Author Topic: Dogmatic Sedevacantism (Read 14912 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #60 on:** November 05, 2012, 02:57:53 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

If I remember my Catholic teaching correctly the only human without sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary. We are all sinners, remember! From St. Peter down, proving the Church can continue without error when it come to Faith and Morals even if the pope is sinful. There is a big difference between a pope in sin and a heretic. There is a big difference in a pope with personal sin then a True pope leading the faithful outside the Church into a man made religion, a counterfeit religion.

Yes, the Holy Ghost can and does inspire who will be elected a TRUE pope.

The Holy Ghost does not make errors, He had nothing to do with the election of impostor popes, because they are heretics before and after their pretense of occupying the Chair of Peter.

Doesn't this belief leave the Holy Ghost prone to error? Because if He only gets involved on a part time basis, then it seems He makes a terrible mistake when He is being absent by risking allowing elections of heretics.

So how come the Holy Ghost did not inspire the elections of the conciliar popes? IOW, why would the Holy Ghost inspire the election on Pope Paul V but not Pope Paul VI?

Stubborn · « **Reply #61 on:** November 05, 2012, 07:07:09 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: SJB
several pre-V2 theologians held that a pope-heretic retained the papacy.

That really isn't the issue. It's a question of Ecclesial Defectism. A belief held by Matthew and others on this forum.

I don't think it accurate to make SVism a matter of whether the Church can err or teach error or not (which it can't) because the pope is not the Church, anymore than the king is the kingdom or the president is the USA. This remains true whether the pope is good or bad.

Nishant · « **Reply #62 on:** November 05, 2012, 08:23:52 AM »

SJB, my point in citing St.Robert was to show why a Council would be necessary. Anyway, I think you've cited this very work to me in the past, and it's worth repeating here on this topic,

Quote from: Elements of Ecclesiastical law, 1887

"466. Q*. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso facto, of the Pontificate?

*A.* - 1. There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine appointment, divested, /ipso facto/, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, /jure divino/, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals."

Obviously, the Council would be purely declaratory. This too was Savanarola's modus operandi (agitating for a Council) when he (wrongly, but understandably, again showing why it is very prudent to withhold judgment altogether) believed Pope Alexander VI was a heretic. The Council would have to be called by the Cardinals, or failing them the Roman clergy, not some group of laymen, nor even of Bishops and priests without ecclesiastical offices and jurisdiction.

If you have any ideas on how to convoke such a Council, I'm all ears. I certainly wouldn't oppose it.

But, from this it follows also that Catholics cannot be condemned in advance of such a definitive declaration of the Church for withholding or reserving judgment on the question, or even of believing that in his heart as a private person the Pope has not become a formal heretic, whatever his outward actions, for we may piously believe, says St.Robert, that God would not permit this.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #63 on:** November 05, 2012, 10:37:02 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM
If I remember my Catholic teaching correctly the only human without sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary. We are all sinners, remember! From St. Peter down, proving the Church can continue without error when it come to Faith and Morals even if the pope is sinful. There is a big difference between a pope in sin and a heretic. There is a big difference in a pope with personal sin then a True pope leading the faithful outside the Church into a man made religion, a counterfeit religion.

Yes, the Holy Ghost can and does inspire who will be elected a TRUE pope.

The Holy Ghost does not make errors, He had nothing to do with the election of impostor popes, because they are heretics before and after their pretense of occupying the Chair of Peter.

Doesn't this belief leave the Holy Ghost prone to error? Because if He only gets involved on a part time basis, then it seems He makes a terrible mistake when He is being absent by risking allowing elections of heretics.

So how come the Holy Ghost did not inspire the elections of the conciliar popes? IOW, why would the Holy Ghost inspire the election on Pope Paul V but not Pope Paul VI?

The Holy Ghost guides the Church, inspires and sanctifies; what are you even talking about when you say "part-time basis", this only makes sense if you believe that the infiltrators, wolves in sheep's clothing, deserve guidance from the Holy Ghost. It is very simple, Vatican II and their ilk are not the Church therefore the Holy Ghost did not error with their choosing, why, because they left the Church, they wanted no part of God, therefore God gave them what they wanted; to believe in error. This is what God is giving the world today, to believe in error, because they have no love of truth.

The Church is scattered because the shepherd has been struck. Today the word "majority" means most baptised catholics are on the wrong side of the fence. While the Holy Ghost still guides the few; who said, "when I return will I find Faith upon the earth"?
You people who believe that A VICAR OF CHRIST, can be a heretic have a lot to learn about the power of God.

