Author Topic: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist (Read 49258 times)

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #105 on:** March 18, 2011, 11:05:04 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: stevusmagnus
The degree of the crisis is unprecedented...

It is not merely a matter of degree, but of kind. A bogus Council held in and approved by Rome, altered Sacramental forms across the board, and a list of 'official' deviations that could go on and on. Something like this has never occurred. Anyone who cannot see this fact is as blind as a bat.

Trent standardized sacramental forms across the board. It altered them in the sense that it did away with any liturgical rite younger than 200 years old.

OBVIOUSLY Trent did a good thing standardizing the Roman Rite in the West and protecting against novelty.

VCII was a valid Council, not bogus. It simply dealt with pastoral realities and later the crew enacted disciplinary laws. It created the "Great Facade", but changed not one iota of Catholic dogma. It is a chameleon Council that can shape shift depending on who is implementing it. Couple that with a Pope and Episcopacy who don't enforce any of the laws on the books and you have complete chaos and loss of faith.

We agree on the effects. It seems you are saying the cause is a complete apostasy of almost the entire clergy, Pope, and a false Council. I think that argument conflates the scale of the destruction with the scale of the cause.

Vatican II is simply blithering hot air and the implentation was on the level of disciplinary laws. The post-conciliar Popes have not defined a single dogma nor have they exercised their infallibility. The Abbe de Nantes tried to put Paul VI on trial under the theory that, even though Paul VI would judge his own case, it would force him to disavow his "heresies" or else proclaim official and once and for all infallibly that his "heresies" were true and correct. The Vatican didn't even accept his docuмents and, I think, had police escort the Abbe away before he could even file his case.

The sede case concludes too much. It is not supported by the evidence no matter how much hand waving and dog and pony show appeals to the atrocities one makes.

Yes they are outrageous, unprecedented, scandalous actions and misleading and conducive to error opinions that cause mass confusion. But a thousand of these don't equal infallibly defined error or formal heresy.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #106 on:** March 18, 2011, 11:36:21 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

We agree on the effects...I think that argument conflates the scale of the destruction with the scale of the cause...

There must be proportion between every cause and effect. In fact, the cause must always be superior to the effect produced.

You want to posit the contrary idea -- i.e., that enormous effects can flow from a lesser cause -- but that is inadmissible, for it violates sound thinking and all that we observe throughout creation.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #107 on:** March 18, 2011, 11:40:12 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

The sede case concludes too much.

I agree. That is why I do not hold to SVism. It leans too far toward the order of fact, more or less doing away with the order of law. However, the Recognize and Resist crowd lean too far toward the order of law, more or less doing away with the order of fact. That is why I am what is normally termed a sede-privationist. IMO, this take on things gives that which is due to BOTH the order of law AND the order of fact.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #108 on:** March 18, 2011, 12:00:39 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: stevusmagnus
The sede case concludes too much.

I agree. That is why I do not hold to SVism. It leans too far toward the order of fact, more or less doing away with the order of law. However, the Recognize and Resist crowd lean too far toward the order of law, more or less doing away with the order of fact. That is why I am what is normally termed a sede-privationist. IMO, this take on things gives that which is due to BOTH the order of law AND the order of fact.

I actually find that sede vacante thesis and the cassiciacuм thesis pretty much come down to the same point; that the See of Rome is formally vacant. Those who condemn the C-thesis usually do not understand it or have been presented with a false version of it.

Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers was a great man of the Church and his theological capacities should not be underestimated, as has unfortunately often happened.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #109 on:** March 18, 2011, 06:03:33 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Gladius,

I was laughing at the play on words. The "Sedes" are the "seeds"? Get it?

The degree of the crisis is unprecedented, but the Society reaction is not unprecedented. They are following the example of St. Athanasius. The Sede response to the crisis is unprecedented as there have been no Sedes till the 1970's. I think that is a fair point.

Just like I said, Steve.......you dont know what you are talking about. The CMRI was the FIRST trad group to emerge after Vatican 2. They took the sede position. The SSPX was formed in the 1970s. Actually, their view is more unprecedented.
Catholics have had antipopes in the history of the church, but none that changed doctrine. These Vatican 11 popes have overturned the foundations of Christianity with their errors!
SSPX says we have to believe that they are popes. They are bad popes, and we do not have to obey them. This is not Catholic thinking. No where in Catholic history have Catholics had to make a stand like in this era.
One thing we have to remember......no one really deposes a pope. The church teaches that he is IPSO FACTO excommunicated by teaching heresy.
Do all of you believe that these last 4 popes are IPSO FACTO excommunicated? If you do, you believe that the chair of Peter is vacant.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #110 on:** March 18, 2011, 06:44:36 PM »

There is information on the internet that John XXIII was a freemason, look it up and decern for yourself if that information might be correct or not. If correct he certainly was NOT a true pope.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #111 on:** March 18, 2011, 07:55:28 PM »

These are "bad" Popes, but they teach nothing infallibly and bind nothing on our consciences. They create bad "options" liturgically and they proclaim ambiguity and participate in and foster novel concepts, but they don't legally force any Catholic to partake with them or believe their non-infallible dialectic meandering ponderings.

