Author Topic: Sedes claim to be theologians? (Read 4361 times)

Sneakyticks · « **on:** July 21, 2014, 05:22:55 PM »

In the other thread Ladislaus said:

Quote

No, it's an assessment of fact. While the 5th-grade proficiency level is obviously hyperbole, it's an attempt to make the point that we have lay armchair theologians making judgments about who's a heretic and who isn't, people who for the most part have zero theological training, most of whom can't read a word of Latin, etc. I knew an elderly priest who constantly complained about the lay theologians. He said that even your average priest never presumed to be a theologian, that the true theologians went to Rome after ordination and obtained advanced degrees, etc. and that, meanwhile, he was constantly being accused of deviating from the faith by laymen who hadn't even finished High School. I've encountered quite a few sedevacantists who were barely litterate and couldn't put a coherent sentence together declaring from the rooftops that the V2 popes were illegitimate.

The implication is, sedes claim to be theologians, sedes are not theologians, therefore SV is wrong.

This is an old strawman hurled at SV, and it fails miserably.

First off, l don't know of any SV's who claim to be theologians.

Second, aren't the anti-SV's doing the exact same thing? Do they all not make judgments about Vatican 2 and the New Mass? Are you a theologian Ladislaus? Why do you reject BoD/BoB/implicit BoD then?

l have never seen them answer this.

SenzaDubbio · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2014, 07:29:18 PM »

I know a bunch of sedes that claim to be made in China. :)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2014, 07:57:26 PM »

Sedevacantism is a position which is held by Roman Catholics who are not in them self theologians, just depend on the encyclicals of past popes.

They defend the teachings as they were taught throughout the ages.

They recognize that in order to be a Pope one must be a member of the Roman Catholic church.

Not a Modernist, Communist nor Freemason.

A sedevacantist also knows that one pope can not contradict a past pope in Faith and Morals, i.e. the First Commandment come to mind.

2Vermont · « **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2014, 08:43:15 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Second, aren't the anti-SV's doing the exact same thing? Do they all not make judgments about Vatican 2 and the New Mass?

Of course they do.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2014, 10:05:20 PM »

The main complaint against SV's seems to be this one:

Quote

lay armchair theologians making judgments about who's a heretic and who isn't, people who for the most part have zero theological training, most of whom can't read a word of Latin, etc.

Well, every single anti-SV here calls Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio and the rest of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, MODERNISTS.

Fellay recently even said that Bergoglio is a "genuine Modernist".

Well, is Modernism a heresy or not?

"It is the synthesis of all heresies", such a one as Neil will tell you here.

So what's the fuss? Why so much hate towards SV when you are doing and saying the same thing?

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2014, 10:18:58 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

The implication is, sedes claim to be theologians, sedes are not theologians, therefore SV is wrong.

This is an old strawman hurled at SV, and it fails miserably.

First off, l don't know of any SV's who claim to be theologians.

Second, aren't the anti-SV's doing the exact same thing? Do they all not make judgments about Vatican 2 and the New Mass? Are you a theologian Ladislaus? Why do you reject BoD/BoB/implicit BoD then?

l have never seen them answer this.

I agree, but to further that second point, what worries me about being an "anti-sede" (which I am NOT) is if turning a blind eye to various abominations of desolation is being lukewarm, as spoken of in Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers: you can't claim stupidity and just look the other way so you don't see what's happening, without at least seeming "lukewarm".

That concerns me for Catholics who want things to be c. 1900 Catholic Church and try to go with the flow, wherever that flow may lead. I pray for them. It's a hard position to be in, and I respect the Diocesans who at least look abomination square in the face (a scary thing indeed; I turn tail and run from abominations — I'm cowardly and not ashamed of it). I'm not talking about the 'catholics' who don't care about their final dispostion, if they even "believe in" an afterlife. I'm talking about those who really want to worship Our Lord and be part of Our Lady, the Church, and are sort of floating out there, questioning, and not liking what they see, but not having another solution that's palatable to them.

Haven't we all been there, sort of? What if all our parishes were to disappear suddenly, and we were left with an awful choice: Diocesan or bust.

These Catholics (who I consider Catholic, though I may fear the parish in which they worship) may be listening to the local hippies sing "Imagine" by John Lennon as they approach ~~the card table~~ I mean the sacristy —oh, whatever it is they approach to get what they hope is the Sacrament. (It used to all be down the nave toward the Sacristy at the altar rail, liturgical east; now, like in Rio last year at WYD, what is said to be the Sacrament might be tossed through the air on a beach by some bikini-clad girls). Regardless, they're seeking (the Catholics, that is, who are at least concerned enough to be here discussing it), and it may be all they have. And it surely must be terrifying.

I feel for those people, and pray for them incessantly, as did King David prophetically in his Psalms, and as the Holy Ghost instructs us to through the Prophets. I do wonder if they realize they're more like the non-dogmatic sedes who are likewise seeking. I hope they do. Maybe Ladislaus and others are brought here to discover these things. To his credit (from what I've read quoted of him), at least he's not lukewarm!

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2014, 10:54:29 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Sedevacantism is a position which is held by Roman Catholics who are not in them self theologians, just depend on the encyclicals of past popes.

They defend the teachings as they were taught throughout the ages.

They recognize that in order to be a Pope one must be a member of the Roman Catholic church.

Not a Modernist, Communist nor Freemason.

A sedevacantist also knows that one pope can not contradict a past pope in Faith and Morals, i.e. the First Commandment come to mind.

