Just curious. I really don’t know how anyone celebrates the feast day of the Chair of St. Peter, but why would it occur to you that sedevacantists would celebrate it any differently from anyone else?This question is directed to any Sedevacantist out there. How did you celebrate, liturgically, yesterday’s feast day, “The Chair of St. Peter”?
Just curious. No flame wars please.
Tomster
I think the term sedevancantist speaks for itself.Just curious. I really don’t know how anyone celebrates the feast day of the Chair of St. Peter, but why would it occur to you that sedevacantists would celebrate it any differently from anyone else?
I’m generally cautious about recommending Wikipedia, but I think that the entry on sedevancantism should be enough to disabuse you of the notion that a sedevacantist should have some non-standard approach to this feast day.I think the term sedevancantist speaks for itself.
No flame bait, I assure you, just curious.I’m generally cautious about recommending Wikipedia, but I think that the entry on sedevancantism should be enough to disabuse you of the notion that a sedevacantist should have some non-standard approach to this feast day.
Actually, I conclude that, in spite of your protests to the contrary, your original post is a prime example of flame bait. I hope no one bites.
Are you trying to prove Sede Vacantists wrong with your stellar refutation of Sede Vacantism by saying "How did you celebrate, liturgically, yesterday’s feast day, “The Chair of St. Peter”?This question is directed to any Sedevacantist out there. How did you celebrate, liturgically, yesterday’s feast day, “The Chair of St. Peter”?
Just curious. No flame wars please.
Tomster
It is not my intention to prove sedevacantists wrong, or anything else for that matter, by starting this thread. Just curious, that’s all.Are you trying to prove Sede Vacantists wrong with your stellar refutation of Sede Vacantism by saying "How did you celebrate, liturgically, yesterday’s feast day, “The Chair of St. Peter”?
You got the Sede’s good there.
It shows that when you say “no flame wars please”, you’re obviously being dishonest, and in fact want to start a flame war because you think you’ve got the end-all to the argument.
Even if everybody did celebrate this feast day (which is important nonetheless), why would somebody believing the Chair is Vacant, not be able to celebrate it.
FYI, Sede’s don’t disbelieve in the Papacy as do non-catholics, they just believe that the Church is in a Papal Interregnum, just like the other 200 plus times in Church history it’s happened.
OK, then it would help if you actually answered my first question. I inferred from your original post, possibly incorrectly, that you think that a sedevacantist, in virtue of that position, is committed to denying the legitimacy of this feast day. If you hold that view, why do you hold it? If you don’t, what is the point of your post?No flame bait, I assure you, just curious.
sigh . . . . . curiosity, no more, no less.OK, then it would help if you actually answered my first question. I inferred from your original post, possibly incorrectly, that you think that a sedevacantist, in virtue of that position, is committed to denying the legitimacy of this feast day. If you hold that view, why do you hold it? If you don’t, what is the point of your post?
Alright, if you don’t want to fight, what is your point? What exactly are you curious about?sigh . . . . . curiosity, no more, no less.
Sede Vacantists stand separate in all feasts from those who adhere to Benedict. They are not a part of the same church. They believe to be part of the real Catholic Church and the people adhering to Benedict are part of the Vatican II/Novus Ordo church.I think tomster is asking a legitimate question here. There appears to be a logical paradox and the feast day forces one to stand seperate from the celebration in protest
Sede’s completely recognize the Chair of Peter, they do not recognize that the Chair is occupied by Benedict XVI. The choice is to follow the Traditional Feasts of the Church.or to participate in a spirit of recognition to The Chair. The feast day itself requires a choice
Sede Vacantists would totally admit no unity with those who adhere to Benedict, that’s one of points of Sede Vacantism. No exposure here just the facts.it invites unity or exposes those who chose to oppose unity.
Again, Sede Vacantists do not share a common faith with adherents to Benedict, so celebration of the Papacy requires no burdening of principles or conscience.Tomster wants to know what Sedevacantists do on a feast day like this? What prevails - expressions of common faith or protestation against the legitimacy of papal authority? Grace is available to one but not the other.
It would be nice to know why you believe this. If there’s a paradox, generate the contradiction for me.I think tomster is asking a legitimate question here.
There appears to be a logical paradox and the feast day forces one to stand seperate from the celebration in protest (Sedevacantists)
James
Lol, you have to put a nickle in the slot and turn the crank first I don’t jump on command.It would be nice to know why you believe this. If there’s a paradox, generate the contradiction for me.
OK thanks. So in other words, you’re not aware of any paradox; you can’t show any paradox; you’re just wasting everyone’s time and blowing smoke.Lol, you have to put a nickle in the slot and turn the crank first I don’t jump on command.
James
I honestly do sympathize with these schismatic and sedevacantist groups but it's just not right. Let God fix the problems in the church. We've seen the fruits of dissension by the left and right (I do agree those exist because some play with symbols without doing anything to get them excommunicated).