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

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers  (Read 10438 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr G

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2355
  • Reputation: +1523/-91
  • Gender: Male
SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers
« on: July 22, 2024, 09:46:12 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers - by S.D. Wright (wmreview.org)

    It is the year 2051 CE. Rad-Trads have presumptuously declared, based on their own private judgment, that Pope Susan is in fact a woman, and therefore not the pope. Fredrik Tunaphisch reports.

    It is the year 2051 CE.
    Karen McNuggets was elected to the See of Rome a few years ago, and took the name ‘Pope Susan.’ Since then, Pope Susan has begun radically changing everything in the Church.

    Some were dismayed by this turn of events, and began promoting a horrible conspiracy theory – that Susan is a woman, and therefore not the Pope.
    They refer to texts such as that of Caesar Badii, 1921 commentary on the Code of Canon Law:

    Quote
    ‘The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:…
    ‘Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics.’1 (Emphasis added)
    However, some of the most faithful conservative Catholics, wishing to return to the balanced and moderate principles laid out by Pope St Francis the Great, have taken great scandal and anxiety at the presumption of such claims – which have come to be known as Susanvacantism.


    These faithful (and moderate) conservatives feel that Susanvacantism is dangerous, and that it is their duty to warn their fellow Catholics.
    One such faithful and moderate (and balanced) conservative is Fredrik Tunaphisch, the editor of Catastrophe Magazine.

    Catastrophe Magazine, along with other similar anti-Susan outlets like Galatians 3.1 (and to a lesser extent The Leftovers) have charted a sensible, prudent course – making sure that they are resolutely neither cold nor hot.



    See link for the rest of the story: SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers - by S.D. Wright (wmreview.org)

    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6789
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers
    « Reply #1 on: July 22, 2024, 10:35:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I know that the article is satire, but I can't see the point of it. Can you explain it? Or am I the only one who doesn't get it?
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Sylvanus Rinaldo

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 43
    • Reputation: +58/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers
    « Reply #2 on: July 22, 2024, 01:26:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Thank you for sharing, this is probably the best satire I've ever read! The Babylon Bee and The Onion have nothing on this one! :laugh1:
    Very entertaining and thoughtful treatment of such a polarizing topic. Regardless of what position you have on the crisis, I think you'd still have to admit this was very clever. 
    Logged
    Matthew 10: 38 And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.

    Offline MiserereMei

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 209
    • Reputation: +124/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers
    « Reply #3 on: July 22, 2024, 02:00:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • This reminds me of the quote "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows".
    Logged

    Offline Comrade

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 192
    • Reputation: +87/-19
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers
    « Reply #4 on: July 22, 2024, 02:32:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on July 22, 2024, 10:35:49 AM
    I know that the article is satire, but I can't see the point of it. Can you explain it? Or am I the only one who doesn't get it?
    They are comparing the primary disqualifier attribute of the Pope Susan, a woman,  to the primary disqualifier of Francis, his manifest formal heresy. Just replace Susan with Francis and replace woman with manifest heretic. It is the same narrative, the same arguments that someone like Michael Matt would make.
    Logged

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 767
    • Reputation: +334/-140
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers
    « Reply #5 on: July 22, 2024, 04:13:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • May Pope St. Susan the Great the First be forever in our happy memories - and be on the watch for pesky Susan-deniers who do nothing but get under your skin.  
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6789
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers
    « Reply #6 on: July 22, 2024, 04:38:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Comrade on July 22, 2024, 02:32:48 PM
    They are comparing the primary disqualifier attribute of the Pope Susan, a woman,  to the primary disqualifier of Francis, his manifest formal heresy. Just replace Susan with Francis and replace woman with manifest heretic. It is the same narrative, the same arguments that someone like Michael Matt would make.

    Okay, thanks. But it seems that the only viable option in the article, even looking at it through satire, is that Pope Susan is not the Pope. But we know that the author of the piece is not a sedevacantist [Mr. Wright], so it's a bit confusing, if you see what I mean. I may not be reading it right. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4036
    • Reputation: +2380/-521
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers
    « Reply #7 on: July 22, 2024, 05:52:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on July 22, 2024, 04:38:59 PM
    But we know that the author of the piece is not a sedevacantist [Mr. Wright]
    .

    Um, I think he is. :confused:
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6789
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers
    « Reply #8 on: July 22, 2024, 06:05:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2024, 05:52:35 PM
    .

    Um, I think he is. :confused:

    Now that you mention it, maybe he isn't. If not, it would just be an odd coincidence. :smirk:
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline MiserereMei

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 209
    • Reputation: +124/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SUSANVACANTISM: The Spiritual Dangers
    « Reply #9 on: July 22, 2024, 06:33:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • This shows in the webpage about the satire:
    Disclaimer – The following article is satire. Satire, of its nature, can be biting – but it's intended with the best wishes towards those satirised. I hope that it may make our position clearer to those who do not understand it; and may make the objects of the satire re-evaluate their own positions.

    This article was originally published for us at [color=var(--print_pop)]Crisis in the Church[/iurl] without attribution. I have lightly updated it.[/i][/font][/size][/color]
    Logged
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »