sparrow

> there may be a hidden pope from the Siri Cardinals as Siri renounced ecumenism in 1985
  
ok I've looked in to this a little and maybe you've seen the same, interestingly I think there is Pius XII legislation that says even excommunicated cardinals can validly elect a new pope. So it's possible there's some kind of hidden lineage that was created. I don't think it's siri though, and I heard possibly ottaviana but they both have the same problems of having accepted Vatican 2. idk the significance of siri renouncing ecumenism in 1985, there would be weird legal problems with him having become possibly a "heretic pope" which would become like another sedeplenist or SSPX predicament. But he or someone could have been elected in the 1958 election, appointed some other people as cardinals and bishops, and have kept a hidden lineage going. But there are really only so many possibilities here, and this is as likely to some people as there being hidden bishops out there somewhere I guess.
  
But yeah anyway we have some idea of what move God makes next, either He brings some hidden person out in to the open or the trads or V2 "clergy" will have to be legitimized. We don't really have too many other options. And this seems like it will have to happen somewhat soon because time's running out.
  
I remember reading that St. Augustine's mother prayed for him for 18 years, for his conversion. Sometimes when you're in the middle of waiting it feels like forever. And some people have lost faith and become orthodox or atheist or whatever as a result. But if you've experienced something finally happening after a long wait, I guess this helps to boost faith. I am still waiting on a lot of things in my life but I am reminded of these stories of long waits like the 40 years of the Western Schism.
  
Either way, Catholics have all kinds of tradition to attend to and plenty of prayer and good to try to do as we wait on things that may be out of our control otherwise.

is this a troll or unironic
 
sounds trollish to me
 
jesus was jewish I though
 
inb4 "jesus was a jew how can you be against judaism then?"
 
ethnic jew who fulfilled the religion of judaism. meaning that Christianity is judaism fulfilled, and so to continue to be a jew religiously today is a false religion waiting for a false messiah. which is the disagreement with jews on religious grounds. just being an ethnic jew is something someone is born with and has no control over. ethnic jews have converted to Christianity and there have been some ethnically jewish saints I think.

> I do believe there will be a pope prior to the return of Christ and totalism doesn’t allow for that.
 
well, I guess I would distinguish by what is meant by "totalism". The vacancy of the Holy See, I would defend, and argue sedeprivationism is in error. An alleged vacancy of the episcopacy, sometimes called "ecclesia-vacantism", or a view that there are no more clergy, some have thought to be heretical and impossible. I don't know if it is impossible or heretical, but I guess I do believe there must be clergy somewhere: either "in the woods", hidden, like a "siri theory of the clergy", or some members of the Vatican 2 church must be Catholic clergy.
 
Sedprivationism was created as a response to Paul VI being a "pope who fell in to heresy", going from a formal to material pope in their view. And part of the reason is because it is an unresolved issue, how the Church is to handle the case of an heretical pope. But once he died, then sedeprivationism should have ended. Because then there were heretics trying to be elected as pope, and those elections would be invalid. Further, many sedevacantists / sedeprivationists then started to think John XXIII never became pope in the first place. This would also exclude any need for sedeprivationism.
 
Also, so the concern seems to be about how a pope could be elected in the future. Originally as I noted, sedeprivationism held a "material validity" of certain papal elections because Pius XII cardinals participated in the elections. But they have all died off, so this would be another case where sedeprivationism also should have ceased as a theory. However now it has also been made in to a second theory, that these "material popes" have created "material cardinals". I suppose the misunderstanding here may be in thinking that it is necessary for there to be cardinals to elect a pope. For about a millennium, there was no set method for electing a pope, the bishops and clergy (with some participation from the laity) just chose one and then the election was peacefully accepted: https://infogalactic.com/info/Papal_selection_before_1059
 
Other writers have noted that a pope could be elected by a general imperfect council of bishops if somehow all the cardinals died. So I don't see any need to argue for a "material papacy" of "material cardinals" in order to elect a pope and preserve the indefectibility of the Church as far as those go.
 
Then to me there's also the question of conclavism which has not been adequately addressed in my view by sedevacantists or sedeprivationists (sedevacantists elect a pope). Essentially how it's manifested is a kind of agnosticism or embrace of "ecclesia-vacantism" or a belief that there were no clergy available (laity only) or existing. So laymen elected a "pope", who can then make the various illicit but valid "traditionalist clergy" in to licit clergy. This would potentially solve the problem of "how to get a pope". But I object that this method has been doubtful with respect to preserving apostolicity, as it seems to presuppose "ecclesia-vacantism", which may be impossible or heretical to begin with. In other words, I think there must be Catholic clergy somewhere, and they can elect a pope or confirm an election. Hence this is my own objection I developed to conclavism.
 
So I guess I'm supportive of a "sedeprivationism of the clergy" view, possibly, and not "totalist" in that sense. Although this view has problems, since if they are truly Catholic clergy in the Vatican 2 church, then why shouldn't Catholics just follow them? So I find possibly that view to be inconsistent, and find the "bishops in the woods" view most favorable - there must be Catholic clergy somewhere, but possibly in hiding, or at a remote distance who may not know if there's a pope or who the pope is (so that they would not fall in to schism due to being at a distance).
 
