Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?

Become an R&R Traditionalist
12 (35.3%)
Become an Indult Traditionalist
6 (17.6%)
Become an NO Cath Conservative
9 (26.5%)
Become a very liberal Catholic
1 (2.9%)
Cease to practice Catholicism
6 (17.6%)

Total Members Voted: 28

Author Topic: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?  (Read 26968 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

No, BOTH sides are conflating infallibility and indefectibility.  Your second sentence here is in fact the argument from indefectibility.  There's no need to exaggerate the scope if "infallibility in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton called it).
Well aware. My point was that R&R types accusing sedevacantists of muddling infallibility with indefectibility is NOT a valid counter-argument for R&R's problem with indefectibility. 

I'm fairly certain that you would not pay any attention to anything that I would say; except to refute it outright. Sedes haven't the ability to see beyond sedeism. Sedeism gets ahold of a person and imbeds itself so that no other view can even be remotely considered. Sedeism is insidious. No use trying to reason with a sede.
Intelligent input, as always. Thanks Meg!


He's talking about with regard to his official papal acts, the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church ... not private commands.
Love the use of capital letters in “Universal Discipline,” as if to suggestively enhance the stature of this made-up term.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
It would have been less pernicious if Vatican II had simply said, "yes, we're teaching this new thing" ... instead of claiming that the novelties and Modernist interpretations in there were just the same old stuff properly explained.

This attack undermines all of Catholic faith.  Hmm, I used to believe this with the certainty of faith, but now I guess I had it all wrong and misunderstood it, so evidently my certainty of faith was misplaced.  This leads directly to doubts about the faith and the Church's teaching authority, from which the formal motive of supernatural faith derives.  So it isn't an attack on one dogma only, but on the very foundation of all dogma.  It's, as St. Pius X taught, the synthesis of all heresy because it attacks the very foundation of all faith.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Love the use of capital letters in “Universal Discipline,” as if to suggestively enhance the stature of this made-up term.

Yes, this is necessary because R&R polluted the notion of "discipline" to being merely a set of positive commands, coming up with the fake slogan "faith is greater than obedience."  No, we're not talking about the obedience to positive commands, or a lower-case "discipline" but the Church's Universal Discipline.  Faith is actually an act of obedience, a submission to the formal rule of faith.  That slogan was coined to refer to commands from superiors and not mean to apply to Magisterium and the Sacred Rites of the Church.  But R&R warps it for propaganda programming.

R&R would have it that Bergoglio's demand for his secretary to take out his dry cleaning is effectively the same thing as promulgating a new Rite of Mass.