Author Topic: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved? (Read 4021 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** April 10, 2019, 02:10:13 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 10, 2019, 01:31:59 PM

This notion of Catholics being entitled to thumb their noses at the Papal Magisterium and at the Mass the Popes have promulgated is incredibly novel, and unprecedented in the history of Catholic theology. THAT is the problem to which sedevacantists are responding.

The whole crisis is unprecedented - yet we are still expected to save our souls. God gives us everything we need toward that final end and we have total and complete control over ourselves for that reason. If we do not make it, we will have no one to blame but our self. Not the bishops, not the pope, not our parents or acquaintances - only our self. That is the problem we all face, the status of popes, which we have no control over, is not our problem.

Stubborn · « **Reply #11 on:** April 10, 2019, 02:15:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 10, 2019, 01:41:10 PM

This is why in the past many seminarians have entered the Traditional seminary as R&R but left (often before they were ordained) as sedevacantists. As soon as they begin studying Catholic theology, and ecclesiology in particular, they realize how novel the notion of R&R really is, how there's no precedent for it in the history of Catholic theology.

"Hey, Pope. this New Mass of yours, well, no thanks."

"Hey, Pope and Council of Bishops, this teaching of yours, you can keep that too."

How far removed is that from Protestantism?

My opinion is that those who entered as R&R but left as sedes were, like "The Nine", likely Novus Ordo first. Sedeism is extremely close to the NO and even much Prot in their core beliefs regarding infallibility, bishops in unison etc, as your "Hey Pope" quotes demonstrate a definite reflection of NO thinking.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #12 on:** April 10, 2019, 02:50:33 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 10, 2019, 02:02:10 PM

I understand it's about their consciences, but the concern which is affecting their conscience is itself at least problematic and likely self destructive - because not only is there nothing they can do about the popes' status, and not only is there absolutely zero reason for even pursuing such a position, the Church teaches that to do what sedes are known to do, is an act of schism.

+ABL put it clear enough - he is the pope but we do not follow him when he poses a danger to our faith. That is the principle we live by whether it concerns the pope our our own parents. That's it and that's all of it.

The Archbishop knew the principles envolved. He knew that there may come a time when he would have to say that the Roman See was vacant due to manifest heresy of the papal claimant. He stated this explicitly in 1986: http://strobertbellarmine.net/angeluslefebvre.html
The problem is that the common teaching that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church and thus cannot be Her head was widely held by the SSPX faithful and “hierarchy” before +ABL died. Obviously not everyone held this, but it is certain that +ABL did. When the heresy of JPII, Ratzinger and especially Bergoglio was so blatant that one could not escape from the obvious conclusion that these men could not possibly be popes, the narrative changed to one that did not exclude heretics from being members of the Catholic Church nor from being the pope.

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2019, 03:13:34 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on April 10, 2019, 02:50:33 PM

The Archbishop knew the principles envolved. He knew that there may come a time when he would have to say that the Roman See was vacant due to manifest heresy of the papal claimant. He stated this explicitly in 1986: http://strobertbellarmine.net/angeluslefebvre.html
The problem is that the common teaching that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church and thus cannot be Her head was widely held by the SSPX faithful and “hierarchy” before +ABL died. Obviously not everyone held this, but it is certain that +ABL did. When the heresy of JPII, Ratzinger and especially Bergoglio was so blatant that one could not escape from the obvious conclusion that these men could not possibly be popes, the narrative changed to one that did not exclude heretics from being members of the Catholic Church nor from being the pope.

But remember, +ABL dealt face to face with the conciliar popes Paul VI and JP2 on many occasions. If there was anyone who could have said with the same certainty that many sedes seem to have, then +ABL was that one - instead, he expelled the sedes, "the nine", from the SSPX. While he may have tolerated it for a time, he expelled the nine, showing that he disagreed and was not sympathetic toward sedesim whilst he lived.

There is another aspect to consider. Namely, consider that the pope believes it to be a teaching of the church, just the same as NOers and the sedes, that as pope, whatever he says or preaches in union with the bishops is infallible. With that in mind and if you have faith in that teaching, neither he nor the other conciliar popes can possibly be manifest heretics, instead, what sedes believe to be heresy, is in fact, without the possibility of error, which makes the sedes completely wrong - per their idea of what the Church teaches regarding the infallibility of the pope.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2019, 03:23:35 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 10, 2019, 03:13:34 PM

But remember, +ABL dealt face to face with the conciliar popes Paul VI and JP2 on many occasions. If there was anyone who could have said with the same certainty that many sedes seem to have, then +ABL was that one - instead, he expelled the sedes, "the nine", from the SSPX. While he may have tolerated it for a time, he expelled the nine, showing that he disagreed and was not sympathetic toward sedesim whilst he lived.

There is another aspect to consider. Namely, consider that the pope believes it to be a teaching of the church, just the same as NOers and the sedes, that as pope, whatever he says or preaches in union with the bishops is infallible. With that in mind and if you have faith in that teaching, neither he nor the other conciliar popes can possibly be manifest heretics, instead, what sedes believe to be heresy, is in fact, without the possibility of error, which makes the sedes completely wrong - per their idea of what the Church teaches regarding the infallibility of the pope.

1) The Nine were not expelled for holding the sedevacantist position. As a matter of fact, Father Collins was not a “sede” at the time.
2) Infallibility has nothing to do with it. If one is a manifest heretic he ceases, by that fact, being a member of the Church whether he be a layman, a priest, or a pope.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved? (Read 4021 times)

Stubborn

Re: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved?

Stubborn

Re: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved?

Quo vadis Domine

Re: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved?

Stubborn

Re: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved?

Quo vadis Domine

Re: To non-sedes: Do you believe schismatic SVs, who die as SVs, can be saved?