Another problem I have with the sedeprivationist view or general view of some of these "trad chapels", is I've seen some sedeprivationists argue that abjurations of errors weren't required of converts to any of the traditionalist chapels, and that therefore this was a sign that sedeprivationism was true. Rather instead, this is a sign to me that these "trad chapels" are not Catholic, and abjurations of errors should have been required. Because even setting aside specific Vatican 2 errors, which might be new, pepole have been falling in to older errors which are already condemned. So to err on the side of caution, it would seem abjurations of errors would be encouraged.
 
That would be another reason why in practice I would tend towards a totalist view (or specifically "home alone" view), as in practice my experience has been "totalist". I would not recommend Catholics attend any of these trad chapels or any known church, due to wide variations in teaching and practice.
 
In short, many things should be put "on hold" and much work done to come to more of an authoritative consensus on how to proceed. From the taste I see of the pre-Vatican 2 way of life, it does not seem like a lot of traditionalists have been carrying that forward. Another random thing I think of is how a lot of communications are in English rather than latin, among these "traditionalist" writings (like the linked Cassiciacum thesis ... perhaps it is in latin, I forget, I did not click it as I have read it before, and the few links on this topic have not been in latin).
 
But I do concede I think more discussion is probably required, to definitively put the sedeprivationist thesis to rest, given that we still have no forthcoming "bishops from the woods" or rival papal election to challenge the Vatican 2 institution which still has such organization as to make it look like having some "material" claim to carrying on something of the Church.

he said getting the "vaccine" was an act of love and played dumb when wondering why peoole would be "hesitant" to get it

I disagree with sedeprivationism, some posts are on scored about it, I am glad to see more people aware of the issues and thinking on them though. I do think maybe there's something salvageable in the view though which I'll go in to.
 
https://infogalactic.com/info/Sedeprivationism
 
So the view holds that the election of Vatican 2 heretics created "material popes". Plainly we think this is an erroneous view, and it creates an invalid election instead (the "totalist" sedevacantist view). So I think pretty much this is a succinct way of rejecting this view. Other problems include that the original theory held that certain elections were valid because of the participation of Pius XII appointed cardinals, and there are none of them left. So it would also not apply now if that was the case. So I hold to sedevacantism instead.
 
And the Thuc bishops and priests are validly priests and bishops, but we hold them to be illicit. Ordinarily papal permission is needed to consecrate bishops, which they did not have. So there is an automatic excommunication I think attached to consecrating bishops which they are ignoring. Then I think they need papal permission to set up churches which they also set aside. Also need permission to set up a religious order like "CMRI" which they had no permission for. They also need jurisdiction to offer certain sacraments like confession I think, which they admit they don't have (they don't have ordinary jurisdiction, so make arguments for jurisdiction being supplied in an extraordinary way). So for some of these reasons, some have concluded the strict interpretation of the law simply makes them unable to function. This is the "home alone" view, which is usually "sedevacantist" - believing there is no pope today (sedevacantism) and no clergy available that we know of (home alone).
 
One writer notes some problems with sedeprivationism (calls it a heresy), and this is also where I source the point about Pius XII cardinals: https://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/einsicht12.2003.html
 
> "According to the conception of des Laurier, as published in the Review, Cassiciacum, Monsignor Wojtyla was legitimately elected pope, pars minor y sanior, because about 10 cardinals created under Pius XII were present: He is papa materialiter."
 
des Laurier originated the Cassiciacum Thesis.
 
> "In SAKA-Information of January 1984, Bishop Guerard des Laurier wrote:
"For the present, the Church is "occupied" and in a state of privation (mice en etat de privation). W. [Monsignor Wojty衍a] was properly elected (I hold it valid unless it can be proved otherwise) by a conclave that con貞isted of ten true cardinals (at least they did not protest against the election), then he occupied the possession of the papal See."
 
Historically, three responses popped up in reaction to Paul VI allegedly approving a heresy in the Vatican 2 documents in December 1965: "sedeplenism", or the SSPX view, "sedprivationism" as discussed above, and "sedevacantism". It's been argued by some sedevacantists that in practice all the traditionalists were sedevacantist since they did not obey the "popes" of that time up to today.
 
So sedeprivationism can be a problem, because if the Vatican 2 church was to renounce Vatican 2 today, for sedeprivationists it would be Catholic, but not necessarily for sedevacantists. Sedevacantists would insist on a new election of a pope, while sedeprivationists would accept Francis as pope. Therefore I have argued sedeprivationism is "schismatic" and should be rejected as such by sedevacantists.
 
