Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: roscoe on July 23, 2008, 10:34:33 PM
-
It seems as if there are 5 'sedes here
Cletus
Provo
GV
Dawn
myself
Is there any other Catholic forum where one is permitted to discuss this?
With v2ers and SSPX, 'sedes' compose the third faction then. Is there anyone here who considers themselves to be of another faction calling itself Roman Catholic? I am assuming SSPX considers itself traditionalist and these two would be one and the same.
-
Am I a sedevacantist?
On this forum I just defend sedevacantists from what I consider false accusations. I try to point out flaws in what I consider bad arguments against sedevacantism.
Why would I do that if I weren't one?
I'm trying to stick to a certain agreement. To a certain understanding about this forum.
I try to stay strictly on the defensive about the issue. I don't "start things" about the ones deemed Vicars of Christ by most here whom I cannot call Vicars of Christ. But I do jump in when things get started against sedevacantism.
That is permitted.
-
Roscoe, you forgot the universal villains and whipping boys and girls amongst Trads and Seds: the so-called Home Aloners.
-
Could you give an example of a good argument against sedevacantism?
-
OK Cletus lets put it another way. Do you think Card Siri was actually elected Pope in 1958?
-
Could you give an example of a good argument against sedevacantism?
I can think of an occasion on which a Traditional Catholic who accepts the Vatican II popes as true popes and who also knew his Bellarmine and Van Noort bested a sedevacantist in argument.
Some sedevacantists speak exclusively of heresy as that of which putative popes must be guilty if they are to be rejected as true popes. And then they go on to list vagaries that don't even approach the level of heresy. "He refused to wear the papal tiara. He dissed St Philomena. He looked at the scantily clad lady athletes."
When they might have checked out areas of "papal" vagary which did not excite them, which are not splashy, but which do approach heresy territory: speaking of Christ as someone Who had His "disillusionments" in this world during the Stations of the Cross, for example.
But no, I can't think of any good arguments against sedevacantism as its more savvy exponents present it. (And not that they agree on everything.)
-
OK Cletus lets put it another way. Do you think Card Siri was actually elected Pope in 1958?
Maybe he got the most votes at one point and there was some hanky-panky there. But was he elected pope? Was he pope for one minute? I doubt it. I think he may have backed off from the honor for reasons we can never know. And that was that. Then we got, er, Good Pope John and Vatican II.
-
TCW speaks of Card Siri's election specifically as fact and I think it is most probably true. To bad D Hobson does not have a forum.
-
And you didn't actually give the example ot the good argument that you had the occaision to encounter where the 'sede' was bested. This isn't another something you are making up like in the Card Rampolla discussion is it?
-
Yep. All made up. Shame on me.
Have a good one.
-
Cletus- I highly doubt that Jesus will deny you a place in Heaven.
-
Roscoe, I also hang visit D Hobson's site. There is an awful lot of proof behind Siri. Now, why he did not shout from the mountain tops that he was Pope and the ones that threatened him be damned. I do not know. Did he not apologize for not risking his life (or that of his family) by not standing firm?
Tell me a little of what you think please?
-
There has to be an explanation for what has happened since the heretical v2 'council'. The election of Card Siri seems to me the best one. As you may know, I also suspect that Card Raphael was actually elected in 1914 and ben 15 may in fact be an anti-pope.
You would enjoy reading Genius of the Vatican by Sencourt and Contemporary Church History by Premoli. Ciao
-
Wow those are very rare books indeed. Ben 15. The Pope during WWI. Yes, I do know that he was busy with the war, AND attacking the Church from the inside and making it weak and ready for this diabolical attack. What are your thoughts on Pius XII?
Roscoe, I hear people calling for the lynch mobs with my last question to you!!!
-
It seems as if there are 5 'sedes here
Cletus
Provo
GV
Dawn
myself
I, too, am a Sedevacantist.
-
I wonder why so many sit on the fence. How can you listen to the speeches and watch the blasphemies of WYD 2008, to which Benedict said was a wonderful time, and still not realize that this heretic is leading sheep off a cliff?
