Author Topic: Sedevacantism vs. the Catholic Faith (Read 5853 times)

Caminus · « **on:** October 02, 2009, 12:44:56 AM »

Reason #46 why dogmatic sedevacantism is a terrible mistake.

Sedevacantism necessarily involves a judgment or series of judgments regarding concrete particular and contingent facts. Those who demand that only true catholics must become sedevacantists posits the notion that one accepts this opinion either on authority or that the simple faithful take up the texts of Vatican II, study them and come to the same conclusion. Furthmore, they demand that the simple faithful take these conclusions and apply them to persons.

Since no sedevacantist claims any real authority, the conclusion must be that they posit a moral duty to study the conciliar texts and come up with the same series of opinions. This position amounts to forcing simple faithful into the moral obligation of becoming theologians, or at very least, of trying to become theologians, in addition to forcing them to accept all of the other particular judgments that sedevacantists make regarding persons. But no catholic is under any such moral obligation and consequently to burden the faithful with such requirements is evil. No room is left for the simple faithful. For the study of the texts of Vatican II becomes a prerequisite for determining the where the Church is and what is necessary for salvation. This position is akin to sola scriptura and the protestant notion that everyone is morally obligated to read the bible and draw from it his own opinions that coincide with a peculiar sect.

To gather under the banner and unifying principle of an opinion that falls outside of the content of revelation is the sure sign of error and schism. The dogmatic sedevacantist essentially adds to the content of revelation. No room is left in the Church for the simple faithful.

Caminus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 04, 2009, 11:10:26 AM »

No response?

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #2 on:** October 04, 2009, 11:39:24 AM »

Can you direct me to the full list of reasons?

Caminus · « **Reply #3 on:** October 04, 2009, 12:09:28 PM »

The number was tongue in cheek, though I think it would be a good idea to make a list.

SJB · « **Reply #4 on:** October 04, 2009, 12:36:54 PM »

Another question:

Why is dogmatic sedeplentism NOT a terrible mistake?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** October 04, 2009, 12:46:15 PM »

Does not 'Recognize and Resist' require some knowledge beyond the norm and some kind of judgment? Otherwise, why don't we all just go back to our local NOM?

Caminus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 04, 2009, 01:06:11 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Another question:

Why is dogmatic sedeplentism NOT a terrible mistake?

We're not on equal epistemological grounds. The burden of proof rests upon the one making the accusation. Additionally, even if the sedevacantist story line is correct, it would not affect our salvation one iota. Making such juridical determinations does not advance one in in grace and charity in the slightest degree.

Caminus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 04, 2009, 01:14:03 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Does not 'Recognize and Resist' require some knowledge beyond the norm and some kind of judgment? Otherwise, why don't we all just go back to our local NOM?

Recognition of the popes is a mere legal acceptation. We accept this fact at face value. But traditional catholicism does involve a judgment, that is where the faith is preserved in all its splendor and implications. This is a positive judgment of which we are all bound to make. The "resistance" that follows is accidental for in actuality, it is the bishops who are the rebels, not us.

The negative judgment of sedevacantism goes beyond this and requires one to engage in a series of extra-juridical judgments and opinions about the theological grades of propositions and their contrary. It involves judgments about persons and the precise meaning of the texts of Vatican II themselves. A meaning which demands that one censure it as heretical, otherwise one would not be a sedevacantist now would they? If anyone desires to become a sedevacantist, it is a prerequisite that they read and study the texts of the Council, determine their precise heretical import and then take this judgment and assert that men have lost their office. This all falls outside of the traditional catholic faith.

This is why sedevacantists gather under this opinion and this alone, which is a mark of error, as history has shown time and time again.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #8 on:** October 04, 2009, 01:18:12 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

We're not on equal epistemological grounds.

Ah, but you are claiming, in effect, that "dogmatic sede plenism" is the way to go. Therefore, he has every right to ask the question he did.

SJB · « **Reply #9 on:** October 04, 2009, 01:19:37 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: SJB
Another question:

Why is dogmatic sedeplentism NOT a terrible mistake?

We're not on equal epistemological grounds. The burden of proof rests upon the one making the accusation. Additionally, even if the sedevacantist story line is correct, it would not affect our salvation one iota. Making such juridical determinations does not advance one in in grace and charity in the slightest degree.

They why doesn't the burden of proof for your theological musing squarely rest on you? You don't say.

It's not a juridicial determination. And I suppose you are advancing yourself and others in grace and charity by doing whatever it is that you're doing here?

Did your mother ever tell you you had an answer for everything? :)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #10 on:** October 04, 2009, 01:20:36 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

But traditional catholicism does involve a judgment, that is where the faith is preserved in all its splendor and implications. This is a positive judgment of which we are all bound to make. The "resistance" that follows is accidental for in actuality, it is the bishops who are the rebels, not us...

Who has told you that the bishops are the rebels? How is the average man in the pew to know he is "bound to make" such a judgment? It is at variance with everything his parents and the nuns taught him, when there were nuns to teach.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #11 on:** October 06, 2009, 08:03:39 PM »

I am not sure SV is doctrinal.

Coming to the SV conclusion is indeed applying what has been taught by the Church in times past but the Church has not taught on the subject today, because it can't, there is no Pope to do so.

SV is a practical application of Church teachings but I do not believe that one who does not accept this is a heretic (formal or material). He simply does not know.

It will take until we get a valid Pope to settle the question which will then be mute.

But again if a legitimate Pope can do, say and teach with the conciliar "Popes" have done and be valid then there is no reason to have a Pope.

The legitimate reason for a Pope is to have a unifying head, these guys divide by contracting in their words, writings and actions the perrenial teachings of the Church over and over again. If a legitimate Pope can do these things there is no reason to have a Pope.

Anyone get my drift?

He also is to have the final say. But he doesn't. The SSPX tells us whether he is right or not. Such would not be necessary where there a Catholic (the only possible kind) Pope ruling God's Church right now.

Get it? I hope so. I'm not sure how it can be more clear for those with eyes to see.

CM · « **Reply #12 on:** October 06, 2009, 09:48:24 PM »

*moot

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #13 on:** October 06, 2009, 09:56:18 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

*moot

No comprende

CM · « **Reply #14 on:** October 06, 2009, 11:37:07 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

It will take until we get a valid Pope to settle the question which will then be mute.