Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: graceseeker on January 11, 2018, 04:44:45 PM
-
I have heard different things on the seda vacantist issue.. about going to NO masses
Should u stay away from NO Masses even if you feel the HOly Spirit at those masses?
I frankly think the answer is No, you shouldn't stay away.
I did feel like staying away from this one, though... but it was bc teh priest is evil... uncharitable, etc... may be a heretic... probably is, in fact
-
You said it yourself "noMASS"
-
You mean sedEvacantist :)
-
I have heard different things on the [sedevacantist] issue.. about going to NO masses
Should [you] stay away from NO Masses even if you feel the Holy Spirit at those masses?
I frankly think the answer is No, you shouldn't stay away.
I did feel like staying away from this one, though... but it was bc [the] priest is evil... uncharitable, etc... may be a heretic... probably is, in fact
.
What does the Holy Spirit "feel" like?
.
I know a fallen-away Catholic who frequents a local Novus Ordo parish where he has found no one to challenge him in his conviction that all that matters is being "nice" to others.
.
He doesn't go to Mass there. He just goes to breakfast. They serve pancakes and eggs and such for 5 bucks and he thinks that's a good deal, plus, they're "nice."
.
-
I have heard different things on the seda vacantist issue.. about going to NO masses
Should u stay away from NO Masses even if you feel the HOly Spirit at those masses?
I frankly think the answer is No, you shouldn't stay away.
I did feel like staying away from this one, though... but it was bc teh priest is evil... uncharitable, etc... may be a heretic... probably is, in fact
Graceseeker, it seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word sedevacantist.
What on earth has it got to do with feeling the Holy Spirit? Going to Novus Ordo Masses? the priest being evil... uncharitable, etc... may be a heretic...
So can you explain what you mean by sedevacantist?
-
Graceseeker, it seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word sedevacantist.
So can you explain what you mean by sedevacantist?
.
A sede is a CI member who up-thumbs all the other sedes and down-thumbs the rest.
-
.
A sede is a CI member who up-thumbs all the other sedes and down-thumbs the rest.
Sort of like a flat-earther, eh, Neil?
-
Sort of like a flat-earther, eh, Neil?
Now that you mention it, ..... Thank you. :cheers:
-
.
A sede is a CI member who up-thumbs all the other sedes and down-thumbs the rest.
I think you are mistaken with that definition. I know I have given you thumbs up whenever. Just because I don't always agree doesn't mean I never do. I even agree with Ladislaus no matter what he calls me. ;)
-
Graceseeker,
Certainly, you should not make that important decision based upon feelings. That's what protestants do; but feelings are oftentimes deceiving.
-
I'm pretty sure that I'm a sedeprivationist.
-
I'm pretty sure that I'm a sedeprivationist.
I guess we are neighbors then! :cheers:
-
Goodness! So much choice nowadays!
-
Sort of like a flat-earther, eh, Neil?
:D
-
A "sede" is an updated term for an "Old Catholic". Basically they believe the Roman Church has defected (even though they're never honest enough to admit it).
Idiot ^^^
-
A "sede" is an updated term for an "Old Catholic". Basically they believe the Roman Church has defected (even though they're never honest enough to admit it).
The correlation between sedes and Old Catholics does work rather well. The Old Catholics separated from the Church due to issues over papal authority, if I'm not mistaken. I don't see why any sede would have an issue with the comparison.
-
Hit a raw nerve?
It is important to fairly and accurately represent positions that one does not hold oneself. When one fails to do so, it is common for people to object or even to make disparaging comments. This seems to be what occurred in this thread.
It is unlikely that you hit a raw nerve. I suggest you work on obtaining a clearer understanding of sedevacantism.
-
Hit a raw nerve?
Uhm, no; it's because there's no comparison with Old Catholicism. Sedevacantists are merely applying a probable opinion regarding what happens to a heretical pope and have made a judgment that the V2 papal claimants have been heretics. So St. Robert Bellarmine was an Old Catholic eh? One can argue, as I do, that they're not applying this principle correctly, but they're operating within a completely Catholic framework ... and so there's no comparison whatsoever between SVism and Old Catholicism.
-
Uhm, no; it's because there's no comparison with Old Catholicism. Sedevacantists are merely applying a probable opinion regarding what happens to a heretical pope and have made a judgment that the V2 papal claimants have been heretics.
