Monday, October 24, 2022

Fr. Pine Trying to Presume Sedevacantism is Heretical

Key word : presume. As opposed to argue or prove.

Can the Pope be a Heretic? w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, OP
Pints With Aquinas

14:10 How come sedevacantism is treated as a heresy, when it is not condemned as such?

Conciliarism is condemned as such.

15:53 How if the capacity of the Church Herself is embodied precisely in the sequence of action known in the first step as sedevacantism and in the second step as conclavism?

16:33 Yeah, exactly.

1994 was not exactly consistent with 1633 judgement on Galileo.

Who - except sedes and conclavists, laity and clergy - have raised any voice against the abusive conflation of Fundamentalism with Protestantism and at the same time rejection of some Fundamentalist truth (like inerrancy of Biblical history or even cosmology)?

17:18 Are you calling sedevacantism an in itself heretical judgement?

When I call 1994 heretical or even apostatic, I have Trent Session IV to fall back on. When you call sedevacantism "in itself heretical" as a judgement, what do you fall back on? What document? When was it condemned?

At least by the time I became conclavist, there were bishops who were sedes - in case you intended to refer to Leo XII and his judgement on La Petite Église (which had claimed and still claims Popes from Pius VII on are invalid).

Sedes have gone the opposite curve from LPE. They lost the support of bishops and we gained it.

So, you cannot call the judgement heretical because it "leads to a communion without bishops" because that is not what it does. Any more at least.

17:22 Point me to one sede or one conclavist who will accept having his position painted as the gates of Hell having prevailed against the Church?

Just because Trent Horn or you posit this is what our position contains, it doesn't make that so.

Have you even tried proving as stringently your accusation, as I have proven mine against 1994?

No comments: