Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17]

Author Topic: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism  (Read 13326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
« Reply #80 on: November 05, 2023, 07:06:56 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2023, 04:53:33 AM
Of course, this doesn't address the real distinction between a potentiality and an actuality. Obviously, a potentiality is not an actuality; something that is currently a potentiality is not currently an actuality. The indefectibility of the Church as a body includes the teaching that it would always be a physical or material actuality with a governing hierarchy in every "present" time until Our Lord's return. And a governing hierarchy doesn't require a pope always alive on the seat, so times of sede vacante can't be used as precedent for a situation where there is no ordinary with jurisdiction with a real power of governing who possesses the Catholic faith and is not in schism with an antipope and heresiarchs.

And can't you make a point or argument without tossing off labels like "idiot" (or "heretic" - when addressing some of us fellow Catholics here)? I'd be careful about at whom you toss that particular "idiot" label, as it appears to be a boomerang term for you.

You can argue about whether the distinction between potency and act applies to this scenario, as as you do here, but equating potency to being "imaginary" is in fact "idiotic".  There's no mincing words there, and St. Jerome used much harsher terms for heretics like Pontrello in his day.  We need to call a spade a spade and not pussy-foot around people like Pontrello, like the poster here who claimed that Pontrello has some legitimate points.

This distinction between act and potency as applied to the Church is seen also in periods of sedevacante.  While there's a perpetual succession, and the papal office always remains in potency, it isn't always and at all times actualized as having A pope.  This is why neither the papacy nor the perpetual succession is compromised by the death of a pope.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
« Reply #81 on: November 05, 2023, 08:09:52 AM »
I would like to ask Pontrello if he thinks the "Orthodox Church" can have the "abomination of desolation" standing in it. If he says "no," he's essentially denying it's the Church ("the holy place" of Matthew 24:15), or limiting its application to a past historical event, like the destruction of the Jєωιѕн Temple. I believe that would be an error that rejects the clear link between, e.g, the "abomination of desolation" of Matthew 24:15 and the Antichrist led "Great Apostasy" of


Quote
2 Th. 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,  4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.

The Orthodox have their own problems in also rejecting the Scriptural truth of an abomination of desolation "in the holy place" before Christ's return. And as I've said before, another problem for Orthodoxy is, where do you locate the "holy place" for purposes of understanding Mt 24:15.  They have no central "holy place.""

If Pontrello says "yes," the Orthodox Church will one day have the "abomination of desolation" standing in the "holy place," that would be an interesting conversation indeed, because it is my understanding that the Orthodox likewise believe the Church to be indefectible. As I said above, I think they would make the prophecy of Mt 24:15 a past event, and in that I would say they deny the Scriptures. 

I've read his book, and think Mr. Pontrello certainly a sincere and thoughtful guy who it'd be interesting to talk to. I'd have to go back and read his book, but I recall that he thinks Vatican I shows the pre-V2 Church itself to be false mainly because he claims that errors in the V2 ecuмenical council would belie the V1 claims about papal infallibility. I don't think so. I would agree with him that the claims of Catholic theologians pre-V2, ostensibly applying V1s teachings about papal infallibility, about what an ecuмenical council can and can't do would show a contradiction between V1 and the V2 event. But does V1 on its own terms itself show such a contradiction? I don't think so. But that's a ground for legitimate discussion. 
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
« Reply #82 on: November 05, 2023, 08:39:40 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2023, 08:09:52 AM


I've read his book, and think Mr. Pontrello certainly a sincere and thoughtful guy who it'd be interesting to talk to. I'd have to go back and read his book, but I recall that he thinks Vatican I shows the pre-V2 Church itself to be false mainly because he claims that errors in the V2 ecuмenical council would belie the V1 claims about papal infallibility. I don't think so. I would agree with him that the claims of Catholic theologians pre-V2, ostensibly applying V1s teachings about papal infallibility, about what an ecuмenical council can and can't do would show a contradiction between V1 and the V2 event. But does V1 on its own terms itself show such a contradiction? I don't think so. But that's a ground for legitimate discussion.

For example, Vatican I says this, which Pontrello cites at one point:

Quote

DZ 1792 [The object of faith] .Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.

Where did V2 do that in contradiction to something also previously "proposed by the Church . . . to be believed as divinely revealed"?

John, come on over. I don't think Matthew would mind, as long as you treated Catholicism with respect and engaged in respectful argument. 

Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
« Reply #83 on: November 05, 2023, 03:29:02 PM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2023, 05:42:47 AM
And this is why Pontrello himself is wrong and in error for rejecting the Catholic Church as a result of, or in light of, the present crisis.

We can't understate this, even for his own good.  Pontrello is a heretic, and a non-Catholic, outside the Church of Christ and cannot be saved until he converts back to the True Church founded by Christ.  Charity requires that we not soft-pedal this and let him remain complacent ... unto the damnation of his soul.  You said also above that he's "sincere".  No, he's not.  He had the Catholic faith or at least professed it at one time, and there's no case for sincerity that could be made there.  It would be one thing if someone had been raised Eastern Orthodox to argue sincerity, but that can never be the case for someone who had been a Catholic.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
« Reply #84 on: November 05, 2023, 03:30:57 PM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2023, 08:39:40 AM

John, come on over. I don't think Matthew would mind, as long as you treated Catholicism with respect and engaged in respectful argument. 

He has no business here if he'll be prosletyzing for his heresy.  We're not about dialoging with heretics here, ala the spirit of Vatican II.  And with Pontrello, it's not a question of objective heresy, but formal heresy, since denies the foundations for the formal motive of faith, the very principles on which supernatural faith rests, the teaching authority of the Church as centralized in the Holy See.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17]
« previous next »