I debated the Dimond Brothers!!!!!!!

[williamgolle]

People, it doesnt matter that someone is cannonized. This does not mean at all their “prophecy” or “visions” are correct. Also the “prophecy” would only make sense if the saint predicted that the Papal see would be vacant for 50 years, and only would be restored by Saint Peter and St. Paul coming down from heaven. Even then it would be suspect because private revelations, by their very nature, are suspect. One poster said it made sense that we elect a Pope the previous way we elected them. Why does that make sense??? Who says it is the most recent previous method?? It would all be speculation if this was the case. HERE ARE THE FACTS:

1. VATICAN I SAYS PETER WILL HAVE SUCCESORS IN PERPETUITY.
2. SEDEVACANTISTS CLAIM THE PAPAL SEE HAS BEEN VACANT FOR CLOSE TO 50 YEARS.

3 VATICAN I ALSO SAYS THAT THE POPE IS THE SUPREME DECIDER, NOT ONLY IN FAITH AND MORALS, BUT ALSO IN CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

4.THE CURRENT RULE SET UP BY NUMEROUS POPES DATING BACK OVER 500 YEARS IS THAT THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS ELECTS THE POPE.

1. ACCORDING TO THE SEDEVACANTIST PIUS XII WAS THE LAST POPE. THE OLDES T CARDINALS STILL ALIVE TODAY WERE APPOINTED BY PAUL VI.
2. NEVER EVER EVER EVER, IN THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, HAS THE SEE OF PETER BEEN VACANT FOR THIS LONG, AND DURING THAT PERIOD ALL THE ELECTORS HAVE ALSO DIED OFF---------
3. THERE IS NO ANSWER (FOR CERTAINTITY) TO THIS DILEMA FOR THE SEDEVACANTIST.

P.S. THE PROPHECY SAYS THAT THE LIGHT WILL SHINE ON THE CARDINAL, WHO IS TO BE POPE–WELL—PROBLEM–ACCORDING TO THE SEDEVACANTIST --THERE ARE NO CARDINALS LEFT…

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

People, it doesnt matter that someone is cannonized. This does not mean at all their “prophecy” or “visions” are correct. Also the “prophecy” would only make sense if the saint predicted that the Papal see would be vacant for 50 years, and only would be restored by Saint Peter and St. Paul coming down from heaven. Even then it would be suspect because private revelations, by their very nature, are suspect. One poster said it made sense that we elect a Pope the previous way we elected them. Why does that make sense??? Who says it is the most recent previous method?? It would all be speculation if this was the case. HERE ARE THE FACTS:

1. VATICAN I SAYS PETER WILL HAVE SUCCESORS IN PERPETUITY.

This means that there can be no interregnum? This means that there was no break between JPII and BXVI? This means that BXVI was made Pope while JPII lived? This being used against sedes does not work, since sedes only claim an extended interregnum.

1. SEDEVACANTISTS CLAIM THE PAPAL SEE HAS BEEN VACANT FOR CLOSE TO 50 YEARS.

Is this supposed to “prove” the position erroneous? have there not been long interregnums before?

3 VATICAN I ALSO SAYS THAT THE POPE IS THE SUPREME DECIDER, NOT ONLY IN FAITH AND MORALS, BUT ALSO IN CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

? No duh.

4.THE CURRENT RULE SET UP BY NUMEROUS POPES DATING BACK OVER 500 YEARS IS THAT THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS ELECTS THE POPE

Uh, yeah, so, this is supposed to mean that there can be no interregnum?
An interrgenum is all that sedes claim, they just don’t think that B16 is invalid, and that the Roman See is vacant, like that of Nestorius back in the day upon his preaching of heresy. Your argument does not disprove the sede position, try proving that B16 is not a heretic to them first, and them move on from there, it might work a little more smoothly.

