Author Topic: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all  (Read 16378 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11100
  • Reputation: +5925/-813
  • Gender: Male
Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
« Reply #660 on: June 19, 2017, 02:17:26 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • This coming from the inventor of "sededoubtism", which is to say, "sede-who-knowsism", or "sede-cant-figure-it-outism".  :facepalm:

    Yes, Stubborn, all you have are ad hominem because you wouldn't know a syllogism if it hit you in the face.

    It's a shame that you tenaciously hold heretical opinions on the Magisterium and Catholic ecclesiology.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1248
    • Reputation: +882/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #661 on: June 19, 2017, 02:38:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    2) "Declaring infallibility" is not a prerequisite to being infallible, so disagreed.  Niceae didn't declare infallibility, so is it up for grabs, too?
    I didn't say that.  The correct quote, FROM YOUR SOURCE, is:   Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such. 

    "Declaring dogma" is a prerequisite for it being 'of the faith'.  For something to be infallible, it must be declared as dogma, then we know that either the pope (solemnly) or the bishops (universal magisterium) are teaching something that is important.  The council of nicea was very clear that it was declaring something to be 'of the faith'.  The magisterium must do the same if they declare that something has 'always been taught'.  Otherwise, they are teaching as private theologians and are fallible.


    Offline Meg

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1191
    • Reputation: +502/-310
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #662 on: June 19, 2017, 02:38:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    The thing is, the Ibranyi's of the world make up an infinitesimal portion of sedevacantists.  They're completely non-representative; attacking Ibranyi in an effort to make a point against a general position would be like looking at Bruce Jenner and arriving at the conclusion that every human person was born as the wrong sex.  It's an entirely self-serving, selective, and perverse logic that one expects of six year olds (and probably not even).
    .

    Who, then, is representative of sedevacantism?  

    Online MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5551
    • Reputation: +3258/-220
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #663 on: June 19, 2017, 02:40:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ibranyi is very useful - you use him as your example to understand why the Church permits no one to decide the status of popes. It's not complicated.
    I guess you might call him your crutch someone to lean on instead of God's grace.  The truth is you don't want to know the difference between good and evil, truth and false, black and white for sure, it is more convenient for some to be in limbo.  Lacking fortitude to make a decision that might cause friction between family, friends or heavens they might even have to say goodbye and move for the sake of the Faith.  
      
    So Ibranyi is useful to YOU, as you say.  
    Galatians 1; 8
    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7600
    • Reputation: +2810/-414
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #664 on: June 19, 2017, 02:41:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, Stubborn, all you have are ad hominem because you wouldn't know a syllogism if it hit you in the face.

    It's a shame that you tenaciously hold heretical opinions on the Magisterium and Catholic ecclesiology.
    Sorry for you Lad, all you have is name calling, and your Fentonisms. Your problem is that you don't know the difference between blind obedience and true obedience, any more than you know the difference between the hierarchy and the magisterium, I think it's due to being Fentonized.
    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque


    Online MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5551
    • Reputation: +3258/-220
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #665 on: June 19, 2017, 02:42:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Who, then, is representative of sedevacantism?  
    And... is Judas a representative of the apostles?
    Galatians 1; 8
    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7600
    • Reputation: +2810/-414
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #666 on: June 19, 2017, 02:44:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I guess you might call him your crutch someone to lean on instead of God's grace.  The truth is you don't want to know the difference between good and evil, truth and false, black and white for sure, it is more convenient for some to be in limbo.  Lacking fortitude to make a decision that might cause friction between family, friends or heavens they might even have to say goodbye and move for the sake of the Faith.  
      
    So Ibranyi is useful to YOU, as you say.  
    True, he is useful to me. I was raised that I can learn something from even the dumbest person in the world, if I learn not to be as dumb, I learned something from him.

    You cannot learn a thing from him for the simple reason that you agree with him, at least is far as the last 5 or 6 popes are concerned.
    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

    Offline Meg

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1191
    • Reputation: +502/-310
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #667 on: June 19, 2017, 02:45:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And... is Judas a representative of the apostles?

    Okay, but how does that answer my question?


