Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Author Topic: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI  (Read 2017 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12025
  • Reputation: +7563/-2277
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2025, 10:33:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on May 15, 2025, 08:35:47 PM
    But is it not a moral obligation for Catholics to be subject to the Pope?
    Which pope are sedevacantists subject to at the moment?  If it's a moral obligation, then wouldn't sedevacantism (except for the conclave period) be impossible?

    Quote
    I would think it follows that considering the status of the heretical, by-all-appearances-non-Catholic man who claims to be Pope, and whether or not you will "accept, recognize and obey [his] authority and supremacy" is a moral matter of the upmost importance.

    If one (erroneously) believes that 99% of what a pope does, is subject to obedience, then your logic is sound.  But not everything (and not most things) a pope does concerns some major, doctrinal or theological command.  A lot of the what the pope does, is admin/govt stuff.  Appointing new bishops, going over disputes, etc.

    If a pope is a heretic, then we don't follow him.  You either don't follow him, because a) you grasp the concept of ignoring a sinful command (R&R), or b) you ignore him because you say he has no authority (sedevacantism).  The main difference between R&R and sedevacantism is one of TIME.

    R&R reject bad actions, on a case by case basis, while still allowing for a pope to keep his authority (and, in theory, to convert) in the future.
    Sedevacantists reject one, major bad action and reject the pope's authority now and in the future. 

    Both camps reject V2 errors, it's just a matter of how you deal with the aftermath.  R&R think a heretic pope is allowed to regain his authority, by a conversion.  Sedes do not.  Neither of them "accept, recognize and obey" the pope.  No Trad does.  This isn't the "gotcha" question you think it is.
    Logged

    Offline phillips

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 48
    • Reputation: +10/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #46 on: May 15, 2025, 11:17:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • how will the Church ever get a real pope again without Divine intervention?
    Logged

    Offline phillips

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 48
    • Reputation: +10/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #47 on: May 15, 2025, 11:50:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: phillips on May 15, 2025, 11:17:49 PM
    how will the Church ever get a real pope again without Divine intervention?
    please ignore. sorry for posting again. I see that my question was answered. thanks everyone.
    Logged

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #48 on: May 16, 2025, 05:16:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 15, 2025, 01:04:04 PM
    Ridiculous.  This type of thinking comes precisely from people who don't actually understand logic, your token use of the word "logical" notwithstanding.

    You can be non-una-cuм based on a moral certainty ... which is the best we can achieve without the intervention of Church authority ... which alone can "dogmatically" decide anything that is even a single logical step removed from a directly contradiction of defined dogma.

    Does Vatican II contradict Tradition.  Yes.  I'm morally certain.  Am I dogmatically certain?  No ... I cannot be dogmatically certain until the Church intervenes.

    Would the protection of papal infallibility have covered the teaching of Vatican II and prevented it from being erroneous.  Yes.  I'm morally certain that it would have prevented it from being THIS erroneous.  Am I dogmatically certain?  No.

    It's precisely because you miss decomposing your conclusion into all the different logical steps that you somehow compress them and conflate the dogmatic nature of one of your premises into resulting in a dogmatic conclusion ... and that's simply false.

    Let's look at the corollary.  I'm a priest who wakes up at 5:30 one morning and offers Mass "una cuм".  But I hadn't checked the news that day, and it turns out the Pope whose name I put in there had died a few hours earlier.  In Medieval time when news travelled more slowly, it could be days or weeks before the news gets out to you.  Still dogmatically certain about una cuм?

    Or St. Vincent Ferrer ... was he dogmatically certain putting the name in there?  If he thought he was, he was dead wrong ... since it turned out that he was wrong.
    Sorry in advance if I'm misinterpreting.

    Are you saying I hold the pope as certainly pope?  I'm a long way from that.  I am uncertain and it's erroneous for anyone to imagine themselves as knowing the answer.

    Since it's impossible to know, non una cuм is unacceptable.  You may not delete prayers out of the Canon until you're sure.  If you jump the gun, you're playing with schism.  Love danger and you will perish in it!

    Do you pretend to know whether the pope is real?  What precisely is the damage caused by praying for a miserable pope?
    Logged

    Online WorldsAway

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 428
    • Reputation: +384/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #49 on: May 16, 2025, 06:02:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 15, 2025, 10:33:20 PM
    Which pope are sedevacantists subject to at the moment?  If it's a moral obligation, then wouldn't sedevacantism (except for the conclave period) be impossible?
    No pope, because they believe there is no pope. I'm sure you know their arguments about interregnum periods, which have lasted for several years in the past (but 60+ years in this case :laugh1:). I don't doubt they believe they are subject to the Papacy, just that there is no one currently holding the office


