Debating Sedevacantism: Part II

This video series considers the sedevacantist controversy from a presuppositional perspective. It is my contention that sedevacantists do not embrace the same presuppositions as those in communion with Rome. This leads almost inevitably to differences in both thought and deed. Part one is dedicated to discussing presuppositions and the role they play both in how we think and how we act. Part two applies these considerations to specific arguments made by a sedevacantist on YouTube by the name of Ken Bird.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• debating sedevacantism
• kenbird1
• catholic apologetics
• paleocrat
• jeremiah bannister

[YourFriendSteve]

MANY were MARTYRED for attending the True and Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This “NO church” is drinking their blood in these NO feasts. Rev. 17:4-7!

[paleocrat]

@YourFriendSteve Sede martyrs? Really? The primary form of persecution endured by sedes is, by and large, those things logically following their position, their words, and their judgment of others both public and private. They is no great tribulation for them. There is audacity and there is a backlash to that audacity. The claims, the phrases, the tone, all tend to result in passionate replies and reactions. This is only a surprise to sedes.

[YourFriendSteve]

I understand your "presupposition theory" quite well. However, your comparison between the Arians and the sedevacantists is nonsense. The Arians were heretical and the Trinitarian dogma was yet to be defined. The Sedes on the other hand, are simply living in accordance to already defined dogma and time honored Tradition, while Rome is clearly apostate and heretical. (You have the roles reversed. Rome today is like the Arian) Either the Church has been wrong until Vatican II or wrong since.

[YourFriendSteve]

@YourFriendSteve You have a great talent in articulation, but one of the problems with being a great talker is; you can talk yourself into things. Try thinking more. Try to stop viewing sedevacantists as CMRI, MHFM, SSPV, etc. Try to stop viewing the Church as a membership-card club. Try to stop viewing sedevacantism as protestantism. Try to understand that it is each persons responsibility, before God and by cooperation with Him, to bring his soul to Heaven.

[paleocrat]

@YourFriendSteve I do not believe sedes to be Protestants, at least not categorically. And I do not merely view them as individuals in association with religious orders. Such was only used to prove a point and that being that association is arbitrary, non-essential, and lacking any authority.

[paleocrat]

@YourFriendSteve Thanks for your comments. I maintain that the comparison works in so far as it was intended. It only demonstrates that any group, Arian or otherwise, could invoke the same standards without doing injury to said standards. Laicized methodology, private judgment, theological opinion, etc. 

[YourFriendSteve]

@paleocrat I listened very carefully to all of your videos on this matter before commenting, and I believe that you are missing the soul of this issue because you are seeing sedevacantism in an "ideological" sense and not a “fact or fiction” sense. Let’s forget the analogies for now. Was V2 heretical or not? Is B16 a heretic or not? The answer to these questions will settle whether sedevacante is FACT or FICTION.

[YourFriendSteve]

@paleocrat I wasn't calling sede's martyrs. Please read this in context of the other posts. it is a continuation of the rant on the novus ordo.

[YourFriendSteve]

The only way for him to do so, is to be a member of Christ’s Church. This Church has given us our instruction. FOR 1960 YEARS the Mass had been the same (and truly, still is), but if any saint, from St. Peter to St. Pius X could witness Benedict XVI celebrating the “NO mass” he would call him and any participant a heretic. MANY were MARTYRED in England, during the Reformation, for their refusal to participate in such ceremonies.

[paleocrat]

@PersonVanInternetz I still believe that there are serious problems. I grant that many of the concerns maintained by sedes are legit. The issue is not whether or not we should fight for a breakthrough. Instead, it is what kind of breakthrough, and how such a breakthrough ought to be fought for and brought about.

I know everything? When did I ever insist as much? And what sede presupposition did I miss? These videos are narrowly tailored, not exhaustive. I admitted as much outright.