Author Topic: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism (Read 8083 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #75 on:** November 05, 2023, 04:53:33 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 04, 2023, 09:34:09 PM

Here's another good one:

Of course he's trying to appropriate DR's point as a defense of Orthodoxy, but his dismissal of the distinction between potency and act (which he obviously knows nothing about) for him reduces to "imaginary". This discredits him immediately.

Analogy is that same as between the body and soul. Souls in Heaven still have it of their essence to have a body, even though they currently lack one. This then translates into their having "imaginary" bodies? What an idiot ... but then heresy does that to people. They have bodies in potency, thought not currently in act. This does not mean they have "imaginary" bodies.

Of course, this doesn't address the real distinction between a potentiality and an actuality. Obviously, a potentiality is not an actuality; something that is currently a potentiality is not currently an actuality. The indefectibility of the Church as a body includes the teaching that it would always be a physical or material actuality with a governing hierarchy in every "present" time until Our Lord's return. And a governing hierarchy doesn't require a pope always alive on the seat, so times of sede vacante can't be used as precedent for a situation where there is no ordinary with jurisdiction with a real power of governing who possesses the Catholic faith and is not in schism with an antipope and heresiarchs.

And can't you make a point or argument without tossing off labels like "idiot" (or "heretic" - when addressing some of us fellow Catholics here)? I'd be careful about at whom you toss that particular "idiot" label, as it appears to be a boomerang term for you.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #76 on:** November 05, 2023, 05:06:45 AM »

The Crisis is rather easily understood if you simply don't insist on putting square pegs in round holes.

Quote

2 Thessalonians 2

6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth . . .

As Cardinal Manning accurately read the Scriptures, the "withholder" of the darkness was the Church/pope/hierarchy. God told us it would be "taken out of the way," and it has been. When it was there during the time God willed it to be there, it was Truth, Light, the restrainer of Darkness, indefectible, infallible in its guidance. IT'S GONE. We were told it would be GONE one day. Behold, this is the day.

To carry forth the analogy, the peg is no longer of the same dimensions as the hole . . . as revealed and promised. Don't try to fit what won't fit.

Have eyes and ears, and see and hear.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #77 on:** November 05, 2023, 05:24:22 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2023, 05:06:45 AM

The Crisis is rather easily understood if you simply don't insist on putting square pegs in round holes.

As Cardinal Manning accurately read the Scriptures, the "withholder" of the darkness was the Church/pope/hierarchy. God told us it would be "taken out of the way," and it has been. When it was there during the time God willed it to be there, it was Truth, Light, the restrainer of Darkness, indefectible, infallible in its guidance. IT'S GONE. We were told it would be GONE one day. Behold, this is the day.

To carry forth the analogy, the peg is no longer of the same dimensions as the hole . . . as revealed and promised. Don't try to fit what won't fit.

Have eyes and ears, and see and hear.

Or rather, the Holy Ghost in and working through the Church/pope/hierarchy - the soul united with the spiritually living body.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #78 on:** November 05, 2023, 05:42:47 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2023, 05:06:45 AM

The Crisis is rather easily understood if you simply don't insist on putting square pegs in round holes.

As Cardinal Manning accurately read the Scriptures, the "withholder" of the darkness was the Church/pope/hierarchy. God told us it would be "taken out of the way," and it has been. When it was there during the time God willed it to be there, it was Truth, Light, the restrainer of Darkness, indefectible, infallible in its guidance. IT'S GONE. We were told it would be GONE one day. Behold, this is the day.

To carry forth the analogy, the peg is no longer of the same dimensions as the hole . . . as revealed and promised. Don't try to fit what won't fit.

Have eyes and ears, and see and hear.

And this is why Pontrello himself is wrong and in error for rejecting the Catholic Church as a result of, or in light of, the present crisis. He sees the contradiction between the Church at present and what was said about her - infallible, indefectible, etc. - and therefore rejects the Catholic Church and her claims as false - since they no longer hold true. But, again, God said a time would come when they would not hold true: the abomination of desolation would stand "in the holy place."

In light of God's word, it is a false move to insist, or have an understanding, of the Church or the "holy place" as one that would never have defect, or, as Scripture says, have an abomination in it. God says otherwise.

Pontrello is essentially rejecting the "holy place" (the Catholic Church) because it fulfills the Word of God by having an abomination stand within it. Say what??????