But there is a point where I have come to possibly agree with sedeprivationism on a bit more recently. Usually discussions of sedeprivationism versus sedevacantism focus on if there is no pope or a "material pope". For me, I think it's clear Francis is not a pope nor a "material pope", I think sedevacantism prevails. However, some have argued that perhaps there might be some who have remained Catholic who were in the Vatican 2 church. While the Western rite of creating bishops was altered, the Eastern rite has not been changed. During the Western Schism, where there was uncertainty who the pope was or if there was a pope for 40 years, those who followed antipopes in good faith were not considered to be schismatic. Hence, following the same precedent, it might be possible for certain Eastern bishops for example to have remained Catholic while having followed antipopes in good faith. So while I reject sedeprivationism as applied to the issue of the pope, in a sense this is like "sedeprivationism applied to the clergy" and I do find this to be possible, or at least some are debating about the plausibility of this view.
 
Because a major focus and conflict we don't have an answer for is about how the Church is to get a pope going forward, if sedevacantism is true. The known Pius XII bishops have died out as I think I note in the OP. So either there are some out there hidden "in the woods", or perhaps a few Eastern bishops might still be Catholic. If the Church is to continue, it seems to imply there are still Catholic clergy somewhere. So something different than sedeprivationism, but I think very much the same kind of thinking.

meh aren't they just offering politically correct stuff for the public to see and then if people dig deeeper they can find the incorrect stuff? so maybe a win for the wins?

> catholicism has been dead for 15 years
 
ok we're somewhat on the same page, are you aware of what the sedevacantist view is? basically with vatican 2, it's believed those teachings are not catholic, so then no one believing them can be pope. so almost all bishops and priests accepted the changes, taking churches away from Catholics. my view is there are no catholic churches known anywhere. they all took this "upgrade" which is not catholic. a few people got bishops to make them bishops but outside of the normal rules, so they're bishops but we argue not Catholic bishops. so they can't and didn't elect a pope, and they set up churches but have no authority to do so, so my view is they should be avoided. and the churches in league with the current vatican don't believe in traditional catholicism so they should also be avoided.
 
however some of us think God preserved a few bishops somewhere who can keep the Church going. But they've never presented themselves to the public so some people doubt they exist. This leaves Catholicism not dead (it can't die) but as if dead. So some of us are continuing to try to think if there's a way out of this, or are praying for God to act to fix things.
 
yeah, I've known "catholic" priests and seen things first hand. it doesn't seem Catholic to me anymore. Because I also saw how things were before Vatican 2 and it seems very different. I am confident somehow God will bridge the gap between what was to the future, but I am not sure how we get there and where we are at in the present exactly. Some people think things are hopeless and end times is the only solution. but I am not sure of that, I could see God turning some things around.
 
there's still a lot people can do, even while we don't know what to do with this. like pray, fast, work, help people, be a good person, study, and so on.

I could see how it could have some of those paradoxical effects. supposed to help for sleep so that's not surprising.
 
supposed to possibly help for a host of issues as the article mentions. hope more people can get it as magnesium is apparently in the soil and our foods less today possibly leading to deficiencies.

"wow this is just like star wars, next we'll be pod racing!"

I've seen that hitler quote and I imagine many capitalists would agree. which is why communism, capitalism, and socialism can be bad and confusing terms. Some communists literally want to be left alone, like libertarian peaceful hippies. And sometimes it works out kind of in those communes. But at a loss of efficiency. and maybe some rights.
 
might be good to clarify that you're not for aggressive imperialism, war, other violent actions. I do not assume all natsocs are, but you get larpers who call for "another holocaust" just to make natsocs look bad. I imagine a few are also for that, which I'm not personally, and don't think natsocs really should be for. might be good to abandon the "socialist" title as it is confusing, idk what would be better.
 
so you would be ok with capitalism with a gentile in charge? but don't want things like usury.
 
Socialism has the economic calculation problem so people avoid it for that reason: https://infogalactic.com/info/Economic_calculation_problem
 
and regarding authoritarianism, it requires that you have good leaders. that leadership can be taken over and then you're in trouble. which is why people like freedom in contrast. The private institutions in freedom can also be taken over, but there is freedom to compete to try to make good ones if that happens, which doesn't exist in an authoritarian order. I'm a little more indifferent on if there is authoritarian or libertarian order or lack thereof, it the governments or institutions just need to have "conservative" values.

specifically what is natsoc in people's opinions here?
 
like does anyone have a platform that could be critiqued?
 
I'm more libertarian and capitalist than natsocs as I perceive them.

lol I see this too, no mandates here
 
\> people out running
 
\> people in stores
 
honk honk

consequence of free speech
 
Personally I think there is a place for both approaches - the scored "whatever goes" approach, or what I thought arete was, of kind of open but "we're not allowing that kind of thing here" when necessary approach.
 
Sometimes it feels important to me to be able to have open conversations about topics. Perhaps in the OP, some might for example be able to discuss how they were abused and feel like abusing others and through discussion find ways to not abuse others. So I do think there can be tangible value in being able to openly discuss things.
 
On other occasions it seems nice to be closed off and not have to deal with such promotion of errors or unsavory topics.