1. ACCORDING TO THE SEDEVACANTIST PIUS XII WAS THE LAST POPE. THE OLDEST CARDINALS STILL ALIVE TODAY WERE APPOINTED BY PAUL VI.

1. NEVER EVER EVER EVER, IN THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, HAS THE SEE OF PETER BEEN VACANT FOR THIS LONG, AND DURING THAT PERIOD ALL THE ELECTORS HAVE ALSO DIED OFF---------

Peter could not have been questioned by Paul, since it had not happened before then. The Great Western Schism could not have happened, because it had not happened before, the Great Schism could not have happened, the Reformation could not have happened, all because there was no precedent, the appeal to precedent does not always prove, or disprove a given situation.

1. THERE IS NO ANSWER (FOR CERTAINTITY) TO THIS DILEMA FOR THE SEDEVACANTIST.

There was not much of one in the English Schism, as it is still not Catholic, your point is?

P.S. THE PROPHECY SAYS THAT THE LIGHT WILL SHINE ON THE CARDINAL, WHO IS TO BE POPE–WELL—PROBLEM–ACCORDING TO THE SEDEVACANTIST --THERE ARE NO CARDINALS LEFT…

According to a personal revelation, which does not carry enough weight to either prove, or disprove anything objectively in this kind of discussion.

P.S. the ALL CAPS, and the raNDOm cApS aRe a liTtLe bIt anNOyiNg, is it poSSiblE fOr aN iMProvEment iN tyPe to be eXercIsed hEre?

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Just admit you cant produce any Church teaching or Papal decrees that support your position—

Just admit that you cant produce any Church teaching or Papal decrees that support your position—

 

[williamgolle]

Carlus please!!! If you bothered to read my earlier posts you would have seen that most of your objections have already been answered or not even asserted. Let me clarify so you dont make these same mistakes again…

1. I never said that Vatican I’s teaching about the perpetuity of the Papal see means that there has to be a Pope at all (I stated this in my first post you should have read it) times without a period of vacany in between Popes. I admitted(as all Catholics do) that there is a vacany between the election of Popes. Yours was a straw man argument.
2. What I did say was that the sedevacantist has a problem. Because the Papal see has been vacant for roughly 45 years and all the Cardinals have died off. The Cardinals are the electors of the next Pope. This has been the case for 500 years and was reaffirmed by Pius XII prior to his death. All the sedevacantist haVE is speculation on how a Pope would be elected. He can claim it is the Roman clergy (because they at one time elected the Pope), but that is only speculation. There is no document or even a Church father asserting this–so the sedevacantist position is totally on verifiable and leads to total chaos in the Church. My point has always been that Vatican I’s teaching about Peter’s successors makes no sense if there is no way to verify a Pope’s election. Yes the sedevacantist has no way to verify it. This alone shows their position to be wrong.
3. Regarding me saying there is no precedent for this happening, therefore it couldnt happen is wrong. I never said that just because something has never occurred in the past means it cant happen in the future. What I have said was that even during the greatest crisis(such as the great western schism) catholic could always verify who the real Pope was if they simply retraced the facts. Also there was never a time where all the electors died off and the Catholic world was in total speculation on how we would elect the next Pope. I am asserting that in light of Vatican I’s doctrine, stated earlier, that this situation seems impossible and it seems as if you sedevacantist still cant answer the question!!! How can we know who the next Pope is???

P.S. IT’S BEEN 45 YEARS–IF THE ROMAN CLERGY IS TO ELECT THE POPE WHY DONT THEY DO IT???

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

People, it doesnt matter that someone is cannonized. This does not mean at all their “prophecy” or “visions” are correct. Also the “prophecy” would only make sense if the saint predicted that the Papal see would be vacant for 50 years, and only would be restored by Saint Peter and St. Paul coming down from heaven. Even then it would be suspect because private revelations, by their very nature, are suspect. One poster said it made sense that we elect a Pope the previous way we elected them. Why does that make sense??? Who says it is the most recent previous method?? It would all be speculation if this was the case. HERE ARE THE FACTS:

1. VATICAN I SAYS PETER WILL HAVE SUCCESORS IN PERPETUITY.
2. SEDEVACANTISTS CLAIM THE PAPAL SEE HAS BEEN VACANT FOR CLOSE TO 50 YEARS.

