Author Topic: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next? (Read 27064 times)

Meg · « **Reply #105 on:** July 08, 2020, 03:44:13 PM »

Quote from: Matto on July 07, 2020, 08:02:25 PM

Because if sedevacantism is true, after sixty two years, there is no Church left on earth, having not only no pope, but no Bishops with authority from God through the pope. All that is left is a handful of laymen playing make believe and praying the rosary. Whenever the vocal sedes talk about how R&R would be a defection, I feel they are deaf, dumb, and blind, as if the Church for all intents and purposes ceasing to exist upon earth is not also a defection? And a greater one. For in the R&R model, faults as it may have, there is at least a Church to point to.

Well said.

Just my opinion: the sedes and their fellow travellers don't care if there's a Church, or not. The Sedes have their private faith and their soapbox, and that seems good enough for them. No Church needed.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #106 on:** July 08, 2020, 04:09:08 PM »

Quote

The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility

From earlier in your link. Guess you didn't like this part, or you didn't understand it.
.
.
Papal headship the formal element of councils
It is the action of the pope that makes the councils ecuмenical. That action is the exercise of his office of supreme teacher and ruler of the Church.
.
Wait...so if the pope doesn't exercise his office as supreme teacher (which he didn't in V2), then is V2 even ecuмenical? According to this article, no.
.
Its necessity results from the fact that no authority is commensurate with the whole Church except that of the pope; he alone can bind all the faithful.
.
V2 didn't bind the faithful to anything. So it's not ecuмenical? Sounds like it's not.
.
Its sufficiency is equally manifest: when the pope has spoken ex cathedra to make his own the decisions of any council, regardless of the number of its members nothing further can be wanted to make them binding on the whole Church.
.
The pope didn't speak ex cathedra, and nothing was binding on the whole Church (which is why they used the novel term 'pastoral' because V2 was a novel council). Therefore, it's not ecuмenical. V2 is the most unique council in history, except having parallels with the famous "Robber Council" that was afterwards condemned, as +Vigano pointed out.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #107 on:** July 08, 2020, 04:17:05 PM »

Quote from: Meg on July 08, 2020, 03:44:13 PM

Just my opinion: the sedes and their fellow travellers don't care if there's a Church, or not.

It's one slander after another from you, Meg. It's precisely because they care deeply about the Church that they have been compelled to take the position that they do. Otherwise, if they didn't care, they'd just take the easy way out and go R&R or Motu.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #108 on:** July 08, 2020, 04:19:39 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 08, 2020, 10:42:08 AM

You could argue that that Arian heresy is an example of a prolonged R&R situation (let's not get into the weeds on the "kind" of R&R, just a general point). You had a weak, ineffective, heretical-condoning pope, you had (according to historical accounts) 98-99% of the catholic clerics/population infected with the Arian heresy, you had self-espoused "arian-catholic priests" arguing with "I-agree-with-Arianism-but-not-your-kind" priests, and then you had "St Athanasius against the world", the only (maybe a handful of others) cleric who was truly orthodox.

This is different, Pax. With Vatican II we have the putative Magisterium actively undermining the faith and we have public liturgical rites that are offensive to God. This is not just a lot of heretic bishops with a weak pope. Of course, Bergoglio is a ring-leader and not just a weak pope who gives in to the Modernists out of weakness. I would argue that Pius XII would more fit the bill of an analogy with Liberius.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #109 on:** July 08, 2020, 04:22:59 PM »

Quote from: Argentino on July 08, 2020, 11:26:00 AM

During that time, it was not a question of where the true Church was any more than it was when the Roman See was vacant.

Yes, in one sense it was a question of attempting to discern where the Church was. We had not only competing popes, but each one set up a competing hierarchy. And of course, ubi petrus, ibi ecclesia ("where is Peter, there is the Church") turned into "Where is Peter? Where is the Church?"

Difference there was that we did not have any of the Popes undermining the faith itself during that time.

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 27064 times)

Meg

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

Pax Vobis

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?

Ladislaus

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?