You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
3
bluewhiteandred on scored.co
2 days ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
I assume it was Satanist edgelords some centuries ago that wanted to muddy the waters larping about "the death of God" and trying to promote confusions independent of God
We still live in some of the peak of that confusion but I think it will fade eventually but then we will face an epoch of more open confrontations of what's true or false
(I think right now of the Vatican 2 revolution that attacked Catholicism, there's a bunch of "gray areas" in the defective proposed documents, which I think in the future will be clearly rejected, giving us a - fully Catholic - Vatican again at some point in the future, in contrast to the watered down compromise we see in the Vatican currently. At least I expect if not the Vatican being retaken, of some clear Catholic pope that is alternatively elected away from the Vatican. And I'd guess some of this will happen politically... a rejection of the ambiguities and a return to something like the former monarchies to replace the "degenerate democracies" that overthrew the previous political orders?)
So another schism? The Eastern Orthodox church doesn't have the problem(s) of Vatican 2, but I'm not well versed enough to know if they could maybe right the ship, or maybe a healing of the schism could.
So I think initially with what's going on, a few people perceived Vatican 2 as a schism, so a "hardline" sedevacantist viewpoint was that the Vatican is not Catholic and anyone following the Vatican cannot be Catholic (so to be Catholic would require being totally separate).
However, if this is the case, then if sedevacantists have no pope, it would seem they would elect a pope and just have a separate Church, so there were some attempts to do this called "conclavism". Conclavism doesn't seem to have really taken off for various reasons, which then has pointed me to retracing my steps a bit.
While I think the "sedeprivationist" viewpoint is incorrect, that "Leo XIV" is a "material but not formal" pope, I have perhaps adopted a viewpoint that is similar to but distinct from this view. Thus I viewing Vatican 2 more like a "virtual schism" as like happened with the Western Schism; during that time a couple antipopes were elected along with a pope and for 40 years there was genuine confusion if Catholics had a pope or who the pope was. No one following an antipope was considered to be a "schismatic" (except perhaps the antipopes and cardinals that knowingly elected such candidates) during that time. Likewise today I'd argue there is genuine confusion about Vatican 2 and if "Leo XIV" is a pope or not. So I could see a consensus being reached in the future that "Leo XIV" and Vatican 2 are not Catholic, and then of a pope being elected that no one doubts is Catholic.
Yet I could also see the Vatican doubling down on unambiguous heresies which might create a "solid" schism (like the Great Schism?). I think "conclavism" still is an unresolved conversation and it's still possible (at least to me) that this is the correct route for Catholics to go, although I reject it currently in favor of more of a view that things are like the Western Schism (there are very few even aware of these ideas, let alone have commented on them, for people to be able to form the most accurate of opinions on some of these topics).
We still live in some of the peak of that confusion but I think it will fade eventually but then we will face an epoch of more open confrontations of what's true or false
(I think right now of the Vatican 2 revolution that attacked Catholicism, there's a bunch of "gray areas" in the defective proposed documents, which I think in the future will be clearly rejected, giving us a - fully Catholic - Vatican again at some point in the future, in contrast to the watered down compromise we see in the Vatican currently. At least I expect if not the Vatican being retaken, of some clear Catholic pope that is alternatively elected away from the Vatican. And I'd guess some of this will happen politically... a rejection of the ambiguities and a return to something like the former monarchies to replace the "degenerate democracies" that overthrew the previous political orders?)
However, if this is the case, then if sedevacantists have no pope, it would seem they would elect a pope and just have a separate Church, so there were some attempts to do this called "conclavism". Conclavism doesn't seem to have really taken off for various reasons, which then has pointed me to retracing my steps a bit.
While I think the "sedeprivationist" viewpoint is incorrect, that "Leo XIV" is a "material but not formal" pope, I have perhaps adopted a viewpoint that is similar to but distinct from this view. Thus I viewing Vatican 2 more like a "virtual schism" as like happened with the Western Schism; during that time a couple antipopes were elected along with a pope and for 40 years there was genuine confusion if Catholics had a pope or who the pope was. No one following an antipope was considered to be a "schismatic" (except perhaps the antipopes and cardinals that knowingly elected such candidates) during that time. Likewise today I'd argue there is genuine confusion about Vatican 2 and if "Leo XIV" is a pope or not. So I could see a consensus being reached in the future that "Leo XIV" and Vatican 2 are not Catholic, and then of a pope being elected that no one doubts is Catholic.
Yet I could also see the Vatican doubling down on unambiguous heresies which might create a "solid" schism (like the Great Schism?). I think "conclavism" still is an unresolved conversation and it's still possible (at least to me) that this is the correct route for Catholics to go, although I reject it currently in favor of more of a view that things are like the Western Schism (there are very few even aware of these ideas, let alone have commented on them, for people to be able to form the most accurate of opinions on some of these topics).