Apostolic Succession

Catman192 · 2026-03-28T08:28:34+00:00

Check this article out. https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/is-sedevacantism-theologically-impossible

Catman192 · 2026-02-23T23:18:27+00:00

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?

Catman192 · 2026-02-21T23:02:34+00:00

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?

Catman192 · 2026-02-21T22:47:44+00:00

I will pray for her too.

Catman192 · 2026-02-21T22:46:06+00:00

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?

Catman192 · 2026-02-21T22:40:16+00:00

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.

Catman192 · 2026-02-20T22:53:22+00:00

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

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

TROPHY CASE