Author Topic: Sedevacantists Reject Fatima? (Read 5319 times)

Pete Vere · « **Reply #20 on:** April 27, 2014, 04:21:12 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

And yet you can't get them to read a theological study on the doctrine of necessity (yourself included), much less offer a refutation of it.

Most serious sedes - as well as conciliarists like myself- have read these studies. Neither group is that convinced it has anything much to do with an alleged state of sedevacantism, sedeprivationism or sede-agnosticism (I believe some on CI refer to this last theory as sede-doubtism). So in terms of the R&R vs sede debate, it is pretty much considered a red herring.

Where the doctrine of necessity is relevant is in the debate between R&R and conciliarist trads. That is, you guys claim the doctrine of necessity justified the 1988 episcopal consecrations, your own annulment tribunals, etc. We claim it does not, and that the SSPX and other R&R are obligated to seek a reconciliation with Pope Francis like the FSSP, Le Barroux, Campos, etc...

Quote

They know what happens to their theory once they expose their minds to it, and they wont allow that to happen.

Sean, not being a sede myself, why would I waste my time offering a sede refutation of what I believe to be a R&R red herring in their battle with sedes?

That being said, I am surprised no sede on CI has pointed out that arguments based upon the doctrine of necessity actually favour the sede position over the R&R one. That is, necessity usually applies when one is physically or morally impeded from accessing the mind of the legislator. But in this case R&R have access to and know the mind of the legislator, and choose to act against it.

In contrast, sedes would have a much stronger claim since sedes either have serious doubts or do not believe he is the true legislator, and there is no foreseeable short-term resolution to the problem.

But again, that's an argument against the R&R position that is up to sedes to flesh out.

Ambrose · « **Reply #21 on:** April 27, 2014, 04:28:31 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson
And yet you can't get them to read a theological study on the doctrine of necessity (yourself included), much less offer a refutation of it.

Most serious sedes - as well as conciliarists like myself- have read these studies. Neither group is that convinced it has anything much to do with an alleged state of sedevacantism, sedeprivationism or sede-agnosticism (I believe some on CI refer to this last theory as sede-doubtism). So in terms of the R&R vs sede debate, it is pretty much considered a red herring.

Where the doctrine of necessity is relevant is in the debate between R&R and conciliarist trads. That is, you guys claim the doctrine of necessity justified the 1988 episcopal consecrations, your own annulment tribunals, etc. We claim it does not, and that the SSPX and other R&R are obligated to seek a reconciliation with Pope Francis like the FSSP, Le Barroux, Campos, etc...

Quote
They know what happens to their theory once they expose their minds to it, and they wont allow that to happen.

Sean, not being a sede myself, why would I waste my time offering a sede refutation of what I believe to be a R&R red herring in their battle with sedes?

That being said, I am surprised no sede on CI has pointed out that arguments based upon the doctrine of necessity actually favour the sede position over the R&R one. That is, necessity usually applies when one is physically or morally impeded from accessing the mind of the legislator. But in this case R&R have access to and know the mind of the legislator, and choose to act against it.

In contrast, sedes would have a much stronger claim since sedes either have serious doubts or do not believe he is the true legislator, and there is no foreseeable short-term resolution to the problem.

But again, that's an argument against the R&R position that is up to sedes to flesh out.

All of these arguments have been used against this "doctrine of necessity." The trouble is that these people do not understand the Papacy, and as Fr. Cekada once aptly said, they follow a cardboard Pope.

They pretend that they only resist things which they privately judge as necessary to resist, but they are in reality in a full break with the Conciliar church, it's "popes," bishops, laws, sacraments, dioceses, parishes, schools, etc.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #22 on:** April 27, 2014, 04:34:47 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

I have read it when SSPX first published it 15 years ago and have reread it recently. I keep telling you that it is a non sequitur.

