|
Post by Jayne on Jul 6, 2017 7:21:54 GMT -5
Is it possible to give a simple explanation of the difference between sedevacantism and sedeprivationism? I was hoping there was a "Winnie the Pooh" version that would not require me to think about it very hard. Bear of very little brain
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 6, 2017 10:59:40 GMT -5
Jayne,
The Winnie the Poo version is this:
1. Sedevacantists simply hold that public heretics cannot be Popes. We believe that the office is vacant and while it is vacant, no one is in any way occupying it, even materially. Sedevacantists have mountains of sources to support their position.
2. Sedeprivationists also hold the that heretics cannot be pope, but hold that the heretical usurper is a material successor of the papal office thereby continuing the Petrine succession. Sedeprivationists have no theological support for their idea that a usurper continues the Petrine succession, it's a made up novelty.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jul 6, 2017 12:16:06 GMT -5
Pooh version
1. Privationism--Eeyore's tail is separated from the body and cannot be considered his tail until it is reattached.
2. Sedevacantism--just as a heffalump is not real, a claim to the papacy by a "not real" Catholic (heretic) makes the seat empty. Also like the heffalump, a heretic is not even a candidate for election, both being outside the membership of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Jayne on Jul 6, 2017 13:22:37 GMT -5
Thanks for the answers. I will "have a think" about them, as Winnie would say.
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Jul 6, 2017 17:30:38 GMT -5
Thanks for the answers. I will "have a think" about them, as Winnie would say. Ditto for me.
|
|
myrnam
Junior Member
100th Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by myrnam on Jul 6, 2017 17:56:10 GMT -5
I might add also, we all agree that this infiltration of the Church took decades, infiltration of Freemasons, Modernists and even Protestants had a voice at Vatican II. Since when are they (NON-Catholics) allowed to even participate in any papal election? Election VOID!
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 7, 2017 7:02:16 GMT -5
Actually, the infiltration was occuring in the late 1800's, Bishop Sanborn in some of his restoration radio talks goes through some of the books written by modernist prelate infiltrators in the late 1800's.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 7, 2017 11:31:49 GMT -5
Just keep in mind that the difference between sedevacantism and sedeprivationism is very narrow. The divide is over the continuation of the Petrine succession, and whether anti-pope usurpers fill that void between the last Pope until now or the next Pope by "materially" possessing the office.
Sedevacantists, who have all Catholic sources on their side, believe that when an office is empty, it's empty. For example, the sees filled with Anglican bishops during the schism in England were empty, and the bishops appointed by the monarchs did not keep a continuous but material succession going. Aposotolic succession ended in England for a lengthy time, and was later restarted when Catholic bishops assumed sees in England. The schismatic bishops, although they claimed sees, and strongly believed that they were successors of the Apostles were nothing but usurpers and never in any way continued the lines of successions for those offices.
Sedeprivationism is an idea that tries to solve a problem that comes from sedevacantism. The problem that +Guerard des Lauriers was wrestling with was how the Church could continue during such a lengthy interregnum to prevent a break in the Petrine succession, which is impossible. The problem with his idea is that it is grounded in a false premise, that usurpers have a relation to an office. A non-occupant of an office is just that, a non-occupant, they may claim to be in an office, but their claim is no greater than any other man who wrongly claims an office. Their presence as a false claimant, or usurper, in no way continues the succession begun by St. Peter. Another way of saying this is: the succession only continues through the lines of Popes, not fakes.
|
|
myrnam
Junior Member
100th Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by myrnam on Jul 7, 2017 15:32:54 GMT -5
Actually, the infiltration was occuring in the late 1800's, Bishop Sanborn in some of his restoration radio talks goes through some of the books written by modernist prelate infiltrators in the late 1800's. I agree, however at first the infiltrators had no power it took them awhile to worm their way into the highest ranks where they were able to do their dirty work. I read where they put their very and most intellectual men into the seminaries at the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by William Pius Robert Winslow on Jul 9, 2017 1:45:34 GMT -5
I think to make the things clear, it is:
Sedevacantism believes those Heretics are totally outside the Church, and if they renounce Heresy, they have to reenter the Church as laities;
Sedeprivationism believes those Heretics can automatically become lawfully clerics if they renounce their Heresies.
|
|