Applying a probable opinion, no. They usually believe with absolute certainty that the Pope isn't the Pope, or as in your case, that the pope has limited jurisdiction, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.
The Old Catholics had an issue with jurisdiction. Do you not also have an issue with jurisdiction?
-
The Old Catholics had an issue with jurisdiction. Do you not also have an issue with jurisdiction?
I thought the followers of +Lefebvre also have an issue with jurisdiction?
-
I thought the followers of +Lefebvre also have an issue with jurisdiction?
How so?
-
How so?
I believe that having an "issue with jurisdiction" can be said to be a common element among all traditionalists not in communion with Rome at present time. Not only the sedevacantists.
I don't think you can sucessfully argue a similarity between the Old Catholics and the sedevacantists simply over "the issue of jurisdiction", especially from a separatist R&R stance.
-
I don't think you can sucessfully argue a similarity between the Old Catholics and the sedevacantists simply over "the issue of jurisdiction", especially from a separatist R&R stance.
If you believe that there's no similarity between Old Catholic and sedes regarding jurisdiction, that's your choice. I see a similarity.
-
No. The papal election is not infallible. Its a canonical election just as when an abott is elected in a monastery. But, the pope cannot cease to be a pope just because of material heresy. Legally, the cardinals in the church have to recognize the pope for the pope to have his office.we have a classical state of legal and illicitness here. Legally in a sense he is pope, but he should not be.
-
Applying a probable opinion, no. They usually believe with absolute certainty that the Pope isn't the Pope, or as in your case, that the pope has limited jurisdiction, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.
The Old Catholics had an issue with jurisdiction. Do you not also have an issue with jurisdiction?
(https://i.imgflip.com/17zwol.jpg)
... conflating and confounding things as usual. St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion is a probable Catholic opinion. That is the opinion I referred to as probable. Now SOME (not all, but some) SVs believe that the non-legitimacy of the V2 popes is essentially de fide; these are known as DOGMATIC sedevacantists. Others believe that it's certain or very probable or rather likely ... or some degree of probability. I fall into the category of those who consider it highly probable. Some "sedes" are in fact sedeprivationists who believe that these papal claimants hold a material legitimacy but do not formally exercise power.
Uhm, all Catholics believe in jurisdiction. What's disputed is whether the V2 papal claimants have some or all or no jurisdiction due to their state of illegitimacy.
-
If you believe that there's no similarity between Old Catholic and sedes regarding jurisdiction, that's your choice. I see a similarity.
As per usual, Meg, you see what you want to see. You base everything on emotion and should therefore probably recuse yourself from all theological discussions.
-
There certainly are similarities with the Old Catholics in their view about the Church of Rome.
And there are no similarities between what St. Robert and what they are saying about a heretical pope.
They ignore St. Robert's teaching about the local Church of Rome. He wrote a whole chapter on it but it is conveniently ignored by the sedes.
You appear obsessed with this Church of Rome issue. But has this Church of Rome retained the faith any more or less than the broader Conciliar Church? No. So it's a moot point ... even though you think yourself quite clever. Yes, some critics of sedevacantism make the so-called Ecclesiavacantist argument, and they have a point. But that's where the CT and so-called sedeprivationism fit in.
-
As per usual, Meg, you see what you want to see. You base everything on emotion and should therefore probably recuse yourself from all theological discussions.
I'm pretty sure that laymen aren't supposed to be teaching theology at all. That includes you.
-
How so?
Like knowing that he didn't have any and operating as if he did anyway?
-
I'm pretty sure that laymen aren't supposed to be teaching theology at all. That includes you.
Who exactly is "teaching"?
And, if you truly believe this, then why are you on here promoting your various positions?
-
Who exactly is "teaching"?
You are.
-
You are.
:laugh1:
-
You are.
Well, I don't believe this ... while you do.
So the only consistent thing for you to do is to stop "teaching" here on CI, whereas I can continue in good conscience since I don't consider myself as teaching anything. Nice knowing you. So long.
-
Well, I don't believe this ... while you do.
So the only consistent thing for you to do is to stop "teaching" here on CI, whereas I can continue in good conscience since I don't consider myself as teaching anything. Nice knowing you. So long.
No one here is going to stop you from teaching your brand of theology. But I can point out that this is what you are doing.
Carry on.
-
No one here is going to stop you from teaching your brand of theology. But I can point out that this is what you are doing.
Are you saying that Ladislaus is teaching when he posts his opinions but you are not? How does that make sense? What is the difference?