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3033
    • Reputation: +3739/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #668 on: June 19, 2017, 02:58:24 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Who, then, is representative of sedevacantism?  
    .
    If this is a genuine question, it points to the general epidemic of sedeplenists who are utterly convinced that sedevacantism is false without being able to name so much as a single notable author who's actually represented the position. 

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3033
    • Reputation: +3739/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #669 on: June 19, 2017, 03:16:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I didn't say that.  The correct quote, FROM YOUR SOURCE, is:   Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such.

    "Declaring dogma" is a prerequisite for it being 'of the faith'.  For something to be infallible, it must be declared as dogma, then we know that either the pope (solemnly) or the bishops (universal magisterium) are teaching something that is important.  The council of nicea was very clear that it was declaring something to be 'of the faith'.  The magisterium must do the same if they declare that something has 'always been taught'.  Otherwise, they are teaching as private theologians and are fallible.
    .
    Boy I really hate the new auto-trimming of quotes on CI.  Makes carrying on a discussion with nested quotes nearly impossible.
    Anyways, you said (in your summary):

    Quote
    2.  V2 did NOT declare that ANY of their statements to be infallible.  Therefore, they are not.

    To which I replied:
    Quote
    2) "Declaring infallibility" is not a prerequisite to being infallible, so disagreed.  Niceae didn't declare infallibility, so is it up for grabs, too?

    Look Pax, I agree with you about the non-infallibility of Vatican II, just for a different reason.  You think that it's not infallible because it is the pope or the Church's prerogative to give all the trappings of infallibility and pull the chute at the last second, which allow the pope and the Church to unleash havoc on the faithful because someone didn't cross a "t" or dot an "i" and a bunch of error has crept in and is now dominating the Catholic world, but don't worry because it's not infallible.  It's a very mechanistic and legalistic way of looking at things, and one where we find a Church that can feed poison at the dinner table so long as she doesn't call it "dinner."  And I certainly don't think Augustine supports your reading (maybe you should consider replying to the parts of his commentary that don't agree with your position-- I certainly didn't shy away from addressing the parts of the commentary that you used to leverage against my position) of the matter.
    .
    Anyways, I say it's not infallible because there was no pope at it.  The problem with your reasoning is that you're stretching a single quote or two from a canonical commentary as a decisive statement that infallibility, in all its "manifestations", depends on the conditions prescribed by Vatican I for only one of those manifestations.  If that were not enough, the very source you're using to arrive at this conclusion is not itself infallible by your own criteria, so how do you explain your reliance on it?  I think you're doing the right thing (looking at approved authors to see what they have to say and teach) but it'll only take you so far when you try to extract what you already think is the case.
    .

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1248
    • Reputation: +882/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #670 on: June 19, 2017, 04:16:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • The problem is that the Church has never defined the infallibility requirements for the magisterium, therefore we are left with what is the basis for our Faith - scripture and Tradition.  Now, if the Church tells us that the Church Fathers are only infallible and only teach 'of the faith' when they agree with each other, then such an approach is also reliable when dealing with a council where the clear, legalistic writing style is lacking.  Since V2 does not agree with Tradition, therefore it CANNOT be 'of the faith', therefore it's not infallible.

    Quote
    Anyways, I say it's not infallible because there was no pope at it.
    Switching gears here, but when, your view, did the pope lose his office?


    Online MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5551
    • Reputation: +3258/-220
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #671 on: June 19, 2017, 05:29:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Who, then, is representative of sedevacantism?  
    Post 662 indicated you alluded to perhaps Ibranyi was representative of the sede position, perhaps I was wrong on my assumption.  
    Remember the sedevacantist position is a term to distinguish Catholics who believe a head of a non-Catholic church cannot simultaneously be head of the Catholic Church.  Otherwise, we are just souls who want to live and die united to the Catholic Church. 
    By Representative do you mean by definition as the Vicar of Christ is the representative of Jesus Christ?  Now let me ask you who today would that be?
    Galatians 1; 8
    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7600
    • Reputation: +2810/-414
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #672 on: June 20, 2017, 04:43:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Post 662 indicated you alluded to perhaps Ibranyi was representative of the sede position, perhaps I was wrong on my assumption.  
    Remember the sedevacantist position is a term to distinguish Catholics who believe a head of a non-Catholic church cannot simultaneously be head of the Catholic Church.  Otherwise, we are just souls who want to live and die united to the Catholic Church.
    By Representative do you mean by definition as the Vicar of Christ is the representative of Jesus Christ?  Now let me ask you who today would that be?
    ^^^^There's another one of those moving/changing targets.

