|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 25, 2018 19:34:21 GMT -5
Great video from Father William Jenkins SSPV on Sedevacantism:
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 23:25:46 GMT -5
No doubt Fr. Jenkins is a very genuine Catholic and the fact that he is not a dogmatic sedevacantist is quite helpful in listening to his positions. Once can certainly appreciate how he presents his position and that he recognizes there will be differences over the position. If one has ever done so, it is very difficult to talk with a dogmatic sedevacantist. However, I do take issue with a few things he said I'd like to present here.
Fr. Jenkins stated Sede Vacante occurs during the period of the death of one pope and the election of another. First, the administration of the Catholic Church falls to the college of cardinals during Sede Vacante. However, at 21:00 he stated, "The college of Cardinals is full of fake cardinals." Basically, not only would the see be vacant, but technically there is absolutely no government of the Catholic Church left. Second, after the death of Pius XII, which is when the interregnum began, John XXIII was elected. This ended the interregnum after the death of Piux XII. There have been 6 popes elected since the death of Pius XII. To not accept any of these is something more than an interregnum or Sede Vacante.
The allusion to the 1200's and the three-year interregnum was due to there not having been an election. Once there was an election, there was a pope. Similarly, the "confusion" over multiple popes during the Great Western Schism was a real pope being challenged by an anti-pope. None of these situations describe what traditionalists hold to is happening since Vatican II.
Father Jenkins stated modernists contradict themselves, by saying men can believe their own way. Therefore, a modernist could not say traditionalism is false. This is true. However, doesn't the modernist follow the traditional position to believe the Church has always had a Pope in Rome? Can the traditionalist accuse the modernist for believing what the Church always believed, i.e there is a Pope in Rome? Therefore, can sedevacantists not concede the modernists are guilty of doing what the Church has always done, recognize the Pope as the head and granting him the obedience they were taught to give?
His idea of a modernist Catholic is certainly a lot broader than would be expected, particularly when he talked about the modernists wanting the Traditionalists to give up their idea of "one true faith." There are many Catholics, whom I am sure he'd call a modernist, who believe there is only one, true, Catholic faith, there is only One God and Lord, etc. His comparison of the Roman Empire with today's modernists is quite a bit far-fetched. I think pressed a little bit, he'd have to temper his rhetoric. I would've like to have seen a more thorough definition of what he believes a modernist is. The modernist he describes does not sound like one person I've ever met who claimed to be Catholic (that I think he'd call a modernist.)
As the father stated, if the church can exist for a minute or a year or a generation without a pope, then I'd ask why can't the church just exist in perpetuity without one? Haven't traditionalists successfully shown, that even despite the continued election of false claimants, who in fact are not popes, the church rolls right along without one? It seems to me, sedevacantists are doing just fine explaining the true faith to everyone without a pope or magisterium to clear it up.
In the end I would ask father, who cut off the succession line? The Church, which claims it is still there or the traditionalists who refuse to accept the succession line of the Cardinals? I find it interesting, after all of the lambasting Modernists for acknowledging people have a right to their own faith or belief, etc; he concludes to say one is entitled to the opinion the Vicar of Christ is not the Vicar of Christ. I found that to be quite a dichotomy.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 26, 2018 5:27:51 GMT -5
Not sure which video you watched? The cardinals are representatives of the priests of Rome. He broght up the fake cardinals as a problem for sedes but does not say he belives them all fake. The point about the interregnum could be a minute or a millenium is spot on and you dont have Catholic source to say otherwise. This is your opinion that such a thing is impossible. As far as I can tell in my 25 years experience in Trad debates I dont know a single one who thinks "the church rolls merrily along" with out a Pope. Thats one of the most absurd things Ive ever read from you. And again I ask you why, as a Roman Catholic, do you not attend the N.O. MASS promulgated as you say by a True Pope? Father rightly points out its your position that is a dichotomy. Your actions betray your position.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 7:15:09 GMT -5
Coincidentally, I have actually scheduled a meeting with Fr. Jenkins for this evening about a closely-related topic. I'm sure this specific question will come up. Does anyone have any questions specific to this topic they would like me to ask him?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 26, 2018 9:43:51 GMT -5
Would he be willing to record a talk with me for the forum?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 10:27:42 GMT -5
I would imagine he would prefer a more formal approach by responding to written questions instead. I say that because that's the format I have seen him use. WCBOhio (What Catholics Believe, Ohio) takes emailed or mailed requested topics, which is the subject this video. He did a series of about 15 one hour question/answer segments on WFTS radio several years back, but the format is responding to written questions read to him by the host (like the format of Radio Replies). I think the purpose of this allows the question to be completely responded without turning it into a back-and-forth, argument, or debate. It's a question, so he answers it without interruption.
