Author Topic: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?  (Read 1418 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2060
  • Reputation: +795/-1027
  • Gender: Male
Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2020, 09:38:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The reason you do not see any difference LeDeg, is because your conclusion in and of itself being improper, bespeaks of no difference.

    As my sig says: The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    As such, the question should be;
    At what point may we disobey God in order to obey the pope, who is a man? 60 years? 100 years? Or 500 years? The answer is of course, never.

    The whole sede mindset, their lex credendi, hinges on the idea that the pope is supposed to be something almost celestial, at least something more than a man who is incapable of doing what man is capable of doing - combined with the idea that their knowledge of his sins (of heresy, apostasy etc.) authorizes and qualifies them to decide to dethrone him, to deprive him of his office, which is precisely what they have decided to do. They believe to do this is true, even courageous Catholicism.  

    As faithful Catholics in regards to the pope, it is our duty to pray daily for the pope, always has been, always will be. As recent history proves, Catholics can keep the faith and grow in it, and there is nothing to stop us from even becoming great saints, even though the popes and hierarchy are blatantly heretical, provided that through it all we adhere to the highest principle in the Church. It really is not at all complicated.

    *That* is the Church's indefectibility working.
    Condemn the hierarchy as heretical and make up our own minds regarding matters of faith. Not Protestant at all...

    Offline XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1826
    • Reputation: +214/-383
    • Gender: Male
    • Mary Refuge of Holy Love, Teach Us Your Holy Love.
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #46 on: July 28, 2020, 09:50:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A Church without Ordinary Jurisdiction is a non-Apostolic Church. Consequently, it is not the Catholic Church at all. Notice, Vatican I.

    "3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/first-vatican-council-1505 In just the same way as the Lord appointed Apostles whom He chose out of the world, in like manner it was His will that there should be shepherds and teachers who are sent till the end of time.

    This does not mean that time ended in 1965. It means there will never cease to be at least some orthodox Catholic Successors to the Apostles. That is easily confirmed in the Oath against Modernism: "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm Same doctrine differently stated.

    Want to read it in a Catechism? Here is that of Pope St. Pius X: "19 Q. Why is the Church also called Apostolic?
    A. The true Church is also called Apostolic because she goes back without a break to the Apostles; because she believes and teaches all that the Apostles believed and taught; and because she is guided and governed by their lawful successors." If She were not governed by Apostolic Successors, what we profess in the Creed would be a false dogma each time we profess it. That is an absurdity. The Church will have Apostolic Successors until Christ comes again.

    Another issue for Sedevacantists - the Ordinaries are necessary to pass the juridical declaration that the See is now (allegedly) vacant.

    Fr. Suarez states: “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors.”

    So where is this legitimate jurisdiction to pass the juridical declaration necessary before electing a new Pope? Sedes need it, but don't have it. 

    Again, in deciding the question of whether it should be Cardinals or Bishops to pass the sentence, it is said the Ordinary Pastors need to pass judgment, "In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign them this faculty, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that, of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general Council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus, (q. 35, 1584 ed., vol. 13, p. 2)." (32)  https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope

    "Take my advice and every day in Mass ask God to make you a great Saint"-St. Leonard. Go for Holy Mass every day to receive the Holy Body and Precious Blood of God. Do never skip Holy Mass for even one single day, if you want to become a Saint, as the Saints tell us, we should all aspire to become.


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 681
    • Reputation: +182/-237
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #47 on: July 28, 2020, 10:04:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Vatican I doesn't teach heresy.
    The Old Catholics think it does and make essentially the same argument as sedevacantists. 

    You have taken the huge step of separating from the pope. If you're going to take a step like that, I would expect to see evidence of substantial study and some introspection.

    Yet you don't seem to make distinctions about different meanings of "manifest heretic" according to different theologians. You haven't even established that V2 taught something contrary to QC. Theologians have published a lot on DH and QC including some detailed explanations of how they are not contrary. Have you read them all? Along with a wide range of Fathers and other theologians?

