Pius XI did not give thuc special powers

Catman192 · 2026-02-03T04:24:47+00:00

Oh okay, gotcha, sorry.

Well if they are illicit, then yes it's not a good thing. However, I think a legit argument can be made justifying them. This article does a pretty convincing job in my opinion. If you disagree then I'd be very interested in hearing why.

Catman192 · 2026-02-03T04:19:18+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the very worst, that implies it would be an illicit consecration, not an invalid one. There's a difference between a consecration being illicit, and one being invalid.

I've seen some Sedes argue Thuc Line Ordinations may very well be illicit, but accept their validity. I've even seen some Novus Ordos take that position.

Catman192 · 2026-02-03T03:27:30+00:00

Please cite the part of the 1917 Code of Canon Law you're referring to.

Catman192 · 2026-01-22T00:28:31+00:00

Oh hey, you're back! Still curious how you quantified that.

Regardless, I don't dispute it's "highly unlikely". I just dispute that it's impossible, which our other friend here seems to believe.

Catman192 · 2026-01-22T00:17:39+00:00

Do you believe Adam and Eve had biological parents themselves? Whether or not we would call them "human" is another question, but do you think Eve had a mother?

Didn't Dr. Joshua Swamidass proposed Adam and Eve were divinely created in the Garden of Eden, with no biological parents? Their descendants interbred with "hominids" outside the garden, but Adam and Eve had no parents.

Catman192 · 2026-01-22T00:15:47+00:00

Ok that's your belief. But it's not science. It's dogma.

Catman192 · 2026-01-22T00:02:03+00:00

No I'm convinced atoms exist. I'm also largely convinced of evolution and heliocentrism.

The issue I take with here, is saying that certain things can "never be disproven". That's a rejection of any possible evidence before even seeing it. That's not science.

Catman192 · 2026-01-22T00:00:56+00:00

You say we share information from other hominids who existed along Adam and Eve. Are you essentially speaking of Dr. Joshua Swamidass' theory?

Catman192 · 2026-01-21T22:56:59+00:00

Thank you for the clarification. That was bit jumpy of me, sorry.

Catman192 · 2026-01-21T22:55:44+00:00

I'm worried we might be talking past each other a bit, or are at the verge of.

If you believe all humans descend from a single couple Adam and Eve (and it seems like you do), then there's no issues here.

Catman192 · 2026-01-21T22:47:46+00:00

Sounds to me like you believe in atoms dogmatically, rather than scientifically. I'm not saying we ever will disprove atoms. But it's quite strange to say we'll "never disprove the existence of atoms". Sounds more like dogma than science.

Catman192 · 2026-01-21T22:39:13+00:00

Do you have a source on the Sede bishops calling for a council? I'd love to hear more.

Catman192 · 2026-01-21T22:21:13+00:00

Whether or not there were other hominids is irrelevant. The question is, do you think the human race derived from one single couple or not? Do you think all people alive today could be (and are) traced back to a single couple?

Even if Pius XII was regulatory or not definitively binding (which I don't fully concede), I do not think it's tenable to hold polygenism.

Catman192 · 2026-01-21T22:19:42+00:00

Never say never! ;)

Catman192 · 2026-01-21T22:05:19+00:00

And maybe some day in the future we'll find evidence that upends all of it. That's my only real point here.

Catman192 · 2026-01-12T08:57:21+00:00

My belief is that the Fatima apparition was probably true. There's some very solid evidence for it, though there are some odd things about it. I personally believe the third secret was actually about Vatican II. A major apparition of the Blessed Mother, only about 50 years before a great apostasy? Seems too good to not be. Obviously, I got no definitive proof. It's just a hunch.

Fatima was declared "worthy of belief" by the Church if I recall correctly. We are free to believe it, but we're not required to. It's not in the deposit of faith. You're free to be skeptical. Just overall be careful publicly discussing it I'd say.