    Quote
    If a pope is a heretic, then we don't follow him. You either don't follow him, because a) you grasp the concept of ignoring a sinful command (R&R), or b) you ignore him because you say he has no authority (sedevacantism). The main difference between R&R and sedevacantism is one of TIME.
    Quote
    R&R reject bad actions, on a case by case basis, while still allowing for a pope to keep his authority (and, in theory, to convert) in the future.
    Quote
    Sedevacantists reject one, major bad action and reject the pope's authority now and in the future. Both camps reject V2 errors, it's just a matter of how you deal with the aftermath. R&R think a heretic pope is allowed to regain his authority, by a conversion. Sedes do not. Neither of them "accept, recognize and obey" the pope. No Trad does. This isn't the "gotcha" question you think it is.
    Not supposed to be a gotcha, what I'm trying to point out is that at no point in time have Catholics been forced to either hold that the See have been vacant for 60+ years, or to R&R a succession of bad popes for 60+ years, or to believe that the popes have lost all teaching authority for that period of time, etc. All of these are opinions in an unprecedented situation where there is no authority to settle the matter. But I think what, at least most of, these Catholics have done is come to a "moral certainty" that what they are doing is correct and right..you shouldn't be SV, R&R, sedeprivationalist, etc. unless you have, as subjection to the Papacy (whether than entails believing the See is Vacant, or that the Pope has lost authority, or whatever else) is necessary for salvation
    Logged
    If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you [John 15:108

    Offline WhiteWorkinClassScapegoat

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 986
    • Reputation: +621/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #50 on: May 16, 2025, 06:07:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Gray2023 on May 15, 2025, 02:13:42 PM
    I am so confused.  If you accept Pope Leo XIV as pope, then why are you here.
    If you reject Prevost as legitimate pope, why are you calling him "Pope Leo XlV"? :confused:

    Quote
    Pope Leo XIV would not accept any of us as Catholics in good standing. That is just a fact (it doesn't matter if we attend the SSPX (ok maybe them), but the rest SSPX "resistance", CMRI, SSPV, RCI, Independent chapel, we are all essentially in schism (not the dogmatic one, but we are at odds) with Rome.  Why do we have to make any of this dogmatic?  It just is.  And we pray and wait and hope that we haven't made the wrong decision and that God forgives us if we did.
    Have no worries. Even if trads are wrong, we will still make it to Heaven because the Conciliar church essentially says everyone goes to Heaven, so that must include trads and schismatics. :smirk: "Bishop" Barron says, publicly, and on video, "even atheists of good will can make it to Heaven" ... so if an atheist can make it to Heaven, you can sure betcha a trad can make it to Heaven :smirk:. But if the Conciliar church is wrong and trads are right, then the usurpers are going to hell and the trads who die in the state of grace still go to Heaven. :smirk:
    Logged
    Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so his rider falls backward. ~ Genesis 49:17

    My avatar is a painting titled Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ (1913) by Adolf Hitler

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14686
    • Reputation: +6047/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #51 on: May 16, 2025, 06:11:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on May 15, 2025, 02:50:28 PM
    No one can be compelled to act against their certain conscience. If a priest comes to a moral certainty that someone who claims to be Pope is not actually the Pope, he would be sinning by mentioning his name in the Mass. But from the perspective of Fr. Wathen's statement, the sedevacantist priest with moral certainty would sin if he mentioned the name of the man he believed to be an antipope, but would also sin if he didn't mention the name as he would be "introducing his opinion" into the Mass. It's not possible, unless you have the opinion that no one can come to a moral certainty that there is no pope
    No, he would not be sinning by mentioning his name because the Church does not require the priest to decide the status of popes, the Church does require the priest to mention the name of the pope.
     
    As Lad pointed out earlier, even saints have mentioned the name of the wrong pope in the past - it is no sin.

    Again, non una cuм is only the priest's private judgement of something he is not required, and not even supposed to judge. This fact is what is being completely lost in all of this.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    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 WhiteWorkinClassScapegoat

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 986
    • Reputation: +621/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #52 on: May 16, 2025, 06:14:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: gladius_veritatis on May 15, 2025, 08:36:06 PM
    Last I heard, no one with any actual authority has declared -- from 1969 until 2025 -- anything substantially negative, etc.
    That's like Satan being the judge at his own trial while he's being tried. ::)
    Logged
    Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so his rider falls backward. ~ Genesis 49:17

    My avatar is a painting titled Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ (1913) by Adolf Hitler

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14686
    • Reputation: +6047/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #53 on: May 16, 2025, 06:17:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: gladius_veritatis on May 15, 2025, 07:30:17 PM
    So you are totally cool with the NOM?  If you go to a TLM, it must be diocesan approved, etc? 

    Traddieland as a whole -- from inception to this very day -- completely violates your standard.
    No, I have avoided all things NO essentially since the crisis began. By the time I was 8 or 9, I knew my Latin responses and was serving Mass in basements, halls, etc. and continue to avoid all things NO and continue in the true faith till this day.

    The NO violates my standards. See my sig.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    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 Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14686
    • Reputation: +6047/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #54 on: May 16, 2025, 06:20:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: hgodwinson on May 15, 2025, 07:31:08 PM
    For clarity, I'm on the fence wether it is right for ME to attend an Una cuм mass. i don't pass judgement over others on this issue.