3 VATICAN I ALSO SAYS THAT THE POPE IS THE SUPREME DECIDER, NOT ONLY IN FAITH AND MORALS, BUT ALSO IN CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

4.THE CURRENT RULE SET UP BY NUMEROUS POPES DATING BACK OVER 500 YEARS IS THAT THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS ELECTS THE POPE.

1. ACCORDING TO THE SEDEVACANTIST PIUS XII WAS THE LAST POPE. THE OLDES T CARDINALS STILL ALIVE TODAY WERE APPOINTED BY PAUL VI.
2. NEVER EVER EVER EVER, IN THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, HAS THE SEE OF PETER BEEN VACANT FOR THIS LONG, AND DURING THAT PERIOD ALL THE ELECTORS HAVE ALSO DIED OFF---------
3. THERE IS NO ANSWER (FOR CERTAINTITY) TO THIS DILEMA FOR THE SEDEVACANTIST.

P.S. THE PROPHECY SAYS THAT THE LIGHT WILL SHINE ON THE CARDINAL, WHO IS TO BE POPE–WELL—PROBLEM–ACCORDING TO THE SEDEVACANTIST --THERE ARE NO CARDINALS LEFT…

Not that I support the Sedevacantist, but the Caps are AD NAUSEUM!! :banghead:

 

[Genesis315]

ACtually, theoretically, the electors are NOT gone. If the Cardinals are incapacitated, the duty to elect the Pope falls to the priests of rome and then to the people of the ROman Catholic Church, so it’s not quite accurate to say if there is a vacancy there is no means of reconciling it. Also, if the Post-COnciliar Catholicism of the day takes sedevacantists seriously enough at any point, they can just convene all the factions and BAM council of constance II. Accept the elected as the will of the Holy SPirit.

I’ve always wondered why the sedevacantists themselves, as well as all the self-proclaimed Popes (Pius XIII, Michael I, etc.) don’t do this. If they really cared about the Church and not their own egos, this is what they would do. But they don’t. Very telling indeed…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I’ve always wondered why the sedevacantists themselves, as well as all the self-proclaimed Popes (Pius XIII, Michael I, etc.) don’t do this. If they really cared about the Church and not their own egos, this is what they would do. But they don’t. Very telling indeed…

I actually thought it somewhat telling that there are multiple antipopes at the moment. Everyone who holds a Catholic See seems to be in communion with Benedict XVI, but some priests scattered throughout the world get elected by “consistories”, a very large percentage of whose electors is typically made up of their parents, and we’re supposed to believe that “the people of the Roman Catholic Church” have spoken. Doesn’t seem like that mechanism has been used very reliably.

 

[cam100]

My point has always been that Vatican I’s teaching about Peter’s successors makes no sense if there is no way to verify a Pope’s election. Yes the sedevacantist has no way to verify it. This alone shows their position to be wrong.

Exactly! While it might be theoretically possible for Catholics who are not cardinals to elect a pope in an extreme situation, the current situation, as envisioned by sedevacantists, provides no way to determine who the Catholics are! The “traditional Catholic” groups not in communion with Pope Benedict can not even agree on who is truly Catholic and who is not.

If any group would elect a opoe, the others would not accept it. This has actually already happened several times. The problem is that the Chuch according to the sedevacantists has no visible structure or hierachy, and thus no way to define itself. This cannot be the true Catholic Church.

 

[williamgolle]

My Point All Along —god Bless!!! C’mon Sede’s Admit Your Wrong, Go To Confession, Drop Your Pride, And Be Saved—cause I Fear A Hot End To Your Souls-------and Tell Those Dimond Brothers To Either Conver T Or Accept My Challenge To Debate Again!!!