I could be completely wrong in just going off past formats he's used. Are you at liberty to tell me what the subject of the call would be about? I will try to find the "Questions from You" from WFTS Radio online and see if I can post them on this forum...
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 26, 2018 12:11:01 GMT -5
First off there is zero chance of me being adversarial...second off I dont see the danger in a casual unscripted NOT live 15 or 30 min conversation. Thirdly he would be helping out a good trad forum. Finally my conversation would stick to the topic "what are the faithfuls options and responsabilitys vis vis the Crisis"
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 12:43:01 GMT -5
I'm not saying he wouldn't do it out of fear of you being adversarial; I'm just going off the format he typically employs. I can only guess thats because he prefers the question-answer format as opposed to the discussion format. But who knows? I'll ask him...
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 13:34:28 GMT -5
No doubt Fr. Jenkins is a very genuine Catholic and the fact that he is not a dogmatic sedevacantist is quite helpful in listening to his positions. Once can certainly appreciate how he presents his position and that he recognizes there will be differences over the position. If one has ever done so, it is very difficult to talk with a dogmatic sedevacantist. However, I do take issue with a few things he said I'd like to present here. Yes, I find this very refreshing. He is the same in person, too. As representatives of the clergy of Rome, they are a formulation of positive law. They are not necessary by divine law. The Church functioned for centuries with no cardinals. That's not true, unless we want to say the Church had no authority the moment St. Peter died. The responsibility fell to the local clergy of Rome, not to Cardinals, who are simply a positive law representation of that clergy. If ISIS bombed the entire College of Cardinals during a papal election, the Church could still continue. You should take a look at what Fr. O'Reilly, an eminent pre-Vatican II theologian, had to say on this matter. He disagrees. Again, Fr. O'Reilly points out that even if there hadn't been a pope during this 40 year period, the promises of Christ would not have been violated. Not in the sense we do, because they don't have the same concept of the papacy that we do. No, because the Modernists recognize the man as occupying the papacy of the Novus Ordo, which, while it purports to include the Catholic Church, is not strictly identical to it. Therefore, the office they say he holds we know can't be the same office of the papacy. Remember, like the thread I started on the SVist paradox, this all starts with the creation of a false church, not with the identity of the pope. His definition is from St. Pius X's encyclical Paacendi Dominici Grecis that exposed, defined, and explained Modernism and its practitioners. That's like saying that because a man can go without sleep for longer than he was designed to be able to, then why would he ever need to sleep again? Just because you can get along fine home alone with your siblings when your parents go out to dinner then there is no use in your parents ever coning back. A thing still retains a purpose even if outside factors intermittently prevent that purpose from achieving its full effect. Fr. Jenkins is not a SVist as you think he is, so you should ask a SVist that question. Well, the act of cutting precedes the effect of separation. The Novus Ordo revolution causally preceded the separation of traditionalists as an effect. So I think the answer is pretty clear on that one. It wasn't the traditionalists who built an un-apostolic liturgy, imposed an unholy code of Canon law, or adopted official policies that violate natural law. That's because divinely revealed truth is entirely separate from theological opinions that pertain to matters of dogmatic fact not yet settled by the Church. That's about 3 different categories worth of differences. [/quote][/quote]
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 14:09:08 GMT -5
Coincidentally, I have actually scheduled a meeting with Fr. Jenkins for this evening about a closely-related topic. I'm sure this specific question will come up. Does anyone have any questions specific to this topic they would like me to ask him? What is your topic and discussion on? I wouldn't want to post a question that is off topic for what is already set. Perhaps you can ask him if he'd be willing to field questions from members of a forum you are a member of? If he agrees, we could send you questions and he can take his time to respond and then you can post the Q&A format?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 26, 2018 15:40:35 GMT -5
