Author Topic: "Recognize and Resist" or Sedevacantism? (Read 26839 times)

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #75 on:** December 19, 2013, 01:10:41 PM »

By the way, Nishant. Thank you for your concern about my faith. Thank you for praying for me. And I admit that there is a very real danger of me losing my faith but I would not knowingly subject myself to any dangers. However, I consider all these things concerning the status of the papacy to be opinions (at least those parts of the discussion which are not established doctrines of the Church). I will abandon them if it appears that continuing to hold them will cause me to deny any part of Catholic doctrine. Just remember that even the most confident and brilliant theologian can also lose his faith. Especially in this day and age. We are all in danger.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #76 on:** December 19, 2013, 01:15:33 PM »

Quote

It might be opposed to what Archbishop Lefebvre said but you will have to show me how it is opposed to traditional doctrine. Where has there ever been a valid and licit consecration which did not confer a canonical mission? Obviously, because heretics and schismatics are outside the Church they can not consecrate licitly so there is no canonical mission there. But it was supposed that ++Lefebvre was unjustly suspended and therefore he retained his canonical mission and his apostolicity. His consecrations were not only valid but licit as well. Bishops have been licitly consecrated during interegnums in the past so obviously a papal mandate from a living pope is not absolutely necessary. It is possible for a bishop to confer a canonical mission during an interegnum.

Thanks for the sound input Clemens Maria.

People insist on looking for the hierarchy in all the wrong places. It is right where it appears to be, with the Catholic Bishops who maintain the faith.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #77 on:** December 19, 2013, 01:18:46 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Sean:

If you are interested in exploring the supplied jurisdiction argument from a sedevacantist perspective, there is a rather interesting thread on this topic posted to Bellarmine Forums in which John Lane does a pretty good laying out the sedevacantist position:

http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1552&sid=47ad44bebf3dd60ec544e8f59b87a46b

Again, coming from an Ecclesia Dei perspective I obviously disagree with the sede position. However, John Lane does an excellent job laying out the more nuanced sede position on supplied jurisdiction:

http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1552&sid=47ad44bebf3dd60ec544e8f59b87a46b

Thanks for being objective and actually taking an unbiased look at the position.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #78 on:** December 19, 2013, 02:03:32 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

I am sure the average soul wades through an elaborate PhD thesis to determine this question! One look at this 'apology for a pope' tells me he ain't out of pure instinct. But if I were to add a bit of logic (always a danger for gamblers!) .... and be guided by those who shout the loudest yet they never seem to take their own advice ...... I would simply say Bergoglio heads a new church and repudiates the old one. End of.

One such talker was Michael Davies who surrounded himself with so many hedging devices that ensured his passage into the next world was risk-free to the max. And when that time came his mind was in such a confusion that he raced through his writing to edit out any unkindess towards Rome. I tire of endless scripts that are clever enough to contain (if you look hard enough) get-out clauses. He went to his eternal courtesy of the conciliar church as so many English so-called traditionalists seem to prefer. End of.

Nice post! I'm glad to see someone realizes this about Michael Davies. :cheers:

Pete Vere · « **Reply #79 on:** December 19, 2013, 05:07:05 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

The argument you are making was originally published by the FSSP, so it is not surprising, given your proclaimed adhesion to the PCED position, that you raise it here.

Shawn:

Keeping in mind that the debate is about sedevacantism vs R&R, let's assume for the sake of the argument that you and the FSSPX are correct in your interpretation of these canonical controversies and your understanding of epikeia, state of necessity, etc.

How does this refute the sedevacantist position?

Sedevacantism, as far as I can tell, simply offers a theory as to why they believe a state of necessity exists, or why epikeia can be invoked. Thus the argument itself is neutral with regards to the controversy between sedevacantism and R&R, favouring neither one position nor the other. I suspect this may be why Mgr Williamson, quoting Fr. Roux, states in his last letter that to him sedevacantism is an opinion.