The "holy place" was indeed "holy" before the standing of the abomination in it, thus the designation "holy."

Now, he can argue that at various times the Catholic Church departed from truth on various doctrinal points, but that's a different argument than one that the Catholic Church is in contradiction to the word of God by its present state of being overrun by the Conciliar heresies. Such a present state would, as stated, be in accordance with what God said and predicted.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #79 on:** November 05, 2023, 07:03:56 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2023, 05:42:47 AM

And this is why Pontrello himself is wrong and in error for rejecting the Catholic Church as a result of, or in light of, the present crisis. He sees the contradiction between the Church at present and what was said about her - infallible, indefectible, etc. - and therefore rejects the Catholic Church and her claims as false - since they no longer hold true. But, again, God said a time would come when they would not hold true: the abomination of desolation would stand "in the holy place."

In light of God's word, it is a false move to insist, or have an understanding, of the Church or the "holy place" as one that would never have defect, or, as Scripture says, have an abomination in it. God says otherwise.

Pontrello is essentially rejecting the "holy place" (the Catholic Church) because it fulfills the Word of God by having an abomination stand within it. Say what??????

The "holy place" was indeed "holy" before the standing of the abomination in it, thus the designation "holy."

Now, he can argue that at various times the Catholic Church departed from truth on various doctrinal points, but that's a different argument than one that the Catholic Church is in contradiction to the word of God by its present state of being overrun by the Conciliar heresies. Such a present state would, as stated, be in accordance with what God said and predicted.

From what I can tell, Pontrello started his journey into heresy by falsely claiming that Pius IX taught salvation by invincible ignorance. I actually knew a guy, a sedevacantist, who decided that Pius IX was a non-pope for this same (misinterpretation of his) teaching. That's what actually gave me pause about dogmatic sedevacantism and led me ultimately toward sedeprivationism, which finds the right balance between a heretic being disqualified from papal office and the need for the intervention of Church authority. In any case, though, Pontrello took it to the next step, rejecting papal infallibility, and then ended up in Eastern Orthodoxy.

But, yes, this great apostasy has been foretold from the early days of the Church and is to be expected. If you acknowledge this, and then examine the claims of the Catholic Church to be the True Church of Christ objectively up until the great apostasy time of Vatican II (which was also foretold short term by Our Lady of Fatima), the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy don't stand up. EO is a joke, where they have fragmented "doctrine", make up stupidity out of thin air like about how people can get divorced 3 times, etc. And the Patristic evidence is overwhelming in support of the Primacy of the See of St. Peter over the other Sees. If one objectively examines the evidence, Eastern Orthodoxy is a joke.

Since Pontrello seems to read CathInfo, I appeal to you, John, to put aside your heresy. You cannot save your soul as Eastern Orthodox. And what's making it worse is that you're attempting to spread this heresy publicly to others. Please recant and return to the True Faith established by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #80 on:** November 05, 2023, 07:06:56 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2023, 04:53:33 AM

Of course, this doesn't address the real distinction between a potentiality and an actuality. Obviously, a potentiality is not an actuality; something that is currently a potentiality is not currently an actuality. The indefectibility of the Church as a body includes the teaching that it would always be a physical or material actuality with a governing hierarchy in every "present" time until Our Lord's return. And a governing hierarchy doesn't require a pope always alive on the seat, so times of sede vacante can't be used as precedent for a situation where there is no ordinary with jurisdiction with a real power of governing who possesses the Catholic faith and is not in schism with an antipope and heresiarchs.

And can't you make a point or argument without tossing off labels like "idiot" (or "heretic" - when addressing some of us fellow Catholics here)? I'd be careful about at whom you toss that particular "idiot" label, as it appears to be a boomerang term for you.

You can argue about whether the distinction between potency and act applies to this scenario, as as you do here, but equating potency to being "imaginary" is in fact "idiotic". There's no mincing words there, and St. Jerome used much harsher terms for heretics like Pontrello in his day. We need to call a spade a spade and not pussy-foot around people like Pontrello, like the poster here who claimed that Pontrello has some legitimate points.

