Quick Q

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Donna' post='955174' date='Apr 20 2006, 11:33 AM']
Golden, it means that the previous Councils' dotctrinal position must be held. For example, the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be messed with. If anyone does...look over the particular doctrine in the whole time-line of the Church.

I must say I'm even more concerned than before, if you've a page and only purport to be dabbling, plus haven't read M. Davies (whom I disagree with on things, too)...but that's the basics, man.[/quote]
I understand Mr. Davies arguments, I just haven't read the whole of that particular book yet. I do plan to soon. I don't think he has covered nearly all of the issues, though so it takes more than just him to understand things. I personally have found other non-sede arguments to be much stronger than his. I have a site, because I write about what I believe in and why I believe it. I have not put any sede arguments on there as of yet because I am not 100% sure yet. All I have are arguments for basic Catholic teaching ie. Peter as the 1st Pope, The Eucharist, and the Church's teaching on abortion all proven from Scripture. I say I dabble because I do not have a Theology degree(though hope to get one some years down the road). I have been assured that my papers so far are within commonly accepted Catholic teaching. I don't think a person needs to be an expert on what interests them, but I think as long as someone has a decent understanding of something that they want others to believe, they can write things to try to convince others. There are many people here that are involved in apologetics that don't study it for their life's work, do not have a degree in it, is something that is a part-time thing for them. Same with me.

[quote]Please remember from Ecclesiasticus, the warning to not go into too high/hard to understannd things.[/quote]
Definitely, absolutely. Since this is so easy to see and understand for me right now and is taking WAY more brain cells to try and reconcile things that have happened, I have continued with the search.

[quote]I don't mean that as a cop out. But the sede position is impossible! One might as well just throw themselves into a pit willingly.[/quote]

That's what I used to think. Even pre-Vatican II theology books say that a sedevacantist should not be considered in schism though, and this is before VII ever even happened and before there was any speculation of problems. St. Robert Bellarmine said it could happen as well. So I don't think it untenable. The question is, is it happening now.

[quote]Just for the record: There's no doubt in my mind that Vatican II was convoked and promulgated by Popes.[/quote]
And I'm not so sure. It is possible for me that Paul VI was pope when he began the council, but lost it during. This is a theory that has been put out there, but I'm not sure I agree with that.

[quote]So is that one of the arguments? (I'm being rhetorical, I think I'll check out the link you gave of the debate)...that a Council which has been like no others couldn't happen unless the seat of Peter is empty?[/quote]

Well no not really. It's much more complex than that, but that's a small part of it. I can't go into detail here as I think it against forum rules, but you can check it out there if you wish.

[quote]This bothers me, the whole sede thing. It leads nowhere but to electing your own pope. AND, this is coming from one who does understand why people could be so confused at this time, and has a lot in common as far as traditional liturgy, catechism, etc; with the sedes.[/quote]

Again I hear ya. I was strong Church Militant up until very recently here. So I know exactly what you are saying. But I am seeing things differently now.

[jasJis]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='955378' date='Apr 20 2006, 03:25 PM']Again I hear ya. I was strong Church Militant up until very recently here. So I know exactly what you are saying. But I am seeing things differently now.[/quote]Chuckle. I hear ya too. :

[Donna]

Goldenchild, I heard everything you said. I appreciate your responses - especially the first one. Your barrier (a degree) of who is not a dabbler is quite high!

I don't understand how being sedevacantist isn't equated with schism; I don't think that's possible. That said, I'm sure you know my take on things, and concern for your soul - but at this point, it didn't seem helpful to spell that out.
++++++++++++++++

jasJis!!!!! It's great to see you!

What CAN you mean by that post, and your new title? Hey man, I'm in remission from having been so sick...I must post this soon on Open Mic.

[Donna]

Goldenchild,

I went to the site and skimmed the debate. There doesn't seem to be a debate, just analysis of "subsists", and stuff on the roman vs. english/ICEL-approved canon. I'm familiar with this stuff; have copy of the de defictibus decree and etc;

I don't think these guys are very far into stuff, I've seen a lot worse. May be hope yet here.

I don't know that I can add anything on that board; it's the same stuff I've seen non sede Trads write insofar as ambiguity in certain Vatican II document terms, the old Mass and etc; But the non-sede's don't believe the seat is empty.

PS: when I said becoming sede is like throwing oneself into a pit willingly, I mean the legistics alone are staggering; what, there are about 1/999 th of "true" priests then? All that kind of stuff, the apostolic succession. I will NOT believe that, that Our Lord'd make it THAT HARD - and it's already dang hard enough - to find/practice the Faith.
And who of the sede leadership is sound?

See, this is a problem, and it exitsts in Trad (and non-Trad!) non-sede circles. You take someone like B. Williamson, who'd have people moving to only a few places in the country in order to educate their children, it's quite clear enough that is what he thinks, decrying surburbia and promoting the Catholic village/leave the city thing - all the while counting on suburbanite professionals to donate alms.

The Indult crowd (depending on who) can be no better, the YOKE they can exact is crazy: repeat crazy. I mean, according to Solange Hertz, at least some years back, EVERY marital act is at least a venial sin. Omilord and the rants about wicked women wearing pants (and not in front of the Blessed Sacrament, mind you), blah blah blah.