Fence sitting is causing the chasm to split the SSPX in two.
And, everyone loves to forget that Arxchbishop Lefebvre, who died before the heresies and blasphemies flowed like wine out of the Vatican, said that indeed these Popes included JPII could very well be anti-popes.
I suppose that most of those in denial stayed away from viewing WYD because they knew it was an near occassion of sin. So, how do they still persist in thinking that a real Pope would allow teenagers to covort as though they are at a pagan festival to Bacchus? At the final "Mass" I saw them dribble the communion wine down their chins and swipe their mouths with their dirty sweaty hands.
-
Habemus Papem
If we have had no legitimate Pope sitting in the chair of St Peter for five decades, how can that be reconciled with Christ's words to Peter that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church?
Is the real Pope locked in a basement somewhere? Will he emerge one day, blinking at the sun, with a long white beard, to restart the real Catholic Church?
If there has been no legitimate Pope at all for five decades, not even a Pope locked in a basement somewhere, then how will the new legitimate Pope be chosen? Who will choose him?
-
Sorry Dylan, you don't post that frequently and as such I forgot your feelngs.
Marasmius--I personally have never said that there has not been a legitimate Pope for 5 decades. If Card Siri was elected then he has been the Pope(at least until 1989). If I am reading the TCW webpage correctly, Card Pintonello was elected to succeed Pope Greg XVII at that time. Whether he is Pope at this time I do not know.
There is going to be a cataclysmic event of some sorts in 2012--3 days of darkness will give way to light as St's Peter and Paul decend from Heaven and supervise the election of a true Pope(somewhat similar to the election of Martin V at the end of the great West Schism when 3 Popes claimed to be legitimate)
And as far as the words of Jesus, I believe you are leaving out one phrase. Unless I am mistaken, He said that the Chruch will remain with us UNTIL the end of time. If the until is here then it would make sense that Holy Church is indeed in the most catastrophic of all schisms.
-
The Holy Spirit. He is guiding the Church and sitting on the Papal Throne. It is very simple. That is why these posers have not spoken Ex Cathedra.
Read prophecy for some ideas on how the real Pontiff will come.
We must believe in the papacy and infallibilty. Not every one who sits in the chair.
-
Not much to add right now, but just to say that I don't accept the VII popes either. Pray that we are privleged to be around when Our Lord resolves this dilemma. By prayer and penance we will do our part for this to come about.
-
Welcome 'sede'.
-
Thanks for the welcome. I was wondering earlier why it had student under my name, thinking I might have checked something off by mistake while registering. Anyway, I see those with many posts have teacher under theirs. How many posts does it take to get that, or is one "voted" one?
If I may ask, how will any of you be assisting at Mass tomorrow on the Assumption? I will be fortunate to serve a private Mass. Will it be at a Mass site, chapel, private, reading the missal, etc. Just curious.
Joe
-
Yes, welcome. It seems that Ratzinger is pushing the "resist" crowd to the brink. I think the sede ranks will be growing.
-
One of the great lunacies of sedevacants that is never put into the light is how many forms there are. One will believe in Pope Peter II to Pius XIII and the others believe in the Holy Ghost Church without visible leaders or hierarchy, to those who believe Benedict is materially but not formally the Holy Father.
The problem is we don't have a visible Church taken to the same conclusion that any heresy makes one a heretic and therefore losses their office. That's just not true. There are known Freemason bishops from the 19th century who ordained priests and Rome confirmed the ordinations as valid, and even allowed this one bishop in particular in France continue to ordain priests as valid priests.
And yes Dawn, a pope did say something infallible since the time of Pius XII, it was JPII who said women cannot become priests. The dubium from the Holy Office affirmed his teaching as infallible.
Given the state of sedevacantism, who would want to believe in something which has no concrete solutions. Roscoe believes in Gregory XVII and Dawn believes in the Holy Ghost "spiritual" Church which was condemned by Pius XII. Why should someone want to close ranks with people who aren't close ranked in how they believe the Church exists themselves? Sorry, I would rather be Orthodox before I believe this bastion of confusion.
