Quote from: OHCA

Hirschie,

If you believe that the papacy is only about infallible statements and speaking ex cathedra, then I don't understand why you scream so loud that the Church could not survive a long period sedevacante.

Scream?  I am merely typing.  EVEN IF I TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, I'M NOT SCREAMING...only typing.  

I've never argued that the Church could not survive a long period of pope-lessness.  

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

I wouldn't say I've been nasty about sedevacantism.  Only stridently, objectively, and vocally opposed to it.  

Do you believe that it would be possible for the Church to survive a period of sedevacantism?  If not, why not?

Okay, the answer is no.  

Your conception of sedevacantism would mean the death of the Church.  If the Church goes without a pope for as long as the sedevacantists would claim, then eventually all legitimate bishops and priests would die out, and the Church would be dead.  50+ years without a pope is over a generation of people.  A few more decades, and the Church is dead, and it will have been proven that Christ's Church is a lie.  

To have confirmed laymen, you need priests.

To have priests, you need a bishop.  

To have bishops, you need a pope.  

Cardinals are there for giggles.

Cut off the head, the body dies.  

You seem eager to move on past this point which you raised as your first reason for believing that the Church could not survive a period of sedevacantism.  But before we do, do you understand that a pope is not necessary for perpetuity of valid lines of bishops, as deomstrated by the Greek Orthodox since about 1069 A.D.?

This is not about an "exception" as you mention below--it is the point that bishops can consecrate new bishops capable of ordaining priests capable of delivering the sacraments in perpetuity without a pope.  If the schismatic (a word you enjoy) Greek Orthodox can survive nearly a millennium without papal blessing or authority, then certainly you would agree that Christ's true Church would be all the more able to survive a period of sedevacantism, continuing the episcopacy, priesthood, and sacraments without the gates of hell prevailing.

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: OHCA

Why do you insist that a pope is necessary to have bishops?  I was taught in NO grade school catechism that in case of imminent death emergency, a Catholic could even avail himself to a Greek Orthodox priest for the sacraments if such was the only priest accessible.  Thus, it must be recognized and accepted that Greek Orthodox bishops can ordain priests and consecrate new bishops even though they have no authority from the pope to do so.  So why do you believe that a pope is necessary for a valid line of bishops to continue?

I suppose there's exceptions, but they are not the rule.  I don't think the Almighty would allow us to function with a Church in such a "rigged" manner.  It just does not seem His intention.

How is this a "rigged" manner?  If all you think the evil forces would have to do to end Catholicism would be to rig or prevent conclaves for a century, that doesn't say much about the power of God in your eyes.  In such a scenario, I submit that God could be with and protect His Church via this "rigged" manner until He chose to otherwise provide.

"It just does not seem His intention." --Hirsch

Romans 11:33-34

[33] O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! [34] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?

Since Hirsch has remained silent in this thread for about 3 days, I am going to go ahead and say that my counter to his first big objection to sedevacantism is indisputable and score big point 1 for the plausibility of sedevacantism.

I glean from the esteemed Hirsch Files, and perhaps I have seen him comment on the forum in this vein, that another major objection that he has is that none of the post-Vat II popes have spoke error infallibly.  If infallible pronouncements are all that is important from the papacy, then that significantly diminishes the importance of the papacy.  I submit that there is much more to the papacy than infallible pronouncements; that as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope is generally responsible for shepherding souls to Heaven, and that infallible pronouncements, though very important, are not the only means that the Holy Father is responsible for using in shepherding souls to Heaven under his watch.

So what have the Popes since 1958 done in leading souls to, or detouring souls from, Heaven.  The calling of the Council and, as articulated, opening the doors & windows of the Church to change, knowing that modernism, communism, and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ were in the air; inflicting a new "mass" severely breaking from liturgical tradition upon the faithful which was written by a likely (arguably KNOWN to the Pontiff) freemason and several protestant ministers and a rabbi which disguised the sacred truths of the true Mass and made it more palpable to protestants--in fact more protestant-like; globe-trotting like a rock-star, praying with idolotors, accepting pagan blessings, kissing the filthy koran, saying there is no Cathilic God, muddling the concept of the Trinity for the faithful by espousing heresy in public interviews, touting the modern heresy of relativism slyly by saying we should simply follow our individual consciences and concepts of a Being.

Why do you say that all of this should be ignored and that all that is relevant is whether error has been spoken "infallibly?"  You try to save the pope by explaining double-meanings and ambiguities.  Isn't double-talk and ambiguity deceitful and tantamount to lies, and isn't satan the father of lies?  How could such be attributable to the the Vicar of Christ?

BUMPPPPPP

I guess you thought being silent for a few weeks would allow time for everybody to forget that you never finished this discussion when you resumed criticizing sedevacantism...

As the proprietor of hirschiefiles though, I expect you've been booked solid with coast to coast engagements.  Can your readership be rounded up to ten yet?

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

The Second Vatican Council doesn't teach any new requirements in regards to morals and dogma.  

Then how can anyone be required to sign an oath to the council as discussed in another topic?

Your statement is pure fantasy.  The Vatican most certainly considers the docuмents of the Vatican Council 2 to contain new teachings in regards to the faith.

I am not interested in what the Vatican "considers."  

What matters is what is true.  

None of this crap has been any kind of new ex cathedra infallible teaching.  It's just been the same old hippy-dippy language that blinds everyone to a slow subtle movement.  All without being "official."  The modernist movement is like Communism in politics--it's all under the radar.  It's all unannounced and unofficial.  

Most people recognize our president as a Marxist.  He's just not announcing it.    

That's why all of this is so insidious.  

The tempter, called serpent in the history of the fall  (Gen. iii.), was not that reptile itself, but the devil tempter. speaking through its mouth, although the narrative does not expressly say so. The devil is so often spoken of as the tempter of our first parents, that it might almost be doubted whether the serpent was not an assumed form, rather than the real animal (VVisd. ii. 24 ; John viii. 44).

The temptation was directed to Eve as the weaker party, and against the law of probation, as the most momentous. The tempter begins with a question of double meaning: Is there such a commandment, and why should it be given? (Gen. iii. 1), and goes on denying the punishment threatened by God, and promising likeness to gods as a reward for the evil deed. Almost every word of the devil's speech is ambiguous, admitting of a true and of a false interpretation, a circuмstance entirely in keeping with the character of the tempter.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Scheeben, The Fall of Man

The tempter, called serpent in the history of the fall  (Gen. iii.), was not that reptile itself, but the devil tempter. speaking through its mouth, although the narrative does not expressly say so. The devil is so often spoken of as the tempter of our first parents, that it might almost be doubted whether the serpent was not an assumed form, rather than the real animal (VVisd. ii. 24 ; John viii. 44).

The temptation was directed to Eve as the weaker party, and against the law of probation, as the most momentous. The tempter begins with a question of double meaning: Is there such a commandment, and why should it be given? (Gen. iii. 1), and goes on denying the punishment threatened by God, and promising likeness to gods as a reward for the evil deed. Almost every word of the devil's speech is ambiguous, admitting of a true and of a false interpretation, a circuмstance entirely in keeping with the character of the tempter.

Yes.  And we all admit that the smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican.  No one is denying this.