remake/remodel

comments

1. Thanks for the link. I see we listen to some of the same music (notably Mingus and Dekker).

   There’s some good browsing off of your blog. I had never heard of the Sedevacantists by name, although I’ve heard of some of their ideas. Odd that the modern Sedevacantists all seem to base their rejection of recent Popes on 20th-century disputes, rather than going back to the much more substantial rifts in the Church from the era of the Antipopes in medieval and late Roman times. Seems to me that if papal legitimacy could be derailed by wearing the wrong kind of hat, it would have been invalidated even more profoundly by the schisms of those days (not to mention antics in the popes’ personal lives which would make Clinton blush).

   Even odder, perhaps, is the bizarro-planet logic of the Sedevacantists. True popes are infallible; Pope Y did Z which is I think is a mistake; therefore Pope Y must not be a true pope. Odd that the doctrine of papal infallibility would make popes more vulnerable to criticism (at least of this sort) when its intent was clearly to make them less vulnerable. It reminds me of the irreligious skeptic’s logic (which I suppose I share): a hypothetical God is good; but God makes bad things happen; therefore there is no God. Why do the Sedevacantists apply their skepticism to Pope Y but not to all popes or to the Church and belief in God?

   posted by Prentiss Riddle on August 26, 2003 2:45 PM

2. I had really never heard of the Sedevacantists before I found the link. I’ve been reading Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy (which is certainly more history than philosophy, and not nearly as imposing as I would have expected), and his account of the Catholic church’s tumultuous medieval history piqued my interest. That and the hoopla over Mel Gibson’s questionable new movie.

   The only explanation — based on my assumptions, not knowledge — I have for your first objection to the Sedevacantists is that controversies during one’s lifetime must necessarily seem more significant than any preceding. The church that one was born into must be legitimate, otherwise why not abandon the church altogether?

   The bizarro-logic I love. There’s something very endearingly contrarian about it, even if that wasn’t the intent. And isn’t Sedevacantist such a nice word? It doesn’t really roll off the tongue, but it still has an appealing sing-songy quality. And it sounds like what it is. Depending on how it’s pronounced, I guess.

   On the other subject, I was wondering if anyone has heard of this: when I was a kid, my parents used to buy me paper model booklets that were similar to the Dover cut-and-assemble books, except that each piece was perforated and didn’t require scissors. I vaguely recall building a windmill model, a wild west-style stockade model, and a castle. Ring any bells for anybody?

   posted by jacob on August 26, 2003 11:21 PM

3. I saw the “Paper Automata” at a toy store in Tokyo last month, and immediately thought of you, somehow.

   posted by Karla on August 27, 2003 12:39 AM

4. holy shit. that’s awesome. you’ve given me something to do.

   at some point.

   posted by dakota on August 27, 2003 9:57 PM