Author Topic: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist (Read 51061 times)

Graham · « **Reply #205 on:** May 19, 2015, 11:23:19 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.

But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.

BTNYC · « **Reply #206 on:** May 19, 2015, 01:01:06 PM »

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: BTNYC
Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.

But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.

Correct. I judge the situation based on what is objectively known. I don't hold to an erroneous conception of papal infallibility which reduces the pope to a divinely animated automaton devoid of free will, so I have no need for absurdly fantastical speculations and conjectures designed to rescue adherents of that error from the conundrum that objective reality puts them in.

I'm not sure that needed "clarification," but thanks for casting light on it all the same.

Graham · « **Reply #207 on:** May 19, 2015, 01:12:58 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: Graham
Quote from: BTNYC
Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.

But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.

Correct. I judge the situation based on what is objectively known. I don't hold to an erroneous conception of papal infallibility which reduces the pope to a divinely animated automaton devoid of free will, so I have no need for absurdly fantastical speculations and conjectures designed to rescue adherents of that error from the conundrum that objective reality puts them in.

I'm not sure that needed "clarification," but thanks for casting light on it all the same.

That specific criticism of yours sounded like it was coming from a sedevacantist point of view, since, bluster aside, that is also a weak point of R&R.

BTNYC · « **Reply #208 on:** May 19, 2015, 01:46:48 PM »

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: Graham
Quote from: BTNYC
Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.

But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.

Correct. I judge the situation based on what is objectively known. I don't hold to an erroneous conception of papal infallibility which reduces the pope to a divinely animated automaton devoid of free will, so I have no need for absurdly fantastical speculations and conjectures designed to rescue adherents of that error from the conundrum that objective reality puts them in.

I'm not sure that needed "clarification," but thanks for casting light on it all the same.

That specific criticism of yours sounded like it was coming from a sedevacantist point of view, since, bluster aside, that is also a weak point of R&R.

Only for those who hold to a similarly free-will-destroying conception of papal infallibility.

"Bluster aside?" Never. What do you think the "B" in my moniker stands for?

Disputaciones · « **Reply #209 on:** May 20, 2015, 01:21:41 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: Graham
Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: Graham
Quote from: BTNYC
Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.

But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.

Correct. I judge the situation based on what is objectively known. I don't hold to an erroneous conception of papal infallibility which reduces the pope to a divinely animated automaton devoid of free will, so I have no need for absurdly fantastical speculations and conjectures designed to rescue adherents of that error from the conundrum that objective reality puts them in.

I'm not sure that needed "clarification," but thanks for casting light on it all the same.

That specific criticism of yours sounded like it was coming from a sedevacantist point of view, since, bluster aside, that is also a weak point of R&R.

Only for those who hold to a similarly free-will-destroying conception of papal infallibility.

"Bluster aside?" Never. What do you think the "B" in my moniker stands for?

What does your username mean? Ive always wondered.