It's as if many do not belivie the Faith, esp. the doctrine of "necessary ocassion of sins" -like public school. We'd dang well believe Our Lord'll get us thru this, Faith intact, cause the whole world is a necessary ocassion of sin it seems. And clergy are not gods: Our Lady said a diabolical disorientation'd come over the clergy, well Trads are no exception. Everyone must prove themselves, every last one. And no one - no last one - will be impeccable.

So...it has behooved me to read a lot over the years and get a good smatttering of what the "stars" are saying, whether they be EWTN, Liberal, Indult, Conservative, SSPX. Every one of us needs to keep this in mind, particularly when we're in a situation where we've become the wandering Jew, searching. I reckon every serious Catholic will face this in these times, whatever form it manifests as.

Just a couple questions, they shouldn't offend phorum guidelines: if they do, I beg PM's pardon! But does the sedevacantist position differentiate between papal authority having the power to do something vs. the right to? Do they view this in general (father of a family; civil power holders: police, mayor)? What do they say about St. Peter screwing up big time, both before and after Pentecost? Was the Church "sede" until St. Peter repented or what?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

jas,

Your sig bums me out... and I guess answers my query. But I'm glad to see ya still.

Sigh.

G' Night all...

~Please remember how DISFIGURED Our Lord's Holy Face was during the Passion - few recognized Him for Who He is. He said "You will be scandalized in Me"... and the Bride Church will follow in His footsteps.

*Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us, now, and at the hour of our death! Amen.* Keep the Faith!

Edited April 21, 2006 by Donna

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Donna' post='955692' date='Apr 20 2006, 09:10 PM']
Goldenchild, I heard everything you said. I appreciate your responses - especially the first one. Your barrier (a degree) of who is not a dabbler is quite high!

I don't understand how being sedevacantist isn't equated with schism; I don't think that's possible. That said, I'm sure you know my take on things, and concern for your soul - but at this point, it didn't seem helpful to spell that out.[/quote]

Yes I understand and thanks for that. The more people concerned for me the better . As far as why it should not be considered schism is because there is not even one doctrine of the Church that we deny. We resist the people who currently attempt to occupy the seat of Peter, but we do not reject the seat of Peter. We know that the Papacy is real, a position instituted by God. We believe that the Pope cannot teach heresy in his capacity as Pope through the extraordinary magisterium of his ex cathedra statements or through the ordinary magisterium of his teaching encyclicals. I believe the second has occurred with these men. Do I believe they are not Pope because they teach and hold to certain heresies? I don't know. I do believe that they believe in and teach heresies, but I think that after Paul VI, they were never Pope to begin with. I think Paul VI himself started out to as a true Pope but gave up his position in his statement at Vatican II. That is what I believe right now.

But just because we don't believe these men are Pope does not make us schismatics as that fully accepted Theology book says, because we question these men's claim to the seat of Peter, but we do not question the seat of Peter itself. It has been declared that the seat of Peter exists and is true, and is as such a doctrine that we cannot deny. That Benedict, John Paul II and the couple guys before them are true popes has not been declared a doctrine of the Church.

Donna, Yes the discussion there is just getting started. My research has gone much much further and there is much I want to cover first. We are currently only at the matter of "subsists in" but have not recieved a decent explanation of it. That for me, is a huge issue and could make the case all by itself. And it has recieved no opposition as of yet. This disturbs me a little. If it is so easy to explain, why hasn't it been? With that, I invite you to go over there, and if you don't care to, then we should probably stop discussing in this thread as I see it can only evolve into a debate between Catholics and that isn't allowed here.

Edited April 21, 2006 by goldenchild17

[qfnol31]

Wow, I'm curious about this "we" you've been talking about...people you know in person or online?

[goldenchild17]

When I say "we" in that last post, I give basic sedevacantist views. I understand there are some differences between different people, which makes sense as this is not a doctrine, but simply an understanding of the current situation, and we don't have the whole story, and until we do we will realistically have some differences in the way we see it.

My discussion over at my message board consists of people on different boards that I have asked to take part there.

[phatcatholic]

[b][color="#FF0000"]note from moderator:[/color][/b]

i want to thank everyone for how they have handled this thread so far. i think this thread can continue b/c it has the spirit of seeking truth and understanding, instead of contention. however, some debating will invariably need to be done. i suggest that such debate take place at goldenchild's board:

www.fidesetvirtus.com/forum

we need as many knowledgable people as possible to go there and help our fellow brothers. goldenchild needs us. of course, sincere questions can continue to take place here.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

Thanks. Yeah I tried to keep this as a simply inquisitive thread. I just wanted to understand how the documents of this council are to be viewed as it has an effect on my overall beliefs(I'll explain why in the discussion on my board if you want). No intention to start a debate. I am in serious need of trying to figure this all out though, so anybody that can jump over there and help out that would be great, thanks.

P.S. My site is currently down for just a short time as Lunarpages is upgrading the servers or some such thing. Keep checking back and it should be back up before too long.