedevacantists don't recognize that.

In practice, we are exactly the same. Our only differences are in rhetoric. And while some sedevacantists really do condemn your rhetoric, it is the anti-sedevacantists who more often condemn us for simply saying what we are doing.

clare · « **Reply #12 on:** August 09, 2015, 01:12:05 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

And I'm just going with the DEFAULT SETTING for a Catholic....

That.

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** August 09, 2015, 04:20:17 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Matthew
...because then I'm not positively deposing a pope -- something only a future council of the Church can do.

I hate to break it to you, but this is heresy. A council cannot depose a pope. The only way the Church could elect a new pope is because she recognizes that the papal claimant has already defected from the faith and has tacitly resigned (if, that is, he ever was the pope).

I have not deposed the pope. I have merely recognized the situation as it exists in reality.

When one labels themselves and a sedevacantist, they are labeling themselves as one who has personally deposed the pope.

It *is* possible that a *future* council could decree that previous pope(s) were not popes.
And the Church does not elect popes, Cardinals elect popes after a pope dies. That's the only way a new pope is elected by the cardinals while a previous pope is still alive.

Quote from: TKGS

A pope who "reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within" is not a Catholic.

I don't tsk-tsk you. I simply cannot understand why you and other anti-sedevacantists don't recognize that.

In practice, we are exactly the same. Our only differences are in rhetoric. And while some sedevacantists really do condemn your rhetoric, it is the anti-sedevacantists who more often condemn us for simply saying what we are doing.

But the only difference is *not* in the rhetoric. There is way more to it than that. In fact, there is so much more to it, that SVs have their own priests and chapels, seminaries, schools etc. One of the reasons SVs have their own chapels and etc., is precisely because we do not share the same practice.

"This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists...ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
Source

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** August 09, 2015, 01:09:07 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Matthew
I don't think many Sedevacantists act as if we're living in an interregnum (time between popes). If they did, they would certainly want to fill that horrible void in the Church hierarchy.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Most SVs refuse to be conclavists due to the lack of universal consensus that would be required to fill the vacancy; otherwise you have absurdities like Pope Bawden.

But they aren't trying very hard to get a consensus either. How many have given the project even a few minutes of thought?

Contrary to popular belief, most SVs are not dogmatic SVs and they know that consensus would be impossible due to the large portion of the Catholic world that still considers these popes to be legitimate. And, in fact, most of the dogmatic SVs happen to be sedeprivationists, and in their view the formal vacancy CANNOT be filled so long as the Holy See is being materially occupied.

Quote

How many gave more than 10 minutes thought to which Bishops should/must be invited, or where they live? Who maintains lists of the Pius XII bishops? Etc.

Conclave would not require the Pius XII bishops. In any cases, it's very easy to find them; I think that there are about half a dozen left.

Quote

Of the two, I think R&R is more Catholic, because then I'm not positively deposing a pope -- something only a future council of the Church can do.

Both have problems, as I have pointed out many times. Neither one is fully Catholic. You can't have Catholics deposing popes of their own authority, but neither can you have Catholics wholesale rejecting the Magisterium of their own authority. So it's pick your poison. And indeed both are poison to Catholicism.