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

Author Topic: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?  (Read 7560 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2521
  • Reputation: +1041/-1106
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
« Reply #75 on: April 10, 2018, 01:28:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • The point is he's saying it's a "probability" and that the examples he gave are "a sign".  He never taught that his opinion was fact, or 100% certain, as you do.
    I don't disagree with many of the sede arguments; I disagree that such arguments are CERTAIN, as Fr Cekada falsely says.
    He is not saying it is a probability that the Pope could be a heretic you buffoon. There is not a single Pope, theologian or Saint who has EVER said a Pope could be a formal heretic. The Pope MUST be Catholic and formal heretics are NOT Catholic, having severed themselves from the Church with their defiant heresies. 

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2521
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #76 on: April 10, 2018, 01:35:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Cantarella, your contradictions are getting worse.  You are not following the facts towards the truth, but are twisting the facts to support your agenda.

    (1) First, you said that all ecuмenical councils are infallible.  (You repeated this 20x on another thread)

    (2) Then you changed and said that councils are not all infallible, but they require "absolute obedience".  So a non-infallible teaching (i.e. a fallible teaching) can require absolute obedience?  PROVE IT!
    The Traditional teaching of the Church is that Ecunemical Councils require absolute obedience.

    (3) Now, you say that even though they require ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE, parts of councils can be reversible.  What?!
    Not every single word emanating from a Council is "infallible" simply because there are some teachings that are disciplinary and temporary in nature, and therefore, reversible.

    (4) Now, you also repeat the illogical fallacy that the word "fallible" does not mean "capable of error".  You are supporting the non-infallible infallibility error.  You grant to the pope the power of infallibility even when he does not use this power as outlined in Vatican 1 (and he admits he didn't use it!)
    Non infallible does not mean erroneous.

    (5) You also postulate that V2 should be treated like every other ecuмenical council in history, even though its authors, its intention and its docuмents say otherwise.  You simplisticlly and illogically grant to V2 the same teaching weight as previous ecuмenical councils for the simple reason that it was called 'ecuмenical' and you ignore what the docuмents actually say, you ignore their contradictions and you ignore its lack of authority and requirements.
    General Councils approved by a Pope cannot teach heretical ERROR even if they do not promulgate new dogmatic definitions.


    Anyone who is open to the truth and who is logical can see your contradictions and your agenda.  
    There are no contradictions there. The Councils are infallible in the doctrine they reveal and teachings they expound. The only things that are reversible are the disciplines, rules, etc. that are not considered necessary articles of faith, but are merely man-made laws. Clerical celibacy, for example, is a LAW, not a doctrine. If someone said they did not agree with clergy being celibate, they would not be heretics(although it would be defiance against Church rulings) because it is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of discipline. 


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12163
    • Reputation: +7682/-2345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #77 on: April 10, 2018, 02:52:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    There are no contradictions there. The Councils are infallible in the doctrine they reveal and teachings they expound. The only things that are reversible are the disciplines, rules, etc.
    I agree, there are no contradictions in the way you summarize it above.  Cantarella does NOT understand it this way, which is why she's wrong and contradictory.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12163
    • Reputation: +7682/-2345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #78 on: April 10, 2018, 02:53:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    He is not saying it is a probability that the Pope could be a heretic
    Oh, ok.  He said "It is probable" but he didn't mean it.  Gotcha.  (sarcasm alert).

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2521
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #79 on: April 10, 2018, 03:21:29 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Oh, ok.  He said "It is probable" but he didn't mean it.  Gotcha.  (sarcasm alert).
    Again, as I already explained above, he said it is probable THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A POPE TO BECOME A HERETIC. He never said it was probable or possible that a Pope could be a heretic. 


    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3629/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #80 on: April 10, 2018, 07:39:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I thought this might be a good place to post this: Matthew could always move it if he feels fit to do so.