There is never a case of necessity to reject the universal disciplinary laws of the Church. There is never a case of necessity to reject the Pope's ordinary magisterium. There is never a case of necessity to reject the teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. There is never a case of necessity to reject a canonization of a saint. There is never a case of necessity to reject a sacramental rite approved by the Pope.

Sean, I think I see where the problem is. It is not one uncommon for R&R, many hardline conciliarists who flirt with R&R, as well as many conservatives. However, it is something I long ago recognized as true.

Basically, R&R don't truly believe a cornerstone of their polemic that they have propagated for decades. This despite the fact this particular R&R polemic happens to be true. In fact, I recall the shock in Fr Sommerville's voice when he lodged this very polemic against me to put me on defensive, sounding quite smug, and instead found himself protesting profusely when I replied that was a given.

Basically, we conciliarist trads - who promote the TLM while accepting the validity of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo and the post-conciliar papacies - have more in common with most sedes than we do with most R&R.

There is nothing Ambrose writes in the above quotation that I can disagree with as a conciliarist trad. It is firmly entrenched in Catholic Tradition. We simply have come to different conclusions based upon our common understanding of Traditional principles.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #23 on:** April 27, 2014, 05:44:23 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson
And yet you can't get them to read a theological study on the doctrine of necessity (yourself included), much less offer a refutation of it.

Most serious sedes - as well as conciliarists like myself- have read these studies. Neither group is that convinced it has anything much to do with an alleged state of sedevacantism, sedeprivationism or sede-agnosticism (I believe some on CI refer to this last theory as sede-doubtism). So in terms of the R&R vs sede debate, it is pretty much considered a red herring.

Where the doctrine of necessity is relevant is in the debate between R&R and conciliarist trads. That is, you guys claim the doctrine of necessity justified the 1988 episcopal consecrations, your own annulment tribunals, etc. We claim it does not, and that the SSPX and other R&R are obligated to seek a reconciliation with Pope Francis like the FSSP, Le Barroux, Campos, etc...

Quote
They know what happens to their theory once they expose their minds to it, and they wont allow that to happen.

Sean, not being a sede myself, why would I waste my time offering a sede refutation of what I believe to be a R&R red herring in their battle with sedes?

That being said, I am surprised no sede on CI has pointed out that arguments based upon the doctrine of necessity actually favour the sede position over the R&R one. That is, necessity usually applies when one is physically or morally impeded from accessing the mind of the legislator. But in this case R&R have access to and know the mind of the legislator, and choose to act against it.

In contrast, sedes would have a much stronger claim since sedes either have serious doubts or do not believe he is the true legislator, and there is no foreseeable short-term resolution to the problem.

But again, that's an argument against the R&R position that is up to sedes to flesh out.

On the contrary:

Vennari correctly observed that sedes more or less believe a pope cannot make evil commands, or it evinces he is not pope.

Yet, the entire article on the doctrine of necessity implies exactly the opposite, insofar as it considers resistance to the evil commands of a pope......not a nope.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #24 on:** April 27, 2014, 06:16:09 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Vennari correctly observed that sedes more or less believe a pope cannot make evil commands, or it evinces he is not pope.

On something that has traditionally touched upon the Church's infallibility, such as canonizations, of course not. Especially when Pope Benedict restore the traditional formula bringing it closer to that before Pope Pius XII, which Pope Francis employed today.

Rorate Caeli has the write-up how today's canonization formula was much closer to the one used prior to Pope Pius XII than that used by St John Paul II during the latter's papacy:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-reminder-about-todays-canonization.html

So it is not just sedes who believe the pope cannot command evil where he is traditionally understood to be infallible. It is most traditionalists outside of the R&R.

Quote

Yet, the entire article on the doctrine of necessity implies exactly the opposite, insofar as it considers resistance to the evil commands of a pope......not a nope.

Two questions:

Can a pope command evil when specifically, formally and publicly invoking infallibility in area where Catholic Traditional holds him to be infallible?

Is a nope covered by the same infallibility when publicly mimicking a pope in an area where Catholic Tradition holds a pope to be infallible?