    By representative, Meg meant what she asked, if not Ibranyi, then who is representative of the sedevacantist position?


    All sedevacantists have different ideas about sedevacantism which vary from time to time and person to person - it seems to be only the underlying principle which all sedevacantists agree on, that principle being, the ability/necessity for his subjects to decide whether or not the pope is the pope.

    I can't imagine Meg ever getting an answer so for me, I'd guess that Ibranyi is representative of those who hold the most extreme sedevacantist position, +Sanborn is at the opposite end of the scale, and the others are somewhere in the middle. 

    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

    Online MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5551
    • Reputation: +3258/-220
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #673 on: June 20, 2017, 07:58:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ^^^^There's another one of those moving/changing targets.

    By representative, Meg meant what she asked, if not Ibranyi, then who is representative of the sedevacantist position?


    All sedevacantists have different ideas about sedevacantism which vary from time to time and person to person - it seems to be only the underlying principle which all sedevacantists agree on, that principle being, the ability/necessity for his subjects to decide whether or not the pope is the pope.

    I can't imagine Meg ever getting an answer so for me, I'd guess that Ibranyi is representative of those who hold the most extreme sedevacantist position, +Sanborn is at the opposite end of the scale, and the others are somewhere in the middle.
    Since sedevacantists are Catholics; their head is Christ in Heaven, that is what the Church teaches, His representative His Vicar.  The point being His Vicar is not Francis, we all agree on that point, which is the only point of the sedevacantist position worthy of discussion.  Any other point is opinion and a consequence of having no pope for unity with dogmatic issues such as i.e. BOD or groups like (Holy Family et al).  
    Ibranyi is your hero, not ours, he is a Judas who wants his 30 pieces of silver in the form of a self-proclaimed prophet.  Your the one who makes over him and watches his every move uses him as the devil makes use of Francis.  
     
    If there was a group with different ideas it is the conciliarist the only point they agree on is the sedevacantist are very small, not big enough for a threat but they certainly feel threatened and rightly so.   Since Traditional Catholic in the true sense of the word; those who want nothing to do with the Modernists.  
    Just open a phone directory or check the Internet you will find a so-called "catholic" Conciliarist church for every type of Francis follower there is, from any type of gender confused catholic to divorced remarried, divorced again, and so, on.  Face the truth Stubborn your accusation against those who remain steadfast is a description of any Francis follower out there.  
    You, on the other hand, want your cake and eat it too, as the saying goes.  You have no absolutes, just as the conciliarists have no absolutes.    
    Galatians 1; 8
    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

    Offline Meg

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1191
    • Reputation: +502/-310
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Yes, I'm going to judge Sedevacantism here like I'm above it all
    « Reply #674 on: June 20, 2017, 09:54:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ^^^^There's another one of those moving/changing targets.

    By representative, Meg meant what she asked, if not Ibranyi, then who is representative of the sedevacantist position?


    All sedevacantists have different ideas about sedevacantism which vary from time to time and person to person - it seems to be only the underlying principle which all sedevacantists agree on, that principle being, the ability/necessity for his subjects to decide whether or not the pope is the pope.

    I can't imagine Meg ever getting an answer so for me, I'd guess that Ibranyi is representative of those who hold the most extreme sedevacantist position, +Sanborn is at the opposite end of the scale, and the others are somewhere in the middle.

    You understand exactly what I meant, though I think that I wasn't being clear.

    I was indeed asking who, then, is representative of sedevacantism, if not Ibranyi. It was a serious question, but I had a feeling that there really wasn't going to be an answer, and there wasn't one from the sedevacantists as to who their representative is (or representatives). 

    The sedevacantist doctrine, it seems, cannot be agreed upon by its adherents; therefore it seems that there can be no one who can be said to be representative, since, as you mention,  sedevacantists have different ideas about sedevacantism which vary from time to time and person to person. 

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16