-
Amen. :rolleyes:
-
I would rather be a sedevacantist before I believed that the Antichrist is my Holy Father.
Or that the Holy Father is the Antichrist.
Hey, different strokes for different folks...
-
I would rather be a sedevacantist before I believed that the Antichrist is my Holy Father.
Or that the Holy Father is the Antichrist.
Hey, different strokes for different folks...
Common theme: don't argue the topic, say something to give rise to the emotions of others, rinse and repeat.
Ok, I get your schtick, but it's lame. What type of sedevacantist are you? What "pope" do you believe in, and if not what type of long-term sede are you?
Why not address the issue? And are you over the age of 20?
-
Mainline Traditionalists are given to referring to their imagined pope as an Antichrist one minute as a the dear Holy Father the next.
Only a very dishonest person would fail to see that there is an anomaly here which goes far to demonstrate that the mainline Traditionalist party line has its weaknesses.
"I would rather be Orthodox..."
Hmm... No appeal to emotions in this rhetorically unorthodox expostulation?
I feel free to ignore the questions of rude, uncouth, and insulting people on message boards and to refer to their posts as I see fit as I make my general defense of so-called sedevacantism.
There is something horribly ignoble about a man who attacks others and then works himself into a white heat of rage and scorn when those whom he has attacked dare, DARE to defend themselves.
Any other kind of "shtick" is preferable to that.
-
You don't realize what I meant in context when I said I would rather be Orthodox. I would rather believe in an actual visible members of the hierarchy than the current sedevacantist belief that there are no reigning members of the hierarchy with jurisdiction, i.e. there is a "Church" without a visible leadership at all that was established by Christ that was to be city on the hill until the end of time.
The Orthodox's explanation for their denial of being Catholic is easier to swallow from a standpoint of theology than the sedevacantist empty hierarchy position. Sure you can throw a Bellarmine quote about the papacy, but can you find one theologian who believes that there can be no reigning office of jurisdiction in any diocese, that the teaching office of the Church can go up in smoke?
If you really believe there is an anti-Christ who pretends to be Pope, and that there are no more cardinals or bishops to elect another Pope it's far easier to swallow the Orthodox pill of theology than a mystical floating Church with floats around until the second coming.
That's not emotional at all; your position, namely a belief that the "Church" could exist in the state of complete annihilation and yet hold on through mystical belief that it is exists because you think it so through some private speculation is completely asinine.
Show me a theological exposition of what you believe in the Church. If I'm so wrong, show me why you are right. I'll listen, but I'm telling you, I've never in all my life seen any sedevacantist show me how they can believe in the Church they see it now, except those sedevacantists who believe in the material and not the formal papacy. At least they try to make sense of this mess from the stand-point of succession and jurisdiction.
-
Empty hierarchy?
What is emptier than the "recognition" that mainline Traditionalists accord the Vatican II church top leadership as they proceed to fly for safety unto their own little chapels and their own little bishops and priests, dismissing the "Novus Ordo" hierarchy as Modernist or Masonic or French Revolution-friendly?
The Vatican II hierarchy is "empty" insofar as they lack respect, obedience, docility, and cold hard cash from Traditionalist chapel goers. Only occasionally does a Traditionalist mainliner get antsy about the hypocrisy and absurdity of his furious pedantic touting of the Novus Ordo's episcopal genuineness and start playing Hearts and Flowers over this bishops's kind comments about the Chant or that cardinal's unkind comments about a pro-choice politician.
-
Who came barging back in here with both guns blazing showing how "sedes" make a liar of Christ?
Part of being a reasonable, fair, decent man is being able to say something like, "Well, true. I was the one who started the ruckus and made the stinging assault, so it's not my place to demand that those who are now only defending themselves show me how I'm wrong. I have made it their business to show me how THEY'RE not wrong."
It amazes me, and horrifies me, to see how the most virulent adversaries of sedevacantists always start displaying the same attitudes that the enemies of the Master displayed towards Him.