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Carlus please!!! If you bothered to read my earlier posts you would have seen that most of your objections have already been answered or not even asserted. Let me clarify so you dont make these same mistakes again…

I made that based on the debate itself, indeed, I should have read the thread; mea culpa.

1. I never said that Vatican I’s teaching about the perpetuity of the Papal see means that there has to be a Pope at all (I stated this in my first post you should have read it) times without a period of vacany in between Popes.

Then why do you bother to bring the whole bit about Vatican I and the whole thing about successors in perpetuity? Who is denying that?

1. What I did say was that the sedevacantist has a problem. Because the Papal see has been vacant for roughly 45 years and all the Cardinals have died off. The Cardinals are the electors of the next Pope. This has been the case for 500 years and was reaffirmed by Pius XII prior to his death. All the sedevacantist haVE

what’s with the caps?

is speculation on how a Pope would be elected. He can claim it is the Roman clergy (because they at one time elected the Pope), but that is only speculation. There is no document or even a Church father asserting this–so the sedevacantist position is totally on verifiable and leads to total chaos in the Church. My point has always been that Vatican I’s teaching about Peter’s successors makes no sense if there is no way to verify a Pope’s election. Yes the sedevacantist has no way to verify it. This alone shows their position to be wrong.

While not arguing the sede position, I might point out that at one time the Emperor chose the Pope.

1. Regarding me saying there is no precedent for this happening, therefore it couldn’t happen is wrong. I never said that just because something has never occurred in the past means it cant happen in the future.

Indeed.

What I have said was that even during the greatest crisis(such as the great western schism) catholic could always verify who the real Pope was if they simply retraced the facts.

It was usually very difficult to make such kinds of judgments because most of the facts were not always present all at once, we know because we are looking in hindsight, but try placing your self in such a situation where you don’t know what has happened or what will happen, and then try to figure your way out. Sede problems usually happen because of a confusion in one or more areas.

Also there was never a time where all the electors died off and the Catholic world was in total speculation on how we would elect the next Pope.

So, if such were to happen now, and all the Cardinals were killed off, and there was no Pope, what would the Church do?

I am asserting that in light of Vatican I’s doctrine, stated earlier, that this situation seems impossible and

The Arian Crisis seemed a little impossible as well, but it still happened, again, I’m not arguing their point, I’m just trying get my head around this, being fresh to these arguments; logically, no matter how weird or impossible something may seem, it can happen, thus, there are no legitimate grounds to condemn something, anything, on that basis.

it seems as if you sedevacantist still cant answer the question!!! How can we know who the next Pope is???

Who said that I was a sedevacantist?
Further, I don’t know who the next pope will be, and I don’t think that anyone does right now.

P.S. IT’S BEEN 45 YEARS–IF THE ROMAN CLERGY IS TO ELECT THE POPE WHY DON’T THEY DO IT???

A little point here, if the Dimonds are right, are there any valid clergy in Rome to even do that?

I think some doctrinal ammunition might help your argument.

Audi alteram partem,

CM

 

[williamgolle]

um --I wish we could speak in person i t would be much easier for me to, in my opinion. totally kill your arguments–I think it is against the rules to put my phone number in here------u can email me ur info using the e-mail link in my profile or ur number and ill call u or u can call me—anyway----why dont u buck up and tell us what ur real position is??? are u a sedevacantist or not???

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

um --I wish we could speak in person i t would be much easier for me to, in my opinion. totally kill your arguments–I think it is against the rules to put my phone number in here------u can email me ur info using the e-mail link in my profile or ur number and ill call u or u can call me—anyway----why dont u buck up and tell us what ur real position is??? are u a sedevacantist or not???

My arguments?

