Dr. Hahn and Mr. Matatics

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t want to give any of the quotes they use in an attempt to support their claim, because it might scandalize some people.

I see your reasoning—and I guess that tells us why the apologists don’t debate sedevacantists…

 

[lorathon]

This is a bit off topic but from the previous posts I figured maybe an answer would be found with you guys.

Where do you find these debates? The Catholic / Protestant debates with the big time Apologetics? I have never seen one and would be interested in watching or hearing.

Thanks.

 

[Emily23]

This is a bit off topic but from the previous posts I figured maybe an answer would be found with you guys.

Where do you find these debates? The Catholic / Protestant debates with the big time Apologetics? I have never seen one and would be interested in watching or hearing.

Thanks.

Hi lorathon,

I just found this website, it might be something worth looking at.
bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm

 

[Lormar]

Ultima Ratio:

Thank you for what you have written. You are quite right. I would like to know, however, the flaw in the sedevacantist theory. Most people I have spoken to about this demonstrate by their answer that they really don’t know what the sedevacantists base their conclusion on, they just think they know. You can PM me if you don’t want to put your answer on the forum.

 

[manualman]

I doubt that one human writer in history could pass the “sede test.” Popes, doctors of the church, saints, you name it, no mere human has complete and total mastery of catholic doctrine. The fact that one could find something troubling somewhere in BXVI’s lifetime of writing is hardly surprising. That it is to Matatics suggests he still doesn’t understand what “ex cathedra” means.

Personally, I’m not surprised that major apologists avoid the sedevacantists. It’s only logical. They’ve got to prioritize their efforts just like a political candidate does on the campaign trail. We’ve got multitudes of people out there with majorly misguided ideas about what the catholic church is and believes. It is counter-productive to ignore them and spend time on a tiny cadre of people with a gnostic-like certainty that they’ve stumbled onto the secret that sets them apart from the rabble.

 

[Emily23]

Personally, I’m not surprised that major apologists avoid the sedevacantists. It’s only logical. They’ve got to prioritize their efforts just like a political candidate does on the campaign trail. We’ve got multitudes of people out there with majorly misguided ideas about what the catholic church is and believes. It is counter-productive to ignore them and spend time on a tiny cadre of people with a gnostic-like certainty that they’ve stumbled onto the secret that sets them apart from the rabble.

mmmmm, well said manualman. People like to forget Catholics are sinners too; I’m sure most of us have a history with dirty details which we would not want spread around. We all make mistakes at some point.

 

[Lormar]

Manualman:

That’s very unkind.

I’m glad Our Lord doesn’t think like you. He’d leave the 99 sheep to go after the lost one. Sedevacantists are your brothers and sisters in the Faith. You owe them a greater allegiance than you do to protestants and other non-christian sects. Doesn’t St. Paul say as much?

There but for the grace of God goes yourself or any one of us!

 

[Emily23]

People like to forget Catholics are sinners too; I’m sure most of us have a history with dirty details which we would not want spread around. We all make mistakes at some point.

wow, sorry you guys… is it just me or does what I said not make any sense whatsoever, concerning the topic at hand? I must be loosing it (I didn’t have any coffee today).

*edit… i must have been referring to Pope Benedict? lol Kk, I won’t say anything else until I refuel myself with caffeine. *starts coffee machine

 

[manualman]

Manualman:

That’s very unkind.

I’m glad Our Lord doesn’t think like you. He’d leave the 99 sheep to go after the lost one. Sedevacantists are your brothers and sisters in the Faith. You owe them a greater allegiance than you do to protestants and other non-christian sects. Doesn’t St. Paul say as much?

There but for the grace of God goes yourself or any one of us!

There’s a distinction that should be made here, so I’m glad you called me on it. My statement applied to public attention to the issue, not private interaction with these folks.

Public debates would be counter productive because it only results in the dissidents getting a higher public profile than they deserve based on their numbers and the merits of their thoughts.

Privately, catholics SHOULD engage their fellow catholics and encourage them to be obedient, if sometimes troubled catholics. High profile apologists may not be able to do this because their discussions will be used to try to publicly elevate the profile of the dissenters. Us regular Joes get no such pass. Tiny sects are OUR job to address.

Thanks for calling me out.

 

[Joe_5859]

To be fair, another reason could be that the mainstream apologists see the issue as so well settled that the very act of debating it would be to lend credence or legitimacy to the other side, which is in their eyes, destructive, heretical and only currently held by a small few.

Also the sedes have made a cottage industry out of going into painstaking meticulous detail to craft arguments from all sorts of Church documents to support their position. They have written many legalistic volumes on the topic. A mainstream apologist and especially a busy Professor like Hahn would have to take months out of his schedule to meticulously research and study in order to refute a position that only .001% of the Catholic population even takes seriously and, to them, most likely is, on its face, absurd.

After all, what kind of god abandons his church without a head for 50+ years and allows them to drift into oblivion. It is akin to debating atheists. There are very few atheists and their claims are absurd on their face, but require months of study to properly academically and technically refute claim by claim.

Bingo.

In answer to the OP, if you want to know who Dr. Hahn’s friends are, just look at who is associated with the St. Paul Center.

 

[The_Magisterium]

I’ll only say this: Their strongest case is based on the teaching of many saints and doctors of the Church that a public manifest heretic cannot be the Pope. I don’t want to give any of the quotes they use in an attempt to support their claim, because it might scandalize some people.

I don’t think you’d scandalize anybody if you just relayed to them the simple facts.

That saying/believing something that is wrong in private (material heretic) versus openly and publicly saying something that is wrong is a Teaching of the Faith (formal heretic) are two entirely different things.

There, that’s it.

And no pope in the history of the Church has ever been a formal heretic, so what Jesus had promised to the See of Peter remains unscathed (as it must until the end of time).

Also, people need to be reminded that the saints and Doctors of the Church had not been fully exempted by Christ from teaching error (as is the the Pope). Only what the Pope and the bishops in union with the Pope confirm that the saints and Doctors of the Church taught was correct is actually Truth.

Jesus never said:
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
I will give you and the saints and the Doctors of the Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
and whatever all of you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatever *all of *you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Nope, Jesus never said that …