-
There certainly are similarities with the Old Catholics in their view about the Church of Rome.
And there are no similarities between what St. Robert and what they are saying about a heretical pope.
They ignore St. Robert's teaching about the local Church of Rome. He wrote a whole chapter on it but it is conveniently ignored by the sedes.
I am curious about the point you try to make here. It is my understanding that in the mentioned chapter St. Bellarmine is defending the proposition that the local Church is indefectible precisely because the legitimate sucessor of St. Peter lives there and will not transfer to any other episcopate but Rome. We will never have a pope who is bishop of Constantinople, for example, but only of Bishop of Rome.
If this is so, then I don't see how this argument can be made against sedevacantism, because the promise of indestructibility of the local Church of Rome would be compromised when there is NO legitimate Vicar of Christ living there. During an interregnum, there is no Roman Pontiff.
-
As per usual, Meg, you see what you want to see. You base everything on emotion and should therefore probably recuse yourself from all theological discussions.
You are a bully.
-
You appear obsessed
It's o.k. for you to go on and on about a subject but if someone else does they're obsessed?
You really are a bully...
-
As you say, the local Roman Church is indefectible. An interregnum doesn't change this fact.
Do you agree with this:
Yes, I agree.
The local Roman Church is indefectible in virtue of the pope. What makes it indefectible is that St. Peter and his legitimate successors reside there and Our Lord specifically prayed for the intention of His Vicar not ever losing his Faith. However, I am uncertain of what may occur when the legitimate successor of St. Peter is NOT there.
-
I have heard different things on the seda vacantist issue.. about going to NO masses
Should u stay away from NO Masses even if you feel the HOly Spirit at those masses?
I frankly think the answer is No, you shouldn't stay away.
I did feel like staying away from this one, though... but it was bc teh priest is evil... uncharitable, etc... may be a heretic... probably is, in fact
Are you sure you are traditional Catholic?
You don't speak as though you are.
I encourage you to remember that silence is a virtue.
-
I'm not sure if graceseeker lurked for a bit here at CI in order to take the membership's temperature before joining. It seems like she jumped in blindly. That's not an altogether bad thing though, if she makes it safely away from the NO because of it. I am only worried that she finds some of us uncharitable because she doesn't understand some things and isn't on the same wavelength. I hope she will stick around and do some reading; and keep asking questions about the faith while remaining open to charitable instruction and correction.
P.S. Patience is also a virtue. (mea culpa)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZAXciBMP18 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZAXciBMP18)
-
I'm not sure if graceseeker lurked for a bit here at CI in order to take the membership's temperature before joining. It seems like she jumped in blindly. That's not an altogether bad thing though, if she makes it safely away from the NO because of it. I am only worried that she finds some of us uncharitable because she doesn't understand some things and isn't on the same wavelength. I hope she will stick around and do some reading; and keep asking questions about the faith while remaining open to charitable instruction and correction.
P.S. Patience is also a virtue. (mea culpa)
You are right. Mea culpa graceseeker. Thankyou for the reminder MT.
-
It is not just the pope alone. It is the whole Roman Church cannot defect and fail in her mission. St Robert Bellarmine actually points this out.
Don't you see a steep contradiction between what it used to emanate from Rome decades ago and what it does today?
-
I'm pretty sure that Herm is not a traditional Catholic. In other words, he sees nothing wrong with Vatican II nor its popes.
-
Actually we've had no pope since Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuits. ;)
I actually think I prefer poche over Herm despite the fact that both are Novus Ordites.
-
Herm is a Novus Ordo troll and should not be fed.
-
If this is so, then I don't see how this argument can be made against sedevacantism, because the promise of indestructibility of the local Church of Rome would be compromised when there is NO legitimate Vicar of Christ living there. During an interregnum, there is no Roman Pontiff.
Precisely; my point has been that this argument is no different than any broader argument against sedevacantism (of the ecclesiavacantist variety).
-
Thank you for honestly admitting that you believe the Roman Church has defected.
Logic doesn't seem to register with your mind.
As I said earlier, please draw some implications vis-a-vis the present Crisis from the notion that the Roman Church can't defect. Until then, no one is even in a position to refute this nonsense. We don't even have an argument to address. It's also true that the Church as a WHOLE cannot defect. R&R claim that SVism causes the Church as a whole to defect based on the idea that jurisdiction would have ceased. SVs argue that R&R causes the Church to defect because it posits a massive systemic failure of the Magisterium. But nobody has any idea what implications you're trying to draw or what argument you're trying to make from this notion that the Roman Church can't defect. You just keep mindlessly pasting in the same CE quote over and over again.
