Author Topic: Whats wrong with Sedeprivationism? (Read 5195 times)

PG · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2014, 11:12:23 PM »

songbird and OP - being that the title of this thread was something like "whats wrong with privationism", I will say that the only thing that could possibly make privationism seem wrong is the idea that Francis is in possession of a "valid" claim to the papacy. Because, privationists believe that the claimants possess valid claims/elections. The impediment to the papacy is their heresy. And, I do still agree with this. The reason why I don't doubt the election claim of francis enough to doubt privationism is because there is no rival papacy. And, there are many reasons to doubt. But, there must be perpetual successors to the see of peter. Now, if there was a rival papacy, our conversation might be different. But, for now, and for the past 50 years, privation makes the most sense. Also, I avoid categorizing myself as a vacantist(the see being vacant). Because, I don't think we know enough about the papacy. If we did, this crisis would not have happened in the first place. The church immediately prior clearly had misconceptions.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #6 on:** October 29, 2014, 02:35:40 AM »

Quote

The problem with Sedeprivationism is the belief that individual people can judge the pope to be a heretic.

No, the heretical statements, actions and promulgations of a (material only) pope determine, by their very acts, him to be a heretic. There is no subjective ruling by individual people. If nobody realized the heresy committed by Francis, that would not exonerate him from being a heretic. He'd still be a flaming heretic in the eyes of Our Lord and Peter.

Quote

The majority of the time that the pope speaks, he speaks as a man and can err. We as catholics have a duty not to follow error and it is completely allowable for us not to follow the pope into sin. However, as the head of the catholic church, he is still the leader and has some authority as such.

A pope is not supposed to err on matters pertaining to the Faith, morality, Canon Law and declaring sainthood, hence the pope's infallibility. He can only be in the Seat of Peter, not just materially, but fully, if he adheres to the true Catholic Faith. However, it's permissible for a pope to err on matters not pertaining to the aforementioned, such as science, civil matters, social issues, and frivolities. Doing such does not reflect him being a heretic or apostate in any way.

Bartholemew · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2014, 06:31:19 PM »

This thread has inherently come back to the same old debate since Vatican II started.... I don't think it can be solved here :-)

songbird · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2014, 04:12:29 PM »

PG: What are your thoughts on Chapter 12 of Daniel? Will the Sacrifice of the Mass come to and end? Will God permit this? Then what? Those that watched Christ die, did they think, "ah, God the Father would not permit His only Son to die in this fashion, or would He and why?

The New Order is heretic, for they say a "mess" that has no Precious Blood, true? Chapter 12 of Daniel will take place. And God will have His Day!