That frenzied, totalitarian mindset is not something that one should adopt, not even when one's cause is GOOD.
On occasion at least some Pharisees spoke Jesus fair in spite of themselves when He had made a point with which they agreed. But in the main they were so consumed with rage and contempt towards Him that they started thinking, "Anything He says and does is going to be of the Devil, and therefore anything we say or do to Him is of God."
Well, we all know how THAT ended.
We should never call another man stupid when what we really think is that he is bad, but we know that men kind of like being thought of as bad in some respects but never like being thought of as stupid.
We should never ask another man if he is over or under twenty when we know from his writing that if anything he is, ahem, "a bitter old man." It is not just impolite or nasty to do so. It is contumelious. Being a REAL traditional Catholic isn't about showing off book-learned stuff on Jurisdiction and Visibility. It's about knowing and caring about the difference between mere rudeness and contumely and about taking care never to be guilty of the latter.
-
One of the great lunacies of sedevacants that is never put into the light is how many forms there are. One will believe in Pope Peter II to Pius XIII and the others believe in the Holy Ghost Church without visible leaders or hierarchy, to those who believe Benedict is materially but not formally the Holy Father.
The problem is we don't have a visible Church taken to the same conclusion that any heresy makes one a heretic and therefore losses their office. That's just not true. There are known Freemason bishops from the 19th century who ordained priests and Rome confirmed the ordinations as valid, and even allowed this one bishop in particular in France continue to ordain priests as valid priests.
And yes Dawn, a pope did say something infallible since the time of Pius XII, it was JPII who said women cannot become priests. The dubium from the Holy Office affirmed his teaching as infallible.
Given the state of sedevacantism, who would want to believe in something which has no concrete solutions. Roscoe believes in Gregory XVII and Dawn believes in the Holy Ghost "spiritual" Church which was condemned by Pius XII. Why should someone want to close ranks with people who aren't close ranked in how they believe the Church exists themselves? Sorry, I would rather be Orthodox before I believe this bastion of confusion.
MS is making the charge that there are known freemason bishops from the 19th century who ordained priests and that these were approved by Rome as valid. I would like to know the names of these 'bishops' and the source of the info please.
-
And don't even think about pulling the Card Rampolla is a freemason card because it won't work.
As an aside I have just purchased Mrs Martinez book and will be reading it shortly.
-
Just a reminder to the forum that we are still waiting for mr MS to present his evidence of a 19th century Pope who approved known Freemason Bishops ordianing priests.
If this allegation had been made against the anti-pope ben 15 I would not question it.
-
MS is making the charge that there are known freemason bishops from the 19th century who ordained priests and that these were approved by Rome as valid. I would like to know the names of these 'bishops' and the source of the info please.
There was a French bishop who was a known freemason who did ordinations in the 19th century and Rome upheld the ordinations. I think it would make Bl. Pius IX an anti-pope.
Anyways, I don't have time to get his name. I have a life.
-
In other words, there is no evidience except the sophistic words of MS to back up this most serious allegation. What is the bishops name and what is the source of the info?
I am not denying that there could have been some marrano bishops in the clergy at the time but to accuse a Pope of going along with it without evidence is most irresponsible. Ciao
-
MS is making the charge that there are known freemason bishops from the 19th century who ordained priests and that these were approved by Rome as valid. I would like to know the names of these 'bishops' and the source of the info please.
There was a French bishop who was a known freemason who did ordinations in the 19th century and Rome upheld the ordinations. I think it would make Bl. Pius IX an anti-pope.
Anyways, I don't have time to get his name. I have a life.
But on the other hand he had the time to learn that there was a French bishop who was a known Freemason who did ordinations in the 19th century which were upheld by Rome.
It's just being able to NAME this bishop that makes one a pathetic loser who has no life.
How convenient.
If you're going to be convincing as a firebrand semi-SSPX apologist and overall Sede Slayer that has to BE your life.
And by the way, there are some sports who are REALLY livin' who don't know anything about ecclesiastical Visibility or Bellarmine or Torquemada or Suarez or St Isidore of Pelusium.