    PETITION
     I – Introduction
    Eminence, Excellencies,
    Until a few years it seemed inconceivable, but in recent years we are stunned to find that the Vatican, under the pontificate of Pope Francis, has taken a path that has touched the essence of the Church’s teaching on marriage and sɛҳuąƖity that must be called a road of degradation.
    Initially one could try to condone the dubious statements and measures of the Pope himself or of his assistants, in the expectation that the mistakes or slips would be of a temporary nature and would be adjusted again. Now this is no longer possible. There is too much that cannot remain uncontradicted, there is too much division and uncertainty created.
    A keyword-wise reminder of some questionable matters:

    These things are interconnected. The common thread running through it is roughly that of Modernism and Protestantism. Half a century ago we have experienced in the Netherlands how these errors have largely destroyed our once vital Church. But after consolidation and careful restoration under the pontificate of the previous Popes, the ideas and claims of the dissident theologians and their followers of the sixties now come to us from the Vatican itself. We therefore have no illusions as where this will lead to.
    II – Three requests to the Dutch bishops
    Eminence, Excellencies,
    1.  The priests and lay faithful for whom You bear responsibility as Bishops may rightly appeal to You at this moment of confusion and insecurity to lead them through an unambiguous, faithful position and education and to protect them from the errors in doctrine and practice that now get the chance.
    With all due respect, we ask you to speak out:
    -for integral enforcement of Humanae Vitae;
    -for maintaining the doctrine and practice with regard to receiving Holy Communion by validly married divorced persons in a new relationship;
    -for maintaining the moral doctrine concerning ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships;
    -for maintaining the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, in the wake of Vatican II (Lumen Gentium); especially for maintaining the doctrine about the supremacy of the Law of God over the subjective conscience.
    In concreto, we summarize these separate requests in a single, straightforward request:
    Would you like to express your loyalty to and uphold the doctrinal writings of the previous popes: Blessed Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Benedict XVI?
    2. In addition, we ask you, who as Bishops are the first appointed in the Church who, in imitation of St. Paul, can warn a Pope and / or other supreme authorities for serious mistakes and, if necessary, to correct them according to the procedures that are in place; to join those sincere and courageous prelates in the World Church who have addressed the Pope in the right way.
    In concrete terms, we ask you:
    Do you want to join the request for the correct clarification of the controversial passages in Amoris Laetitia, as directed to the Pope by the initiators of this “Dubia”, the cardinals Caffarra, Burke, Meissner, and Brandmüller?
    Of course we hope that the Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops of the Netherlands will unanimously make such a gesture. If this does not happen, our request will apply to each Bishop and Co-adjutor Bishop separately, as the responsible authority in his own diocese.
     
    3. Thirdly, we ask your attention for the urgent need of the Church in China:
    Do you want to make an effort to keep the Vatican from delivering the Church to the communist regime, against the urgent pleas of those who really know what this will mean? Do you want to support Cardinal Zen openly?
    Thank you for your attention, and with all the respect we owe you,

    https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/04/10/petition-of-some-catholics-to-the-bishops-and-co-adjutor-bishops-of-the-netherlands/
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12163
    • Reputation: +7682/-2345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #81 on: April 10, 2018, 08:09:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Again, as I already explained above, he said it is probable THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A POPE TO BECOME A HERETIC. He never said it was probable or possible that a Pope could be a heretic. 
    It makes no difference.  My point is that his OPINION is PROBABLE.  It's not certain.  It's not fact.  It's not a teaching.  So any of you who appeal to St Robert Bellarmine for being a sedevacantist (especially a dogmatic one) appeal to a probability and as such, your view is ludicrous.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #82 on: April 10, 2018, 09:34:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree, there are no contradictions in the way you summarize it above.  Cantarella does NOT understand it this way, which is why she's wrong and contradictory.
    What difference do you see between what Forlorn said and what I said?
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #83 on: April 10, 2018, 09:37:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Again, as I already explained above, he said it is probable THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A POPE TO BECOME A HERETIC. He never said it was probable or possible that a Pope could be a heretic.
    Good point.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46717
    • Reputation: +27597/-5125
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #84 on: April 11, 2018, 11:13:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I would like to point out that Ladislaus has fully entered the ranks of a "dogmatic" sede, wherein he clasifies all "R&R" people (i.e. anyone who isn't a sede) as a heretic.

    He has no room for discussion; it's his view or the highway.  He is essentially calling Matthew and this forum heretical. Just want to point out his dogmatism and lack of reasonableness.

    Well, this is just a straight-out lie.  I do not consider "anyone who isn't a sede" to be a heretic.  Far from it.  I'm not a sede myself.  I actually regularly assist at Catholic Eastern Rite liturgies and have no problem with una-cuм Masses.  In fact, I can't remember the last time I attended a non-una-cuм Mass.  I don't like the vibe I get from most SV chapels.  I have called out certain individuals (most notably yourself) for adhering to various heretical principles ... such as that dogma is the proximate rule of faith (=Protestantism) or that the Magisterium can be completely corrupted/polluted with error.  But I have called myself a "sede-doubtist" on the Pope question and have a position most similar to that articulated by Father Chazal.  I have condemend dogmatic sedevacantism as essentially schismatic and have received personal e-mails from the Dimonds ripping me for it.