-
Herm is a Novus Ordo troll and should not be fed.
Nobody knows WHAT it is. Heck, it doesn't even have an assigned gender. Maybe Herm is short for hermaphrodite for all we know.
This Herm either won't or can't even articulate itself to the point that anyone has any idea where it stands on the Crisis.
-
Nobody knows WHAT it is. Heck, it doesn't even have an assigned gender. Maybe Herm is short for hermaphrodite for all we know.
This Herm either won't or can't even articulate itself to the point that anyone has any idea where it stands on the Crisis.
Even though he does not come out and admit it, he has to accept all the post Vatican II popes and Vatican II. Otherwise, based on his assertions, he would have to believe that the Roman Church has defected. Don't you see? I think he knows that to admit this here would create a firestorm.
IF that is not true, then he could always deny it. But he has not done so to date.
-
Well, what's your thoughts? Has the Roman Church defected? If not, please explain...
:sleep:
See Lad?
-
Well, what's your thoughts? Has the Roman Church defected? If not, please explain...
I've already explained my thoughts on the matter. What we haven't heard from you is an explanation of your position ... to the point that no one knows what you are, R&R, Resistance, some weird flavor of SV (like those who think we haven't had a pope since St. Pius X), Palmerian, follower of Pope Michael, Novus Ordo, Orthodox, Old Catholic, man or woman?
Obviously the Roman Church and the Catholic Church at large have not defected; they can't defect. Question is how we reconcile this truth with what we're seeing in the Crisis.
And obviously no Catholic believes that the Church has defected, so you're beating a dead horse and wasting everyone's time.
Until you explain what your position on the Crisis is, I'm not going to bother responding to you anymore ... since we're wasting our time trying to infer a position from you. Sure, different groups of Traditional Catholics accuse other groups of having a theology which implies a defection, but until we hear your actual argument, there's nothing more to discuss with you.
-
It is not just the pope alone. It is the whole Roman Church cannot defect and fail in her mission. St Robert Bellarmine actually points this out.
But that is only an opinion and St. Bellarmine himself is careful to present it as such. He insists that his thesis is not a matter of divine faith, but pie credendum.
I am looking forward reading any other evidence you may have on this particular point. (indefectibility of the local Church of Rome in itself, apart from / without the pope).
-
You agreed with the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia - what more do you need?
As a Roman Catholic one accepts that the particular Church which all other particular Churches are in communion is the Roman Church. It is the only particular Church which indefectability is assured.
So where is that Roman Church today?
The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay Our Lady of La Salette 19 Sept. 1846
-
You have a strange theology of Church, Hermenegild. Why talk of churches? Are you a protestant? The Church is ONE, holy, CATHOLIC (universal), apostolic.
So what is this "All particular Churches / Just the Roman Church?" of which you speak?
Our Lady at La Salette spoke of the Church being in eclipse, the world being in dismay. It's a simple enough concept. We can observe this for ourselves 171 years later.
-
You have a strange theology of Church, Hermenegild. Why talk of churches? Are you a protestant? The Church is ONE, holy, CATHOLIC (universal), apostolic.
So what is this "All particular Churches / Just the Roman Church?" of which you speak?
Our Lady at La Salette spoke of the Church being in eclipse, the world being in dismay. It's a simple enough concept. We can observe this for ourselves 171 years later.
She also said Rome would lose the Faith.
-
She also said Rome would lose the Faith.
I believe this means Rome as the head of the Church.
-
Hermenegild, when we use expressions like Church of Rome, Church of Cologne, Church of Auckland etc what we mean is 'diocese of' the One Catholic Church whose head is in Rome.
-
Well that's no doubt why the Holy Office proscribed discussion of La Salette. I think that was under Pope St. Pius X.
I did a google search for what you state above, and couldn't find anything at all which said that the Holy Office proscribed discussion of La Salette.
-
Actually, I think one of the messages was placed on the Index - specifically about Rome losing the faith.
Alright, but when and by whom?
-
Rome would defect?
The word was "in eclipse", not "defect".
-
Which particular Church(diocese) are you a member?
Which do you mean - Church or diocese? And why do you ask?