Author Topic: Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum  (Read 2869 times)

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum
« Reply #60 on: April 21, 2022, 06:14:43 PM »
Maybe the reform that is needed of The Sacred Sciences (renaming it to make sense, and enforcement of rules, or some sort of enforced participation standard) could include the addition of similar board for specific Council and Decrees discussions.

The whole idea that questions whether a council, decree, or Pope has contradicting another is an open invitation to the Sedevacantist debate, otherwise, the idea that there can be any real contradiction on doctrine could be dismissed entirely.


Online Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 10318
  • Thanked: 10278 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum
« Reply #61 on: April 21, 2022, 06:18:10 PM »
T.D.
The board is "SSPX" friendly site; and the position of the SSPX is that there are serious errors in the Council documents; so the calling into question of said documents is in keeping with the rules, as long as one doesn't drag in the sed argument.
The SSPX does not hold to the sed position and in fact is hostile to it.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Larry

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum
« Reply #62 on: April 21, 2022, 06:28:52 PM »
T.D.
The SSPX does not hold to the sed position and in fact is hostile to it.

The facts indicate that the progression of discussion is well established. Also, the SSPX position is hostile to the Sedevacantist position because it is clearly differentiating itself: it is a very small jump from perceiving issues with the Council documents to seeing heresy in them and imputing that to the prelates. This is clearly evident within the SSPX so the distinction is very plain and clear for this reason.

Discussions on this matter here are very much topics of interest to those who hold, promote, or are considering the Sedevacantist Thesis.

But even so, SSPX position discussions are very much a "Church politics" discussion, and that muddies the Philosophical and Sacred Sciences I think, unless the purpose of the board is to have endless disputes about politics in the Church, it probably doesn't belong there.

Given that the Council does not define doctrines, whatever discussions people have about them will be about interpretations and politics: regardless of what people claim, there is nothing new.

Offline Justin Martyr

  • Slave of Mary
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1376
  • Thanked: 970 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum
« Reply #63 on: April 21, 2022, 07:01:43 PM »
Maybe the reform that is needed of The Sacred Sciences (renaming it to make sense, and enforcement of rules, or some sort of enforced participation standard) could include the addition of similar board for specific Council and Decrees discussions.

The whole idea that questions whether a council, decree, or Pope has contradicting another is an open invitation to the Sedevacantist debate, otherwise, the idea that there can be any real contradiction on doctrine could be dismissed entirely.

To be fair, there is a difference between a thread on "Here are two different magisterial texts which appear to contradict themselves. Do they contradict? How do we reconcile them?" and a thread on "Here's a BLATANT contradiction. CHECKMATE Vatican II sect. Go ahead and do your mental gymnastics NEO-CATHOLICS."

The former is a legitimate discussion to understand what distinctions to make. The latter is anti-catholic posting.
One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and declared her most blessed: the queens and concubines, and they praised her. Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?
The Canticle of Canticles, 6:8-9

While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal — who allow scandals to destroy faith —are guilty of spiritual suicide.
St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy
 

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum
« Reply #64 on: April 21, 2022, 07:20:11 PM »
To be fair, there is a difference between a thread on "Here are two different magisterial texts which appear to contradict themselves. Do they contradict?

That is true.

In practice though, on traditional Catholic forums, the tendency to reduce everything to a Vatican II discussion is strong. I specifically avoid Church politics to avoid this issue because it is old and boring, sometimes dangerous, and rehashed so many times it is no longer identifiable.

Maybe a new board for such discussions on comparing specific texts like that would make sense with a similar design to the board in question. The Non-Catholic Discussion Subforum could be repurposed for it. 


Online Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 10318
  • Thanked: 10278 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum
« Reply #65 on: April 21, 2022, 07:22:48 PM »
T.D.
Quote
Given that the Council does not define doctrines, whatever discussions people have about them will be about interpretations and politics: regardless of what people claim, there is nothing new.
That the "Council does not define doctrines" i.e. Teach them with full authority, is the position of the SSPX. They also hold that one then can legitimately reject Council documents without calling into question the authority of the office holders or the Church itself. Since the Church authorities have repeatedly called on the SSPX to accept the documents, for the SSPX discussion of their orthodoxy is not about politics, but vital to legitimize their apostolate and very existence.
J.M.
Quote
Here's a BLATANT contradiction. CHECKMATE Vatican II sect. Go ahead and do your mental gymnastics NEO-CATHOLICS."
The former is a legitimate discussion to understand what distinctions to make. The latter is anti-catholic posting.
The same goes for this. The SSPX basis its existence and resistance to the Council on the non-reconciliability (new word?) of the Conciliar and pre-Conciliar teaching.  So from their point of view, trying to reconcile the two does amount to said gymnastics.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Larry

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum
« Reply #66 on: April 23, 2022, 03:16:58 PM »
Further clarification is needed: does the Sedevacantist Thesis include all infinite possible "the apparent Pope is not actually the Pope" claims, discussions, and debates including those views which hold some other person to actually be the Pope?


Offline Justin Martyr

  • Slave of Mary
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1376
  • Thanked: 970 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum
« Reply #67 on: April 23, 2022, 03:21:57 PM »
Further clarification is needed: does the Sedevacantist Thesis include all infinite possible "the apparent Pope is not actually the Pope" claims, discussions, and debates including those views which hold some other person to actually be the Pope?

I would say yes. Previously followers of Pope Michael have been banned in the past for promoting their position. His Majesty can give a definitive answer.
One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and declared her most blessed: the queens and concubines, and they praised her. Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?
The Canticle of Canticles, 6:8-9

While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal — who allow scandals to destroy faith —are guilty of spiritual suicide.
St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy