I have evolved, don't think or believe as I did years ago RE Christianity, etc..

[discombobulated1]

Stay with Rome. Find a faithful traditional Latin Mass, receive confession and the Eucharist regularly.

Christ will never abandon his Church.

what are your thoughts on SSPX?

I had a great confession there once... NOT so great in NO Churches for the last several years!

 

[RileyG]

what are your thoughts on SSPX?

I had a great confession there once... NOT so great in NO Churches for the last several years!

It’s valid but irregular.

 

[discombobulated1]

It’s valid but irregular.

I say the NO is quite irregular

Like i say elsewhere: just because Jesus has not abandoned the NO entirely, does not mean He is "happy" with it

 

[RileyG]

I say the NO is quite irregular

Like i say elsewhere: just because Jesus has not abandoned the NO entirely, does not mean He is "happy" with it

I agree to a certain extent.

 

[discombobulated1]

I agree to a certain extent.

I hear ya. These days, the situation in the Church causes so much confusion, all we can say sometimes are things like "to a certain extent."

I hate the division. Jesus does also, presumably.

Jesus hates a lot of the dumb things humans do but my guess is He's particularly grieved by all the division caused by V2.

 

[JSRG]

(I just now noticed that reference to a follow up article. Thanks again.)

I have read through maybe 1/4 of that info you gave me. I must have been very tired and/or distracted the first time I tried to read it because I was getting lost.. LONG sentences, etc, but today I was getting it fairly well. It (strangely) doesn't help that it is somewhat repetitious, but in any case, I am getting the answers I have been looking for. (I used to call those answers "pieces of the puzzle that are missing.")

The thing is, though, I am not so sure I am dissuaded (yet) from Derksen's position. but I am not done reading.

I found out in the material that some Sedes go back to the middle ages to find the last true pope! I always thought it was Pope Pius XII and that Sedes agreed on that. Still, I don't think most Sedes go back that far. I'm wondering if you have ever been Sede?

Previously I did mention to you how although the idea that Pius XII was the last pope was the most common position among sedevacantists, it was hardly the only one, with some claiming he, too, was an invalid pope, and thus you end up with some going back further, in some cases MUCH further (the farthest I ever saw anyone assert it was that the seat fell vacant in the 10th century). And then you have some who are willing to accept some of the popes after him as being valid popes. There's a lack of agreement, which ends up showing how arbitrary it is.

To answer your question, though, I've never been sede.

So other than that, I am still putting the found puzzle-pieces into the puzzle board so I get the whole picture (if possible). I'm wondering where you are at in all this?

My opinion on sedevacantism is that it's just Protestantism except without the intellectual honesty of Protestantism. It preaches that anyone can just decide on their own opinion that the pope is a heretic and therefore not pope. This is a position that makes perfect sense in Protestantism, where everyone exercising their private judgment on what's valid doctrine is a feature rather than a flaw--heck, Protestantism developed because of people concluding the pope was (in their view) a heretic and that popes had been heretical for so long that they should leave the church--but is incoherent from a Catholic perspective.

 

[discombobulated1]

Previously I did mention to you how although the idea that Pius XII was the last pope was the most common position among sedevacantists, it was hardly the only one, with some claiming he, too, was an invalid pope, and thus you end up with some going back further, in some cases MUCH further (the farthest I ever saw anyone assert it was that the seat fell vacant in the 10th century). And then you have some who are willing to accept some of the popes after him as being valid popes. There's a lack of agreement, which ends up showing how arbitrary it is.

To answer your question, though, I've never been sede.


My opinion on sedevacantism is that it's just Protestantism except without the intellectual honesty of Protestantism. It preaches that anyone can just decide on their own opinion that the pope is a heretic and therefore not pope. This is a position that makes perfect sense in Protestantism, where everyone exercising their private judgment on what's valid doctrine is a feature rather than a flaw--heck, Protestantism developed because of people concluding the pope was (in their view) a heretic and that popes had been heretical for so long that they should leave the church--but is incoherent from a Catholic perspective.

OK, thanks for this.. very interesting.

BTW I referred to you in the Kitchen Sink section under "I want to vent.." I felt you may have ditched me because you hadn't responded. But I didn't give your handle name or anything LOL

Anyway, the thing is that there are different kinds of heretics, as you know bc you presumably read that info you gave me?

I didn't know that even Notorious heretic has to be defined! I'm still reading through this stuff, but it really is like finding the missing pieces of an interesting puzzle you're trying to put together.

I guess the author (who is?) is saying that Sedes believe GOD himself can depose a heretical pope and if that happens (and you have to agree, this makes sense?) it is then ok to judge him since his heresy has pitched him outside the Church (my words) LOL. No heretic can be pope, which I guess Bellarmine taught. the only problem is that How do we know God has declared the pope a heretic?

The pope cannot be judged by anyone, according to Catholic doctrine, and yet God judges all... so this Sede argument makes sense.. (But again, I am still reading through all this.. )

 

[JSRG]

OK, thanks for this.. very interesting.

BTW I referred to you in the Kitchen Sink section under "I want to vent.." I felt you may have ditched me because you hadn't responded. But I didn't give your handle name or anything LOL

Well, your initial post had you mention you were midway through reading it, so I thought it would make some sense to wait a day or two and see what kind of conclusions you might have drawn after finishing it, as some of what you were saying were things I felt it addressed later on.

 

[discombobulated1]

Well, your initial post had you mention you were midway through reading it, so I thought it would make some sense to wait a day or two and see what kind of conclusions you might have drawn after finishing it, as some of what you were saying were things I felt it addressed later on.

I have a fairly high IQ and got a 3.6 avg in college which I tell you because that information you gave me is VERY hard to follow and even when I do follow it (I've learned quite a bit), I still don't ... let's say again: still don't get all the necessary pieces to this weird puzzle of knowing exactly how the Catholic Church deals with a notorious heretic. I also still don't know who even wrote that material.

It is not the best-written material I have ever read, to say the least, certainly not written for lay Catholics IMO. I have to read some sentences 2 or 3 times. Maybe that is one good thing about V2, btw, which Council some claim made things more understandable for the little person (not so clergy-focused).

Anyway, I am mucking my way through it, have almost finished, but had to skip over parts I did not really "get," hoping to go back later but geez...

I wish people would write for EVERYONE and not just 4 professional Catholic theologians/clergy

 

[JSRG]

I have a fairly high IQ and got a 3.6 avg in college which I tell you because that information you gave me is VERY hard to follow and even when I do follow it (I've learned quite a bit), I still don't ... let's say again: still don't get all the necessary pieces to this weird puzzle of knowing exactly how the Catholic Church deals with a notorious heretic. I also still don't know who even wrote that material.

The authors are listed at the very start of the article.

 

[discombobulated1]

The authors are listed at the very start of the article.

I guess I forgot to copy that part.

OK, but what about other things I have said?

 

[JSRG]

I guess I forgot to copy that part.

OK, but what about other things I have said?

Most of the things you've said seem to have been your reactions to things in it, but not really asking a question. Is there any specific thing from it you'd want a comment on?