    Similarly with Baptism of Desire, I have never condemned the position as even an "error" ... just a theological opinion with which I disagree.  Yet I do go after people who, in the interests of defending BoD, end up promoting heretical principles like Pelagianism, denial of EENS, and a denial of Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary to salvation.  To some of these I have even suggested a Catholic way to defend their position:  "If I believed in BoD, this is how I would articulate it in a manner consistent with Church teaching: ..." to help them steer away from their errors while at the same time upholding BoD.  I have praised several BoDers who did NOT fall into these errors that are common among BoDers (Nishant and Arvinger).

    I have some very nuanced positions with distinctions in play, and I invariably get attacked by both sides (SVs and R&R, dogmatic BoDers and dogmatic anti-BoDers) as a result.

    Now, it's obviously Matthew's call if he wants to ban me for such positions; it's his forum.  But I have never called either Matthew or this forum "heretical".  I actually have praised Matthew for tolerating a broad range of opinion on matters that have not been defined by the Church and on which people who are otherwise Catholics could disagree on.

    But your post above is nothing short of calumny ... and a pathetic attempt to get me banned, since I've been destroying your positions on a couple different threads here lately.  You're not the first who tried it and won't be the last.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #85 on: April 11, 2018, 11:34:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It makes no difference.  My point is that his OPINION is PROBABLE.  It's not certain.  It's not fact.  It's not a teaching.  So any of you who appeal to St Robert Bellarmine for being a sedevacantist (especially a dogmatic one) appeal to a probability and as such, your view is ludicrous.

    It makes a lot of difference because if you notice, the few theologians speculating of the remote possibility of the Pope becoming a heretic, dealt with the situation of how to remove the heretic from office (some thinking that this would be impossible, since the Pope is judged by no one on earth, others thinking that an imperfect Council could potentially do it).

    No theologian, saint, doctor, priest, etc. ever entertained the possibility of Roman Catholics having a continuous succession of heretics as Popes and remaining in such a position. R&R pretends this has been the case for the last 5 popes!

    From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

    Quote
    For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12163
    • Reputation: +7682/-2345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #86 on: April 11, 2018, 01:00:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    But your post above is nothing short of calumny ... and a pathetic attempt to get me banned
    I don't want anyone banned and I never called for that.  I'm simply pointing out your 'dogmatic' stance on an issue which is, as far as the Church is concered, a theory.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12163
    • Reputation: +7682/-2345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #87 on: April 11, 2018, 01:02:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    It makes a lot of difference because if you notice, the few theologians speculating...
    Sedevacantism is a speculation.  I don't care if theologians say it's 60% probable or 99% probable, it's still probable
    You falsely treat speculation as dogma and accuse others of heresy for disagreeing with you.

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2521
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #88 on: April 11, 2018, 01:09:50 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • It makes no difference.  My point is that his OPINION is PROBABLE.  It's not certain.  It's not fact.  It's not a teaching.  So any of you who appeal to St Robert Bellarmine for being a sedevacantist (especially a dogmatic one) appeal to a probability and as such, your view is ludicrous.
    No, it does make a difference. Stop moving the goalposts every time you are called up on a lie. No Pope, Saint, or theologian has EVER said the Pope could be a formal heretic. That is nonsense and completely contrary to Church dogma that the POPE MUST BE CATHOLIC. If you are a formal heretic you are NOT CATHOLIC, and therefore CANNOT be Pope.

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2521
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position?
    « Reply #89 on: April 11, 2018, 01:28:12 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Sedevacantism is a speculation.  I don't care if theologians say it's 60% probable or 99% probable, it's still probable.
    You falsely treat speculation as dogma and accuse others of heresy for disagreeing with you.
    No theologian has ever said it's only "probable" that a Pope cannot be a heretic. Again you pull quotes out of thin air and slander Saint Robert Bellarmine. The pope is Bishop of Rome, only those who can be ordained a bishop can be elected, which means that only Catholics are eligible. Heretics are not, and therefore a heretic cannot be elected Pope. Furthermore, it is canon law that formal heretic Bishops and Priests automatically lose their jurisdiction. Therefore the Bishop of Rome, even if a Catholic while elected, still loses his Papacy if he later embraces formal heresy.