You are wrong. You have no humility in spreading your falsehoods. You say that one has to be a member of the Church to be a Pope and that is not true. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy. www.dominicainsavrille.fr/les-dominicains-davrille-sont-ils-devenus-sedevacantistes

You also are wrong in saying that a freemason cannot be Pope. A year ago the Vatican stripped a priest of his functions when it was found out that he was a freemason who refused to give up the craft. You see there was a process for stripping him of his functions. He didn't seize to be a priest the second he joined the masonic sect. He seized to be a priest when the Church went through the process and decided to strip him of his functions. For an alleged masonic Pope, there is no such process.

Additionally, there is no law saying that an alleged communist cannot be Pope.

If you want to save your soul you should stop posting on things you know nothing about.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2014, 11:36:54 PM »

Quote from: MarylandTrad

You are wrong. You have no humility in spreading your falsehoods. You say that one has to be a member of the Church to be a Pope and that is not true. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head.

Well, to give you a taste of your own medicine:

GARRIGOU IS NOT THE POPE. GARRIGOU IS NOT INFALLIBLE. THEREFORE, I COULD CARE LESS WHAT HE SAID.

I WIN!

Isn't he the same one who also said there may be people in the moon? Who said the number of the saved is higher than the number of the damned?

Will you also parade that as dogma?

In all seriousness, l will take the teaching of POPES Innocent III, Paul IV, SAINTS and DOCTORS Robert Bellarmine, Antoninus, Liguori, de Sales,who all taught the exact OPPOSITE, over that of the non-Saint nor Doctor Lagrange or Billuart.

I win again.

Quote from: MarylandTrad

If you want to save your soul you should stop posting on things you know nothing about.

Indeed, you should take heed of your own advice.

Cantarella · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2014, 11:47:24 PM »

Quote from: MarylandTrad

Quote from: MyrnaM
Sedevacantism is a position which is held by Roman Catholics who are not in them self theologians, just depend on the encyclicals of past popes.

They defend the teachings as they were taught throughout the ages.

They recognize that in order to be a Pope one must be a member of the Roman Catholic church.

Not a Modernist, Communist nor Freemason.

A sedevacantist also knows that one pope can not contradict a past pope in Faith and Morals, i.e. the First Commandment come to mind.

You are wrong. You have no humility in spreading your falsehoods. You say that one has to be a member of the Church to be a Pope and that is not true. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy. www.dominicainsavrille.fr/les-dominicains-davrille-sont-ils-devenus-sedevacantistes

You also are wrong in saying that a freemason cannot be Pope. A year ago the Vatican stripped a priest of his functions when it was found out that he was a freemason who refused to give up the craft. You see there was a process for stripping him of his functions. He didn't seize to be a priest the second he joined the masonic sect. He seized to be a priest when the Church went through the process and decided to strip him of his functions. For an alleged masonic Pope, there is no such process.

Additionally, there is no law saying that an alleged communist cannot be Pope.

If you want to save your soul you should stop posting on things you know nothing about.

According to Pope Pius XII, even an excommunicated cardinal can still be elected Pope.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

“34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)

Cantarella · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2014, 11:50:20 PM »

Although there is not consensus from the theologians on what happens in the case of a heretical pope, we have a pontifical declaration which admits the eventuality of a Pope falling into heresy (citing the case of Honorius).

Quote from: Pope Adrian II to the VIII Ecuмenical Council

“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always judged the chiefs of all the churches (that is, the patriarchs and bishops); but we do not read that anyone has ever judged him. It is true that, after his death, Honorius was anathematized by the Orientals; but one must remember that he was accused of heresy, the only crime which makes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, as well as the rejection of their pernicious doctrines, legitimate”

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #10 on:** July 22, 2014, 01:12:14 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

According to Pope Pius XII, even an excommunicated cardinal can still be elected Pope.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

“34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)

ECCLESIASTICAL IMPEDIMENT, CENSURES.

No, I will NOT be surprised you will NOT understand how that refutes your silly claim.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** July 22, 2014, 07:05:00 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Cantarella
According to Pope Pius XII, even an excommunicated cardinal can still be elected Pope.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

“34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)

ECCLESIASTICAL IMPEDIMENT, CENSURES.

No, I will NOT be surprised you will NOT understand how that refutes your silly claim.

That topic has already been treated in this thread: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31702&min=0&num=5

2Vermont · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2014, 08:13:59 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

The main complaint against SV's seems to be this one:

Quote
lay armchair theologians making judgments about who's a heretic and who isn't, people who for the most part have zero theological training, most of whom can't read a word of Latin, etc.

Well, every single anti-SV here calls Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio and the rest of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, MODERNISTS.

Fellay recently even said that Bergoglio is a "genuine Modernist".

Well, is Modernism a heresy or not?

"It is the synthesis of all heresies", such a one as Neil will tell you here.

So what's the fuss? Why so much hate towards SV when you are doing and saying the same thing?

This logic always confounded me: Pope =Modernist. Modernist=Heretic. Pope not = Heretic. So A=B, B=C, but A does not = C. :scratchchin:

And by the way, Fellay backtracked on that comment.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 22, 2014, 08:27:25 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Sedevacantism is a position which is held by Roman Catholics who are not in them self theologians, just depend on their interpretation the encyclicals of past popes.

There. Fixed that for you. What's at issue is the determination of whether the V2 teachings contradict those previous Encyclicals or whether they can be reconciled. Bishop Fellay, for instance, who does have theological training, asserts that the V2 teachings can be reconciled with past Church teaching.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** July 22, 2014, 08:29:25 AM »

Let's get this straight. V2 Popes are not running around obviously rejecting defined Catholic dogma. They are INTERPRETING Catholic teaching. In fact, if you accept Suprema Haec then their interpretation and also the teaching of Vatican II are perfectly in line with Traditional Catholic teaching. There's nothing in Vatican II that's substantially erroneous if you accept Suprema Haec.