This distinction between act and potency as applied to the Church is seen also in periods of sedevacante. While there's a perpetual succession, and the papal office always remains in potency, it isn't always and at all times actualized as having A pope. This is why neither the papacy nor the perpetual succession is compromised by the death of a pope.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #81 on:** November 05, 2023, 08:09:52 AM »

I would like to ask Pontrello if he thinks the "Orthodox Church" can have the "abomination of desolation" standing in it. If he says "no," he's essentially denying it's the Church ("the holy place" of Matthew 24:15), or limiting its application to a past historical event, like the destruction of the Jєωιѕн Temple. I believe that would be an error that rejects the clear link between, e.g, the "abomination of desolation" of Matthew 24:15 and the Antichrist led "Great Apostasy" of

Quote

2 Th. 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.

The Orthodox have their own problems in also rejecting the Scriptural truth of an abomination of desolation "in the holy place" before Christ's return. And as I've said before, another problem for Orthodoxy is, where do you locate the "holy place" for purposes of understanding Mt 24:15. They have no central "holy place.""

If Pontrello says "yes," the Orthodox Church will one day have the "abomination of desolation" standing in the "holy place," that would be an interesting conversation indeed, because it is my understanding that the Orthodox likewise believe the Church to be indefectible. As I said above, I think they would make the prophecy of Mt 24:15 a past event, and in that I would say they deny the Scriptures.

I've read his book, and think Mr. Pontrello certainly a sincere and thoughtful guy who it'd be interesting to talk to. I'd have to go back and read his book, but I recall that he thinks Vatican I shows the pre-V2 Church itself to be false mainly because he claims that errors in the V2 ecuмenical council would belie the V1 claims about papal infallibility. I don't think so. I would agree with him that the claims of Catholic theologians pre-V2, ostensibly applying V1s teachings about papal infallibility, about what an ecuмenical council can and can't do would show a contradiction between V1 and the V2 event. But does V1 on its own terms itself show such a contradiction? I don't think so. But that's a ground for legitimate discussion.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #82 on:** November 05, 2023, 08:39:40 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2023, 08:09:52 AM

I've read his book, and think Mr. Pontrello certainly a sincere and thoughtful guy who it'd be interesting to talk to. I'd have to go back and read his book, but I recall that he thinks Vatican I shows the pre-V2 Church itself to be false mainly because he claims that errors in the V2 ecuмenical council would belie the V1 claims about papal infallibility. I don't think so. I would agree with him that the claims of Catholic theologians pre-V2, ostensibly applying V1s teachings about papal infallibility, about what an ecuмenical council can and can't do would show a contradiction between V1 and the V2 event. But does V1 on its own terms itself show such a contradiction? I don't think so. But that's a ground for legitimate discussion.

For example, Vatican I says this, which Pontrello cites at one point:

Quote

DZ 1792 [The object of faith] .Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.

Where did V2 do that in contradiction to something also previously "proposed by the Church . . . to be believed as divinely revealed"?

John, come on over. I don't think Matthew would mind, as long as you treated Catholicism with respect and engaged in respectful argument.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #83 on:** November 05, 2023, 03:29:02 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2023, 05:42:47 AM

And this is why Pontrello himself is wrong and in error for rejecting the Catholic Church as a result of, or in light of, the present crisis.

We can't understate this, even for his own good. Pontrello is a heretic, and a non-Catholic, outside the Church of Christ and cannot be saved until he converts back to the True Church founded by Christ. Charity requires that we not soft-pedal this and let him remain complacent ... unto the damnation of his soul. You said also above that he's "sincere". No, he's not. He had the Catholic faith or at least professed it at one time, and there's no case for sincerity that could be made there. It would be one thing if someone had been raised Eastern Orthodox to argue sincerity, but that can never be the case for someone who had been a Catholic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #84 on:** November 05, 2023, 03:30:57 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2023, 08:39:40 AM

John, come on over. I don't think Matthew would mind, as long as you treated Catholicism with respect and engaged in respectful argument.

He has no business here if he'll be prosletyzing for his heresy. We're not about dialoging with heretics here, ala the spirit of Vatican II. And with Pontrello, it's not a question of objective heresy, but formal heresy, since denies the foundations for the formal motive of faith, the very principles on which supernatural faith rests, the teaching authority of the Church as centralized in the Holy See.

Author Topic: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism (Read 8083 times)

DecemRationis

Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism

DecemRationis

Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism

DecemRationis

Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism

DecemRationis

Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism

DecemRationis

Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism

DecemRationis

Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism