Sedevacantist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anima_Christi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anima_Christi

Guest
How do you pronounce the word “sedevacantist”?
Seh-duh-VAY-can-tist or se-duh-vuh-CAWN-tist? I pronounce it the former way but I’ve heard it pronounced the latter–which is correct? :hmmm:
 
Anima_Christi said:
How do you pronounce the word “sedevacantist”?
Seh-duh-VAY-can-tist or se-duh-vuh-CAWN-tist? I pronounce it the former way but I’ve heard it pronounced the latter–which is correct? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
seh-deh-vuh-CAN-tist or seh-deh-vuh-CAHN-tist

But don’t go further down this path, because this is a verboten (vehr-BOH-ten) subject.
 
:rotfl:

Being a drawly Australian for me it’s seeeeeh-deeeeeeeh-VAaaaaaaY-can-tist 😃
 
Just to warn you, sedevacantism is a banned topic on the forums, so any discussion further than pronunciation is probably a bad idea. Just wanted to let you know before any action was taken.

Eamon
 
Forgive my ignorance, but can someone explain why it is banned? I was thinking how there are sections for other religions, but this is outright banned? W/O getting in trouble can someone tell me why.:confused:
 
almosthome1 said:
Forgive my ignorance, but can someone explain why it is banned? I was thinking how there are sections for other religions, but this is outright banned? W/O getting in trouble can someone tell me why.:confused:
Click to expand...
Ask a moderator–and good luck.
 
dnar said:
I looked on the ban topics list and this wasn’t on there.:confused:
Click to expand...
It’s even been banned from the list … see how “(vehr-BOH-ten)” it is … ? :onpatrol:
Anyone who wanted to get more informed about it could probably do so by reading the past threads listed here:forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=3182828.

I think that in the general banned topics list here forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2363927&postcount=3 there are a few subjects which could define the category that might possibly
 
Sorry for the double post but I surpassed the editing limit (…long-winded). Here’s the rest:

Anyone who wanted to get more informed about it could probably do so by reading the past threads listed here:forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=3182828.

I think that in the general banned topics list here forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2363927&postcount=3 there are a few subjects which could define the category that might possibly do us well to avoid. In my own very limited opinion, I see it this way. The general consensus of the (S) people is not so different from overly critical (ahem !..“non-catholic” ;)) types who break out the “Antichrist paint” and brushes and get busy trying to coat the Catholic Church with it.

However, (I can only speak for myself here) the responses of one thread I participated in began as humorous, but as they went on they tended to cumulatively acquire a sort of “mocking” characteristic to them - not really becoming of us as Christians …

Analogically it’s kind of like someone threw stones at us and we picked up bigger ones to throw back at them … and we liked throwing them. Sometimes they way the subject is brought to the forums, (again analogically speaking) can begin quite innocently but in retrospect can look like someone saying, “Hey !..Look at the stone they threw at us…I found it over there (where half of us would’ve never thought to look ;))”.

These “stones” can be composed of any combination of the general elements in the banned topics list, but seem conducive to # 16 - the “swarming”. It’s a weird phenomenon - maybe only particular to internet and forums. Probably the weirdest thing is that we seldom “swarm” together to pray for them." (I’m as guilty as anyone on that count).

Social psychologists will tell you that when people get into groups, they tend to pick on one member to make themselves feel superior…can easily recognize that in the media sometimes…can’t we? Unfortunately we tend to squint if we see that same characteristic in the mirror.

This is only my opinion and may not be even remotely linked to Admin’s reasons.I can see the wisdom in trying to restrict discussion on that one though…because it doesn’t seem to remain discussion for very long .

Anyhow, there is a link there for anyone who wishes to learn more about the (S) word.

🙂
 
It is funny that they bann it. Critiquing the “New Mass” and Vatican II, without holding anything back, is doing a work of charity,not causing division or strife. Read books like “Tumultuous Times” by the Radecki brothers, or “The Pope and the Antichrist” by Cardinal Manning. If they have a problem with recommending Manning’s work, as an example, than I think they are the ones with the problem, not the work itself. Don’t let a label throw you off. Consistent Catholicism is probably the more descriptive wording to use to describe those clinging to the faith of our fathers w/o compromise.

Joe
 
Joe17 said:
It is funny that they bann it. Critiquing the “New Mass” and Vatican II, without holding anything back, is doing a work of charity,not causing division or strife. Read books like “Tumultuous Times” by the Radecki brothers, or “The Pope and the Antichrist” by Cardinal Manning. If they have a problem with recommending Manning’s work, as an example, than I think they are the ones with the problem, not the work itself. Don’t let a label throw you off. Consistent Catholicism is probably the more descriptive wording to use to describe those clinging to the faith of our fathers w/o compromise.

Joe
Click to expand...
There’s a point beyond which ‘critique without holding back’ looks and smells awfully like ‘counterproductive targeting of things merely because you don’t like or understand them’

And anyone who considers what the faith looked like in 34 AD versus, say, 1950 AD would see that change - even BIG change, like the dogmatisation of the Immaculate Conception - is not at all the same thing as ‘compromise’ of the essentials of the faith, and that plenty of the former has occurred over the course of the Church’s 2,000 years.
 
LilyM,

What is not to understand about the Churh’s consistent prohibition against permitting non-Catholics to receive the Blessed Sacrament? Is St Paul’s warning about not to receive the Eucharist unworthily or you will do so to your condemnation not to be taken as it is written anymore? Is St Paul too “light” an authority on this subject? Was his teaching different from the teaching of the Church in 1950?
The Vatican Council of the 19th Century in Dei Verbum reitirates what the Church has always said concerning Sacred Scripture-that it must be understood as it was always understood. Development of doctrine that changes what was previously taught cannot come from the Church. The 1983 Code of Canon law promulgated by JPII does just that. It explicitly in canon 844.4 says the opposite of what the 1917 Code of Canon Law teaches on Communion. Only Catholics in the state of grace may receive Communion. Non-Catholics cannot at all. If they have belief in the Blessed Sacrament, or the other sacraments, it is incumbent on those around them to help them convert to Catholicism so that then they may be partakers of the sacraments and have the relationship with Christ and his Church that Christ himself intended.
Look up the encylclicals of pre-VII popes and witness their clarity of writing on a myriad of subjects. You will not be lead astray.

Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top