We should never boast about our ignorance or make their possibly having greater knowledge tell against our adversaries. That's very perverse.
-
that the enemies of the Master displayed towards Him.
I'm sorry I can't take you seriously. You think you are being defamed like Christ? That has to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen in print on a message board.
Let me ask you this... when you went to Mass today do you really see Christ coming back for your little group only as if you guys are the remnant? I've never understood the mental state of sedes in their group of 6 Catholics in a little shed, and anther little group in another state, etc..
When Christ returns on earth do you think it's just for about 800 people mostly in the U.S? I mean when does this make sense: no history to verify your beliefs, no authority to make declarations, no theology to justify a vacant Church not a vacant chair, and the list goes on and on.
I guess that's why at the end of this post I'm done with this forum for sedes, just like most people are done arguing with a group of people who just want to believe that logic or history isn't necessary to an argument. The only thing that matters is your logic.
When presented with an argument it always reverts to what I believe, and then pretend to be defamed with guns ablazin'. You haven't answered one difficulty I presented you about the sede position of the hierarchy and then believe you I came to beat you up?
I'm 100% w/sedes in this department.
-
Pathetic loser huh? Coming from one that makes a good reflection doesn't it? I mean who else is quarantined everywhere they go except the disease.
Considering the fact you couldn't cite one part of Catholic theology that allows a vacant hierarchy without juridical faculties you figure out the bigger issue: one bishop in France I couldn't cite by name, or your sede-theology. You are a bona fide jackass. Go cry someone else a river.
I never finished because I was holding my baby, but 100% done with this part of the site.
You idiots couldn't get yourself out of a paperbag sipping your anti-pope juice, and living in your corners of Catholic websites in your shack chapels. Do you want proof what a loser you guys have become? I won't read your reply and doesn't that just burn you up because you guys are so busy on how to destroy the Church you can't think of how in the Hell (literally) you can be good to actually construct anything.
Go on, now pout, it's your turn. Your pathetic lives are quarantined to this contagion.
-
Still no evidence in support of a most serious calumny hurled at a Pope of the 19th Century--Pretty sloppy.
I would bet that your baby is attractive and lovable but what does that have to do with this discussion?
-
Babies have nothing to do with this discussion, of course.
Savvy people know that traditional Catholic theology does not allow for ANY of the ways in which ANY Catholics have responded to the Vatican II Armageddon.
EVERYONE is extrapolating from past cases about which they have read in books. EVERYONE is winging it as far as building up a theological case for his emergency response to the Vatican II Armageddon.
Pre-Vatican II theology simply does not ask the questions that relate to our peculiar situation. It certainly does not even begin to answer them.
It does not allow for Vatican II. The notion of a mass spiritual genocide of that sort, ordered by Rome, inflicted on all mankind by Rome in perpetuity in the names of Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Apostles Peter and Paul, does not fall within the ken of any pre-Vatican II Christian thinker other than, perhaps, the holy apostles Peter and Paul. (And John and Jude.)
Before Vatican II, heresies on this or that point of Faith arose here and there and Rome either acted quickly and well at the time, or slowly and poorly. But in the end Rome spoke and saved the day.
With Vatican II, Rome spoke and the case was closed. Just as it was at about the third hour in the praetorium of Pilate about 2000 years ago. The case of Jesus Christ, Teacher of Holiness. All so-called Jurisdiction of all so-called bishops of the Novus Ordo is Jurisdiction to scourge and mock and crucify in more or less galling ways.
The pedantic absurdity of trying to match post-Vatican II with pre-Vatican II is revealed when, for example, some sedevacantists speculate that we may have to depend on the Roman clergy to give us a glorious new pope.
Does traditional Catholic theology allow Rome to broadcast rock operas in which God the Son is presented as a sacrilegious fanatic approaching Final Despair whose dealings with women were not what they should have been?
Does traditional Catholic theology allow Rome to lose the Faith?