    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10330
    • Reputation: +4067/-962
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #48 on: July 28, 2020, 10:17:38 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Condemn the hierarchy as heretical and make up our own minds regarding matters of faith. Not Protestant at all...
    It's sad to have to say that after 2000 years of the Church teaching all men how to keep and preserve the faith - and what we all must and must not do, and what to look out for in order to get to heaven, your above comment exemplifies the faithless mindset of the typical NOer.

    Adhere to the highest principle in the Church and there will never be any argument or reason to concern ourselves, and no decision to make as regards the legitimacy of popes.
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Argentino

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +51/-55
    • Gender: Male
    • Fighting the good fight.
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #49 on: July 28, 2020, 11:43:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Right.  BOTH R&R and SV positions have some difficulties with them.  Both sides need to acknowledge these difficulties in order to have any kind of constructive discussion.  Dogmatists on either side are dividing the Traditional movement.  They point to the issues with the other side as conclusive, while they explain away the difficulties with their own and pretend that it's just made up by their opponents.  People need to shows some good will and honesty.

    Yes, it's a problem for the Holy See to be unoccupied for this long.  Yes, it's a problem with R&R so say that the Magisterium could go so badly off the rails as to create a practical requirement to sever communion with the hierarchy.  I lean toward SVism because I find the latter problem to be insurmountable, while the former is not.  But these are both genuine problems.
    You really need to specify what you mean by the words I made bold in your post.
    Does the problem have doctrinal implications, or merely practical implications?
    The former are insurmountable, the latter surmountable. Big difference.
    You wrote, "it's a problem for the Holy See to be unoccupied for this long"
    Doctrinal problem with that?



    Offline MiserereMei

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 91
    • Reputation: +41/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #50 on: July 28, 2020, 12:47:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Honest question for those well versed in Church history (I declare myself ignorant on this). At what point or what event triggered the first Christians not recognizing the High Priests as the authority? My question is because, if I'm not mistaken, both St Peter and St Paul still regarded them as to have some authority even after Pentecost, when they were brought before the Sanhedrin?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21897
    • Reputation: +12051/-6069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #51 on: July 28, 2020, 12:59:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • XavierSem never tires of recycling old arguments that have been addressed by sedes many times before.  He is blind.

    Here's something new: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1845

    And something that has been around for a while: https://romeward.com/articles/239749895/a-valid-papal-election-without-cardinals

    Yeah, he just re-pastes the same tired old bad syllogisms over and over again.  His arguments mean nothing to me, as I lean sedeprivationist and none of it is relevant, but the sedevacantists thoroughly refuted this stuff on previous threads.  I had previously believed this was a legitimate objection against sedevacantism, but your arguments won me over.  I still lean privationist because I believe that there must be some role of Church authority in determining papal deposition, that Aunt Helen (Father Cekada's favorite) doesn't have the right or authority to effectively depose popes.  But these arguments made by Xavier fall flat.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21897
    • Reputation: +12051/-6069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #52 on: July 28, 2020, 01:02:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Xavier, do you believe, with +Schneider and +Vigano, that there are serious errors in Vatican II?


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 569
    • Reputation: +132/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #53 on: July 28, 2020, 01:32:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Another example,

    Jesus and the Pharisees,

    Jesus never questioned the legitimacy of the Pharisees, but He denounced their errors and crimes at every turn.

    He did this for His entire public ministry until He had made His final sacrifice (with their ungodly assistance). He then ended the chastisement of the Pharisees' faithlessness and began His reign of peace by appointing a worthy pope.

    I've made this point here repeatedly. 

    As to the reign of the Pharisees ending: I would rather say it was passed on. 

    See attached from the original Rheims translation of the New Testatment, courtesy of the edition of  Dr. Von Peters (http://realdouayrheims.com/)

    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 569
    • Reputation: +132/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #54 on: July 28, 2020, 01:40:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Our Lord also said, "beware . . . of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 

    The Robber Council . . . 