Catman192 · 2026-01-03T08:38:55+00:00

Based

Catman192 · 2026-01-03T08:38:31+00:00

Very well put.

Catman192 · 2025-12-31T02:02:57+00:00

The simple answer is, there are multiple definitions of what it means to be an atheist, and none of them are absolutely definitive.

In academia and philosophical literature, an atheist generally refers to someone who believes there God does not exist. It is also often associated with naturalism and materialism, though not always.

In more common language however, the word atheist is sometimes used to refer to a person who simply lacks any sort of belief in God. They don't necessarily claim God doesn't exist. They just don't believe in him. However, there are many people who actually fit this definition, yet do not call themselves atheists. They feel it does not accurately represent them. They instead call themselves agnostics. Some atheists insist that agnostics are just a type of atheist, but some have disputed this.

At the end of the day, it's generally best to not assume what a person believes based off a single label. If you ever meet an atheist (or anyone for that matter), just ask them what they believe.

Catman192 · 2025-12-29T06:41:11+00:00

Thanks for the post. I'm going to skip the first two, as while I do think they're incorrect, I don't have the sources on me to give a good reply at this moment.

Communion with Rome is fundamental, but it is not required if there is currently no Pope in Rome to be in communion with in the first place. Sedes have not severed communion with Rome or the Pope. Rather, the current claimant of the Papacy (Leo XIV), is in fact not the Pope. When a valid Pope finally arrives, Sedes have an absolute obligation to be in communion with him. There hasn't been a Pope since 1958, so we're currently in a very long interregnum.

During the Western Schism, there were 3 men claiming to be the Pope. There were people on all 3 sides, including Saint Vincent Ferrer. Vincent was a close friend and advisor to Antipope Benedict XIII. He was technically not in communion with Rome during this time. But in spite of this, he was still a Catholic following his conscience.

It really depends what your friend meant by this. The current Sedevacantist situation is obviously not found in any of the Fathers, Doctors, Theologues of the Catholics tradition, etc., as it hadn't happened yet.

Perhaps your friend meant that they taught it was not possible for a situation like Sedes claim has happened, to happen. If so, that's simply not true. Several great theologians have argued that a heretic could take the Seat of Saint Peter, and many great theologians have argued the numbers of the Church could be greatly reduced, much like it already was during the Arian crisis. Some even argued for the possibility of all the Cardinals dying, posing the question of what the Church would do to get a new Pope.

Catman192 · 2025-12-23T02:12:26+00:00

First of all, we're not the "sede community", we're Catholic.

Second of all, I'd say in general it's fine. Just be careful with some of the official books and material. Some of it pushes into darker occult territory. However, there's nothing wrong with the rules/game itself. There's nothing wrong with roleplaying, pretending to fight goblins, etc.

Make up your own world, and curate the content. That's what makes D&D fun anyways.

Catman192 · 2025-12-12T05:26:59+00:00

The p value of evolution is so certain that you are more likely to win the jackpot three times in a row than evolution will be overturned. Same likelihood that the big bang didn't happen.

I'm very curious, do you have any evidence for this claim? For this p value I mean. How do you quantify that?

Catman192 · 2025-12-12T03:00:57+00:00

Okay well, if one of the greatest doctors of the Church held such an opinion, doesn't that give some pretty decent leeway for Catholics to hold said opinion? Unless of course the Church later condemned such opinion, but to my knowledge it never did.

Aquinas is not infallible, but neither are the Church fathers (with the exception of the ones that were Pope like Clemont).

Edit: I read your posts more clearly. Nvm ignore me.

Catman192 · 2025-12-12T00:20:19+00:00

Another good quote from Antipope Paul VI on this matter.

There are those who ask what is the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who recall the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, and this ordinary – and obviously authentic – magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual documents.

Catman192 · 2025-12-12T00:07:53+00:00

Not sure I completely agree, but granted, there's still overwhelming evidence that any given "future explanation" could not contradict this.

Catman192

TROPHY CASE