They want people to accept VCII as a valid Council and the NO as a valid Mass, but even then they have not forced anyone to or leveled an anathema at those who don't. Plus they've neither defined nor clarified anything in VCII. Them asking you to "accept it" is like asking you to "accept" a Rorshak ink blot. It means nothing until they make it crystal clear what VCII is in specific scholastic statements of belief.

Currently VCII appears a mixture of Catholicism and ambiguity. What must I believe now differently than I did before VCII? They don't answer the question because they know the answer is nothing, but they lead and the sheep follow thinking it is obligatory they approve.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #112 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:23:12 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Currently VCII appears a mixture of Catholicism and ambiguity.

Is this answer coming from the Catholic camp or the ambiguous, vague as it comes, camp?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #113 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:55:18 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: stevusmagnus
Currently VCII appears a mixture of Catholicism and ambiguity.

Is this answer coming from the Catholic camp or the ambiguous, vague as it comes, camp?

Catholic camp. The lib camp clearly sees liberalism and likes it. The Neo-Caths see conservatism and like it. the Catholic camp sees it is a meaningless chimera and wants to start over.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #114 on:** March 18, 2011, 09:04:24 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

These are "bad" Popes, but they teach nothing infallibly and bind nothing on our consciences. They create bad "options" liturgically and they proclaim ambiguity and participate in and foster novel concepts, but they don't legally force any Catholic to partake with them or believe their non-infallible dialectic meandering ponderings.

They want people to accept VCII as a valid Council and the NO as a valid Mass, but even then they have not forced anyone to or leveled an anathema at those who don't. Plus they've neither defined nor clarified anything in VCII. Them asking you to "accept it" is like asking you to "accept" a Rorshak ink blot. It means nothing until they make it crystal clear what VCII is in specific scholastic statements of belief.

Currently VCII appears a mixture of Catholicism and ambiguity. What must I believe now differently than I did before VCII? They don't answer the question because they know the answer is nothing, but they lead and the sheep follow thinking it is obligatory they approve.

Quote

These are "bad" Popes, but they teach nothing infallibly and bind nothing on our consciences.

Well........why dont we start with Paul the V! changing the mass !
This is what happens, folks when we dont have a true pope for 40 years! We get this kind of mixed up thinking!
Of course, I have never known a true pope either. I became Catholic in 1961 when the changes started. John X111 was intent on bringing on the changes, not keeping the traditions and teachings of the church.[/b]

MyrnaM · « **Reply #115 on:** March 18, 2011, 09:06:02 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

These are "bad" Popes, but they teach nothing infallibly and bind nothing on our consciences. They create bad "options" liturgically and they proclaim ambiguity and participate in and foster novel concepts, but they don't legally force any Catholic to partake with them or believe their non-infallible dialectic meandering ponderings.

So then you deny the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine, but rather, that they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the deposit of faith which was handed down through the apostles.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #116 on:** March 19, 2011, 07:49:43 AM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Of course, I have never known a true pope either. I became Catholic in 1961 when the changes started.

I am blessed to be living in a country which has strong catholic roots, though modernism has now devastated the land. The people here, who lived before the apostasy and remembered the valid Popes, will tell you that it was always taken for granted by catholics to say that a Pope could never promulgate magisterial heresy. To say otherwise made you at least a 'bad catholic'.

Despite the mental acrobacy and linguistic gymnastics of those who 'recognise and resist', it is better to be in communion with the empty See of Rome than to set up a 'Gallican See' against what you claim to be the See of Rome.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #117 on:** March 19, 2011, 07:20:46 PM »

Quote

Despite the mental acrobacy and linguistic gymnastics of
Quote
those who 'recognise and resist', it is better to be in communion with the empty See of Rome than to set up a 'Gallican See' against what you claim to be the See of Rome.

Sedevacantists believe the See of Rome is vacant. SSPX believes we HAVE a pope! Sedes are the ones who are in communion with the empty See of Rome. Opposite of what you stated, if I got it right!

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #118 on:** March 19, 2011, 10:42:00 PM »

There is doubt whether Paul VI ever legally promulgated the NO.

Assuming he did, he merely created another form of Mass separate from the Mass of Pius V. Thus he did not "change" the Mass. He created a watered down ambiguous Rite that kept bits and pieces of the TLM. The NO contains no explicit heresy.

The Sede arguments keep failing because of indefectability. God will not allow His Church to fail. In this crisis He is allowing it to come as close to the line as possible but She never crosses it because She cannot cross it.

Under this post conciliar veneer of novelty there still exists the true Church of Christ. No dogma or doctrine has been changed no matter how much non-infallible rambling bloviation comes from Rome.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #119 on:** March 19, 2011, 11:22:18 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

There is doubt whether Paul VI ever legally promulgated the NO.

Assuming he did, he merely created another form of Mass separate from the Mass of Pius V. Thus he did not "change" the Mass. He created a watered down ambiguous Rite that kept bits and pieces of the TLM. The NO contains no explicit heresy.

The Sede arguments keep failing because of indefectability. God will not allow His Church to fail. In this crisis He is allowing it to come as close to the line as possible but She never crosses it because She cannot cross it.

Under this post conciliar veneer of novelty there still exists the true Church of Christ. No dogma or doctrine has been changed no matter how much non-infallible rambling bloviation comes from Rome.

St. Peter wouldn't even recognize what you call "His Church".

BTW... His Church has not failed, except in your erroneous mind.