Coincidentally, I have actually scheduled a meeting with Fr. Jenkins for this evening about a closely-related topic. I'm sure this specific question will come up. Does anyone have any questions specific to this topic they would like me to ask him? What is your topic and discussion on? I wouldn't want to post a question that is off topic for what is already set. Perhaps you can ask him if he'd be willing to field questions from members of a forum you are a member of? If he agrees, we could send you questions and he can take his time to respond and then you can post the Q&A format? That would be up to the admin and mods to organize...not members.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 15:41:11 GMT -5
Not sure which video you watched? The one you posted. It's not the first time I've seen this interview. The cardinals are representatives of the priests of Rome. He broght up the fake cardinals as a problem for sedes but does not say he belives them all fake. Do you believe them to all be fake? Which ones do you hold to be valid and how is it that they are valid? Fr. Jenkins said if there was a fraudulent pope who appoints fraudulent cardinals then there are fraudulent cardinals. As representatives of the priests of Rome, he stated without the college of cardinals or if the college was full of fake cardinals then there is a problem. The only option left is for a miracle of God to appoint a Pope. I didn't see in the video his explanation of which ones he said were valid and why. If he did this somewhere else I'd have to hear his explanation. When he said he agreed Msgr. Marso (sp) that he wasn't saying Paul VI or JPII were not popes, he didn't know how they could be. Clearly, if this is the case, (and he thinks it possible) then he can't possibly think these men somehow brought forth valid cardinals for the Church. The point about the interregnum could be a minute or a millenium is spot on and you dont have Catholic source to say otherwise. This is your opinion that such a thing is impossible. As far as I can tell in my 25 years experience in Trad debates I dont know a single one who thinks "the church rolls merrily along" with out a Pope. Thats one of the most absurd things Ive ever read from you. Once in a while voxx, I may interject a bit of exaggeration as a way of stating a point. Anyone who studies Church history knows that the Church has never rolled, "merrily along" but has persisted through trials and persecution. And again I ask you why, as a Roman Catholic, do you not attend the N.O. MASS promulgated as you say by a True Pope? See my introduction, December 26, 2017. Father rightly points out its your position that is a dichotomy. Your actions betray your position. How is my position a dichotomy? How do my actions betray my position?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 26, 2018 15:41:58 GMT -5
Btw my question is still hanging there...why dont you regularly attend the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul the 6th Vinny? Or do you? I would like an answer in this thread. Its a problem because as laity you have no right to reject the novus ordo if Paul6th was a true Pope.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 15:45:08 GMT -5
What is your topic and discussion on? I wouldn't want to post a question that is off topic for what is already set. Perhaps you can ask him if he'd be willing to field questions from members of a forum you are a member of? If he agrees, we could send you questions and he can take his time to respond and then you can post the Q&A format? That would be up to the admin and mods to organize...not members. He asked if we had any questions. That was my idea. I apologize for having ideas on your forum.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 26, 2018 15:49:19 GMT -5
That would be up to the admin and mods to organize...not members. He asked if we had any questions. That was my idea. I apologize for having ideas on your forum. You can have all the ideas you want but you cannot represent the forum as far as doing a QandA with a notable personage. Go to proboards main site and build your own forum and grow it to over 150 members and you can set up any event you want. Its free at proboards.
|
|