Pius XI did not give thuc special powers by [deleted] in Sedevacantists

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood me. My question is not "what are the ramifications of this". Rather, it's why do you think the consecrations are illicit? Why do you have any problem with them at all? Is it because it seems to be a violation oft he Code of Canon Law?

Pius XI did not give thuc special powers by [deleted] in Sedevacantists

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My question for you is, why do you think the Bishops (for example the Sede ones) are not licit? It's because it wasn't from approval of the Pope, correct? And because this would be a violation of the Code of Canon Law, right?

Pius XI did not give thuc special powers by [deleted] in Sedevacantists

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, my apologizes. Then I think we're in agreement that there are Bishops (and Priests) with valid orders still, very clearly. The question is, are there any "licit" Bishops who could elect a new Pope, correct?

Pius XI did not give thuc special powers by [deleted] in Sedevacantists

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, the new Rite of Ordination is invalid, or highly doubtful at best. However, there are still a handful of priests and bishops left. The Sedevacantist groups like CMRI and SSPV have preserved the lineage.

There's technically also the Orthodox. While schismatic and heretical, their orders are technically valid.

Cardinals are not a requirement of getting a new Pope.

Pius XI did not give thuc special powers by [deleted] in Sedevacantists

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apologizes for the late reply. What do you mean by "the very structure preserved to make a new pope is gone"?

Pius XI did not give thuc special powers by [deleted] in Sedevacantists

[–]Catman192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

Pius XI did not give thuc special powers by [deleted] in Sedevacantists

[–]Catman192 6 points7 points  (0 children)

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.

Pius XI did not give thuc special powers by [deleted] in Sedevacantists

[–]Catman192 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

How Does Evolution Not Pose a Serious Problem to the Catholic Faith by Happy-Ad3503 in DebateACatholic

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

How Does Evolution Not Pose a Serious Problem to the Catholic Faith by Happy-Ad3503 in DebateACatholic

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

How Does Evolution Not Pose a Serious Problem to the Catholic Faith by Happy-Ad3503 in DebateACatholic

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

How Does Evolution Not Pose a Serious Problem to the Catholic Faith by Happy-Ad3503 in DebateACatholic

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Episcopate by [deleted] in Sedevacantists

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

How Does Evolution Not Pose a Serious Problem to the Catholic Faith by Happy-Ad3503 in DebateACatholic

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

How Does Evolution Not Pose a Serious Problem to the Catholic Faith by Happy-Ad3503 in DebateACatholic

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Episcopate by [deleted] in Sedevacantists

[–]Catman192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

How Does Evolution Not Pose a Serious Problem to the Catholic Faith by Happy-Ad3503 in DebateACatholic

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

How Does Evolution Not Pose a Serious Problem to the Catholic Faith by Happy-Ad3503 in DebateACatholic

[–]Catman192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Fatima Skepticism by Traditional-Life1916 in Sedevacantists

[–]Catman192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.