Do you mean this:

The Arian Crisis seemed a little impossible as well, but it still happened, again, I’m not arguing their point, I’m just trying get my head around this, being fresh to these arguments; logically, no matter how weird or impossible something may seem, it can happen, thus, there are no legitimate grounds to condemn something, anything, on that basis.

That, my friend, does not make me a sedevacantist, thus, why do I fall under that suspicion, I have said:
Carlus Magnus:

While not arguing the sede position, I might point out that at one time the Emperor chose the Pope.

Constructive criticism, or, rather, mentioning some ways that I think you could improve your debate does not make me a sedevacantist.

If you think my suggestion is wrong, and might not be plausible, simply expain, if you think that those suggestions do not serve to beef up your own arguments, then fine, that’s ok with me.

My position?

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Or, rather, better explained by the hammer of modernists:

Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, #21: "It is an act of great piety to expose the concealments of the impious and to defeat there the devil himself, whose slaves they are. Therefore We entreat you to use every means of revealing to your faithful people the many kinds of plot, pretense, error, deceit and contrivance which our enemies use. This will turn them carefully away from infectious books. Also exhort them unceasingly to flee from the sects and societies of the impious as from the presence of a serpent, earnestly avoiding everything which is at variance with the wholeness of faith, religion and morality. Therefore, never stop preaching the Gospel, so that the Christian people may grow in the knowledge of God by being daily better versed in the most holy precepts of the Christian law; as a result, they may turn from evil, do good, and walk in the ways of the Lord. You know that you are acting as deputies for Christ, who is meek ant humble, and who came not to call the just but sinners. This is the example that we should follow. When you find someone disregarding the commandments and wandering from the path of truth and justice, rebuke them in the spirit of mildness and meekness with paternal warnings; accuse, entreat and reprove them with all kindness, patience and doctrine. “Often benevolence towards those who are to be corrected achieves more than severity, exhortation more than threats, and love more than power.”

… “Do this by teaching, in accordance with the warning of the Apostle, that all authority comes from God. Whoever resists authority resists the ordering made by God Himself, consequently achieving his own condemnation; disobeying authority is always sinful except when an order is given which is opposed to the laws of God and the Church.”

Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, # 9, August 10, 1863: “But God forbid that the sons of the Catholic Church ever in any way be hostile to those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love; but rather they should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them, whether poor, or sick, or afflicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and ‘being fruitful in every good work’ [Colossians 1:10], they may attain eternal salvation.”

If this makes me sedevacantist, then you are sedevacantist, for this, the traditions of the Church are what we hold as part of our ordinary magisterium.

CM

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I just listened to a very painful debate between Robert Sungenis and John Lane, over the Sedevacantist issue. Although I am not a Sedevacantist, the painful part was listening to Robert Sungenis provide a mixture of straw-man and superficial arguments (combined with what appeared to be diversionary tactics), against John Lane who provided a very clear and thorough case for his position. It’s to bad there is not a better person to debate the issue on the side of the non-Sedevacantists.

My reason for posting this is because they briefly touched on Mr. Golle’s primary argument: that, if the Sedevacantists are correct, there is now no way to elect a new Pope.

Below is a link to the debate…

strobertbellarmine.net/2006_debate/sungenis_debate_01.html

 

[Fide_Roma]

I apologize to all who read this thread. I officially retract my Position of Sedevacantism. I acknowledge One Holy Catholic and APostolic Church and the legitimate succession of John XXIII, PaulVI, JOhn Paul I, John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

May God forgive my obstinate stupidity…

I am sorry brothers.

 

[cam100]

I apologize to all who read this thread. I officially retract my Position of Sedevacantism. I acknowledge One Holy Catholic and APostolic Church and the legitimate succession of John XXIII, PaulVI, JOhn Paul I, John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

May God forgive my obstinate stupidity…

I am sorry brothers.

Welcome back! Thank the Lord that another soul has returned!

 

[Patrick_Eastin]

Please do not resurrect old threads. The original posters may no longer be posting on CAF. If the topic is of sufficient interest, start a new thread.