Does it allow a True Roman Pontiff to be an antichrist who tries to seduce mankind into violations of the First Commandment?
It is insane to keep pounding away on the Jurisdiction totem when it is clear that this so-called Jurisdiction serves the turn of Lucifer and his foul minions.
I think that what happened here is obvious. Someone was caught being deviously insulting towards those who WOULD have the time to find out the name of that Freemasonic bishop. His faux pas was pointed out to him and he became hysterical and vicious.
If you don't have the time to engage in serious debates on message boards don't.
Don't make bold claims and then, to cover your embarrassment at not being able to support them, suggest that you have more important things to do than support claims you somehow had the time to make.
And how many times does someone get to storm out of forums or parts of forums breathing fires of contempt and rage, with vows never to return, before it becomes proper to point this out with a certain disdain?
-
I never said that there are "parts of Catholic theology" which support my case.
I never then said that I had better things to do than dig up those parts of Catholic theology so that I could cite them.
I suspect that the reason why some people bring personal details about their lives into heated religious debates is that they want to tempt their adversaries to say the wrong thing about those details and come off as mean. And therefore, in the minds of the irrational whom they are trying to impress, wrong.
I admire the way in which another poster close above gracefully side-stepped this pitfall.
-
The number of Traditonalists is very small compared to the number of Novus Ordo adherents.
Traditional chapels are usually "shacks" compared to those glorious Novus Ordo edifices in which the worshipers are taught Sunday after Sunday and generation after generation not to take the Resurrection literally or a good three of the Ten Commandments at all.
No Traditional Catholic is in any position to start mocking sedevacantists for their small numbers and the unloveliness of their chapels.
Jesus was born in a barn and placed in a feedbox.
-
I think what MS was trying to do is say that it's OK for freemasons to be in the v2 clergy because we had this in the 19th Century and it was OK with the Pope then: this is known as equivocation. Well the fact is that it was not OK with any Pope and no proof will be forthcoming.
To illustrate the seriuosness of the mason problem take a hint from Pope Clement XIII in his 1738 condemnation of the order. Absolution from having joined the masons is reserved to the Pope and the Pope only. Not even a bishop or Cardinal or even arch-priest of the Vatican Cathedral is authorised to give the required absolution. And in fact after the condemnation any Catholic who joined the masons was SUBJECT TO THE DEATH PENALTY. Source--von Pastor v34
-
Sometimes these things are a little more complicated (and embarrassing) than we like to think.
This story about the Freemasonic bishop and his valid ordinations rings a bell. So does the nifty little theological term PER SALTUM. This refers to something along the lines of a tranfer (SALTUM means jump or leap) of ordaining power from a Freemasonic bishop who did not intend to do what the Church intended to an orthodox bishop who was on stand-by. Or something like that.
So my guess is that MS could well be something along the lines of correct about that French bishop.
It wasn't a question of its being OK with Leo XIII or any other pontiff that a bishop should be a Freemason. It was a question of his ordinations being valid.
What any of this Freemasonic ordination stuff has to do with a supposed pope's proposing Freemasonic ideals and ideas as binding on Catholics and the gospel and creed of a whole new Pentecost is another story.
-
But of course I agree that if it is true that Rome allowed a bishop who had not given up his Freemasonic associations to continue ordaining THAT would be scandalous.
I doubt that it did.
This story was told in a very iffy and sketchy manner.
-
I think what MS was trying to do is say that it's OK for freemasons to be in the v2 clergy because we had this in the 19th Century and it was OK with the Pope then: this is known as equivocation. Well the fact is that it was not OK with any Pope and no proof will be forthcoming.
To illustrate the seriuosness of the mason problem take a hint from Pope Clement XIII in his 1738 condemnation of the order. Absolution from having joined the masons is reserved to the Pope and the Pope only. Not even a bishop or Cardinal or even arch-priest of the Vatican Cathedral is authorised to give the required absolution. And in fact after the condemnation any Catholic who joined the masons was SUBJECT TO THE DEATH PENALTY. Source--von Pastor v34
The above Pope should read Clement XII.