    I do believe it would be a sin to attend a Mass that names another antipope in the canon, such as the Palmarian antipope, but I don't know if I can apply that same logic to Masses that name the Novus Ordo antipope.
    The Church mandates that the priest say the pope's name in the canon and does so without any regard whatsoever to our opinion, when the Church tells us not to mention his name is when priests must stop saying his name, but not before. 

    But non una cuм won't change as long as there are priests out there who place too high a value on their opinion.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

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

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46425
    • Reputation: +27334/-5046
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #55 on: May 16, 2025, 06:22:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: phillips on May 15, 2025, 11:17:49 PM
    how will the Church ever get a real pope again without Divine intervention?

    We won't ... IMO.  I think you mean extraordinary divine intervention... since God is always intervening through His Providence.

    We have a lot of naturalistic thinking here where if something can't work itself out naturally then there's no hope.

    St Pius X said that naturally speaking the Church is finished.

    Even if you're R&R, how is this going to happen without Divine Intervention anyway?  95% of Novus Ordites are heretics, by their own polls, and we had only 4 "Cardinals" sheepishly present a mealy-mouthed "dubia" to Bergoglio regarding the blatant heresy in Amoris Laetitia.

    That's why there's much prophecy about a chastisement and even a Three Days of Darkness, to purge the infiltrators out of the Church.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46425
    • Reputation: +27334/-5046
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #56 on: May 16, 2025, 06:26:33 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on May 16, 2025, 06:20:53 AM
    The Church mandates that the priest say the pope's name in the canon and does so without any regard whatsoever to our opinion, when the Church tells us not to mention his name is when priests must stop saying his name, but not before. 

    But non una cuм won't change as long as there are priests out there who place too high a value on their opinion.

    Please stop wasting everyone's time with your stupidity, and crack open a basic book on logic before posting again.

    What's precisely in dispute is whether (currently) Leo XIV is actually pope, as the Church also forbids putting the name of a non-pope in that spot in the Canon.

    You constantly beg the question that the V2 papal claimant is in fact the pope and can't get it through your thick skull ... since you're poisoned by your various heresies.

    Yeah, it's people's "opinions" vs. the Novus Ordo "Church" "telling you", right?  Well, the Novus Ordo "Church" is also telling you to accept the New Mass and Vatican II.

    You need to just shut up and get off the internet ... since at best you're wasting everyone's time with this stupidity.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14686
    • Reputation: +6047/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #57 on: May 16, 2025, 06:30:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: gladius_veritatis on May 15, 2025, 07:37:43 PM
    Clearly he held some strong opinions about the NOM (ones with which you seem to agree), yet those opinions were the complete opposite of the purported Pontiffs who forced it upon the world. 
    He sure did, but all one need do is look at the NOM for what it is and they will see it for what it is, a sacrilege.

    But presumably because of the consequences, most trad laypeople and priests and bishops utilizing the same type of "group think" NOers use, have convinced themselves to see it only as inferior to the True Mass.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    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 Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14686
    • Reputation: +6047/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #58 on: May 16, 2025, 06:47:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 16, 2025, 06:26:33 AM
    Please stop wasting everyone's time with your stupidity, and crack open a basic book on logic before posting again.

    What's precisely in dispute is whether (currently) Leo XIV is actually pope, as the Church also forbids putting the name of a non-pope in that spot in the Canon.
    Please stop wasting everyone's time with your stupidity, and crack open a basic book on logic before posting again.

    You're sede pontificating all over CI like a lunatic, stop it already. Post quotes where "the Church forbids putting the name of a non-pope in that spot in the Canon." When you find there is no such condemnation, post that too.

    Quote
    You constantly beg the question that the V2 papal claimant is in fact the pope and can't get it through your thick skull ... since you're poisoned by your various heresies.
    He was elected pope by all of the cardinals, same as has been done for over a thousand years, all of the cardinals who elected him accept him as pope and we must also. Very simple. Nothing complicated.  Sorry you can't get that through your thick skull.


    Quote
    Yeah, it's people's "opinions" vs. the Novus Ordo "Church" "telling you", right?  Well, the Novus Ordo "Church" is also telling you to accept the New Mass and Vatican II.
    No, it's priests who value their opinion like you value your opinion and decide to do what the NOers themselves did - change the canon of the Mass to suit their opinion.

    Quote
    You need to just shut up and get off the internet ... since at best you're wasting everyone's time with this stupidity.
    Ahh, the wrath of Lad resurfaces lmao. That's what it always comes down to with you, you cannot defend your bs, so you resort to verbal bullying.  Go take a few deep breaths.

    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    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 WhiteWorkinClassScapegoat

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 986
    • Reputation: +621/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI
    « Reply #59 on: May 16, 2025, 07:06:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on May 16, 2025, 06:47:13 AM
    Ahh, the wrath of Lad resurfaces lmao. That's what it always comes down to with you, you cannot defend your bs, so you resort to verbal bullying.  Go take a few deep breaths.
    All of the triglycerides in Ladislaus' brain from his vulture diet makes him cranky and induces hypoxia. :popcorn:
    Logged
    Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so his rider falls backward. ~ Genesis 49:17

    My avatar is a painting titled Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ (1913) by Adolf Hitler
    Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
    « previous next »