Author Topic: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next? (Read 27027 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #50 on:** July 07, 2020, 05:00:17 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on July 07, 2020, 04:48:59 PM

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 think you have your “muddling” wrong:

R&R doesn’t accuse sedes of muddling indefectibility with infallibility, but of muddling papal infallibility with papal authority (and of making the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium pointless, since they say everything is irrelevant infallible).

Sedes also muddle the ordinary and authentic magisterium, by assigning acts of the latter to the former, in order to declare the particular teaching impossible by a true pope, and vacate the Holy See).

That’s a lot of muddling!

Argentino · « **Reply #51 on:** July 07, 2020, 05:07:04 PM »

So, so far we have supposedly 10 sedevacantists taking this poll. They all currently predict the future that if they didn't have the sedevacantist conviction, that they would all become something-or-other. They differ on what they think they would do. As if they could possibly predict the future of what they would do without their current convictions! Which is impossible.

However, I think the best answer for a sedevacantist to make in this poll would be that they would stop being Catholic, because their current conviction knows that if it were not so, then nothing else makes sense.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #52 on:** July 07, 2020, 05:07:54 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on July 07, 2020, 05:00:17 PM

R&R doesn’t accuse sedes of muddling indefectibility with infallibility, but of muddling papal infallibility with papal authority (and of making the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium pointless, ...

Take a step back and have a look at what you're saying. Based on your emphasis on strict infallibility, it's theoretically possible for 99% of the Magisterium (the fallible part) to be a total cesspool of error and harmful and leading souls to hell.

If you think that's compatible with Our Lord's promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church, then I'm not sure what religion you actually belong to, but it's not the Catholic one.

If 99% of the Magisterium can't be complete nonsense, then how much if it can be: 50%, 10%?

YOU render the NON-INFALLIBLE Magisterium absolutely pointless. It's nothing more than the private opining of the man who happens to have the Papacy as his day job. Pope by day, private doctor by night. In fact, private theologian for 99.9999999% of his papacy and teacher of the Church for the rest of the time, when he happens (if he happens) to make a solemn definition.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #53 on:** July 07, 2020, 05:10:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 07, 2020, 04:58:53 PM

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.

What is this “Universal Discipline” of which you speak?

Surely this made-up term of yours can have no relation to canon law or liturgical rites, since neither of these are “universal.”

And since disciplines can change according to time and circuмstances, it is difficult to understand how any particular discipline could be considered irreformable and infallible.

Could it be that you did not understand that Vatican I’s passages on discipline in Pastor Aeternus pertained to the pope’s authority, and not his infallibility (which that docuмent discusses elsewhere)?

forlorn · « **Reply #54 on:** July 07, 2020, 05:14:22 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on July 07, 2020, 05:00:17 PM

I think you have your “muddling” wrong:

R&R doesn’t accuse sedes of muddling indefectibility with infallibility, but of muddling papal infallibility with papal authority (and of making the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium pointless, since they say everything is irrelevant infallible).

Sedes also muddle the ordinary and authentic magisterium, by assigning acts of the latter to the former, in order to declare the particular teaching impossible by a true pope, and vacate the Holy See).

That’s a lot of muddling!

You don't just owe submission to dogma, believe it or not. You still owe lesser degrees of religious submission to the fallible teachings of the Church, and you owe submission to the laws and disciplines of the Church. We've been through this before. SeanJohnson can't just veto a change to fasting law and declare that anyone who follows the new law is a sinner.

CathInfo.com

Poll

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

Author Topic: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next? (Read 27027 times)

SeanJohnson

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

Argentino

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

Ladislaus

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

SeanJohnson

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

forlorn

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