    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1405
    • Reputation: +362/-271
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #55 on: July 28, 2020, 02:44:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Struthio
    Vatican I doesn't teach heresy.

    The Old Catholics think it does and make essentially the same argument as sedevacantists.

    Well, just like you and me, the Old Catholics have an obligation to follow their conscience, whether erring or not.


    You have taken the huge step of separating from the pope.

    Thousands of putative bishops have taken the huge step to teach condemned heresy, and I have taken the small step to reject heresy and avoid heretics.


    You have taken the huge step of separating from the pope. If you're going to take a step like that, I would expect to see evidence of substantial study and some introspection.

    I am just answering your questions and not authoring a dissertation on the topic. And so far, you haven't asked for one.

    But I agree, I too would have expected that e.g. Döllinger would have presented at least a booklet or something, providing a concise defense of their rejection of the General Vatican Council.

    I, on the other hand, feel comfortable with sorting things out for myself (not without reading all sorts of literature on the topic) and presenting my conclusions e.g. here on CI, to harvest objections, some of which allow me to rethink and improve my points of view.


    Yet you don't seem to make distinctions about different meanings of "manifest heretic" according to different theologians.

    There is no debate between theologians about the manifest vs. occult heretic distinction. There may be minor differences in the way they explain the terms, but these are irrelevant with respect to the false shepherds of the conciliar sect.


    You haven't even established that V2 taught something contrary to QC. Theologians have published a lot on DH and QC including some detailed explanations of how they are not contrary. Have you read them all? Along with a wide range of Fathers and other theologians?

    DH is against common sense. DH claims that there is a God-given right to act against God-given law. The basic principle of natural right is: Do what's good, omit what's bad. Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols). One doesn't even need the ex cathedra condemnation of QC to see that that's a false gospel. The Church never teaches anything against common sense.

    I've debated this topic with several Novus Ordites for years, and they presented quite some literature. All desperate attempts to show that what must not be, cannot be.

    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21897
    • Reputation: +12051/-6069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #56 on: July 28, 2020, 03:45:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, just like you and me, the Old Catholics have an obligation to follow their conscience, whether erring or not.

    Were you being serious with this comment or was this sarcastic?

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 569
    • Reputation: +132/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #57 on: July 28, 2020, 03:46:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DH is against common sense. DH claims that there is a God-given right to act against God-given law. The basic principle of natural right is: Do what's good, omit what's bad. Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols). One doesn't even need the ex cathedra condemnation of QC to see that that's a false gospel. The Church never teaches anything against common sense.

    I've debated this topic with several Novus Ordites for years, and they presented quite some literature. All desperate attempts to show that what must not be, cannot be.
    Common sense is one of the first things to go. 

    Ironically, that's quite common. 
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21897
    • Reputation: +12051/-6069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #58 on: July 28, 2020, 03:48:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is no debate between theologians about the manifest vs. occult heretic distinction. There may be minor differences in the way they explain the terms, but these are irrelevant with respect to the false shepherds of the conciliar sect.

    I basically agree.  There's some debate about the semantics, with some theologians rejecting the term material heresy altogether, etc.  But they basically agree.  My earlier point was that there's more involved in manifest heresy than the mere utterance of a heretical proposition.

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2060
    • Reputation: +795/-1027
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #59 on: July 28, 2020, 05:29:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's sad to have to say that after 2000 years of the Church teaching all men how to keep and preserve the faith - and what we all must and must not do, and what to look out for in order to get to heaven, your above comment exemplifies the faithless mindset of the typical NOer.

    Adhere to the highest principle in the Church and there will never be any argument or reason to concern ourselves, and no decision to make as regards the legitimacy of popes.
    This is Protestant rhetoric right here. "Nevermind the hierarchy, nevermind the pope and whether or not he's legitimate or a heretic or what have you. Just focus on your own private interpretation of what God wants." 


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16