You also act surprised about this crisis, and I wonder why, after all God told us He would allow this Great Apostasy, He also told us what we should do when it happens. To stay firm to the traditions we have learned from the beginning. This is what CMRI does, and hopefully those who follow SSPX will continue to do in the future. Follow no man, except Jesus Christ. Your common sense should tell you, if God told us to leave the harlot, why would you even think a sede vacantist position could accept that the Holy Ghost, the sanctifier could possible inspire the election of the enemy. This has nothing to do with the Vicar of Christ, the human person, having sins upon their souls, since God also told us that all men are sinners. It has everything to do with the Holy Ghost guiding these same men, (true popes) in matters of Faith and Morals.

To actual entertain the thought that the Holy Ghost can err is a grave sin against the Church.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #64 on:** November 05, 2012, 10:54:45 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
If I remember my Catholic teaching correctly the only human without sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary. We are all sinners, remember! From St. Peter down, proving the Church can continue without error when it come to Faith and Morals even if the pope is sinful. There is a big difference between a pope in sin and a heretic. There is a big difference in a pope with personal sin then a True pope leading the faithful outside the Church into a man made religion, a counterfeit religion.

Yes, the Holy Ghost can and does inspire who will be elected a TRUE pope.

The Holy Ghost does not make errors, He had nothing to do with the election of impostor popes, because they are heretics before and after their pretense of occupying the Chair of Peter.

Doesn't this belief leave the Holy Ghost prone to error? Because if He only gets involved on a part time basis, then it seems He makes a terrible mistake when He is being absent by risking allowing elections of heretics.

So how come the Holy Ghost did not inspire the elections of the conciliar popes? IOW, why would the Holy Ghost inspire the election on Pope Paul V but not Pope Paul VI?

The Holy Ghost guides the Church, inspires and sanctifies; what are you even talking about when you say "part-time basis", this only makes sense if you believe that the infiltrators, wolves in sheep's clothing, deserve guidance from the Holy Ghost. It is very simple, Vatican II and their ilk are not the Church therefore the Holy Ghost did not error with their choosing, why, because they left the Church, they wanted no part of God, therefore God gave them what they wanted; to believe in error. This is what God is giving the world today, to believe in error, because they have no love of truth.

The Church is scattered because the shepherd has been struck. Today the word "majority" means most baptised catholics are on the wrong side of the fence. While the Holy Ghost still guides the few; who said, "when I return will I find Faith upon the earth"?
You people who believe that A VICAR OF CHRIST, can be a heretic have a lot to learn about the power of God.

You also act surprised about this crisis, and I wonder why, after all God told us He would allow this Great Apostasy, He also told us what we should do when it happens. To stay firm to the traditions we have learned from the beginning. This is what CMRI does, and hopefully those who follow SSPX will continue to do in the future. Follow no man, except Jesus Christ. Your common sense should tell you, if God told us to leave the harlot, why would you even think a sede vacantist position could accept that the Holy Ghost, the sanctifier could possible inspire the election of the enemy. This has nothing to do with the Vicar of Christ, the human person, having sins upon their souls, since God also told us that all men are sinners. It has everything to do with the Holy Ghost guiding these same men, (true popes) in matters of Faith and Morals.

To actual entertain the thought that the Holy Ghost can err is a grave sin against the Church.

Myrna,

Is explaining the obvious as tiring for you as it is for me? Keep up the good fight.

May God bless and Mary keep,
John

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #65 on:** November 05, 2012, 11:06:06 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Quote from: Matthew
Disputationes -- you are GONE.

Deo gratias!

His role-play as inquisitor was a bit amusing, but it started getting eerie...

I commend him and those of similar mind to the patronage of St. Dymphna.

:roll-laugh1:

That may not have been intended to be funny but well-stated none-the-less.

I have often said that the feeneyites when all is said and done, might find themselves ETERNALLY outside the very Church they keep insisting everyone else is outside of.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #66 on:** November 05, 2012, 11:08:53 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Hobbledehoy
Quote from: Matthew
Disputationes -- you are GONE.

Deo gratias!

His role-play as inquisitor was a bit amusing, but it started getting eerie...

I commend him and those of similar mind to the patronage of St. Dymphna.

:roll-laugh1:

That may not have been intended to be funny but well-stated none-the-less.

I have often said that the feeneyites when all is said and done, might find themselves ETERNALLY outside the very Church they keep insisting everyone else is outside of.

The roll laughter was inappropriate.

How's this?

I mean that in a good way. There is nothing funny about a Saint helping the stubbornly misguided. Even when the stubbornly misguided would insist that saint was in Hell if they somehow were not physically baptized with water. I havn't followed the thread much or Disputationes so this is not against him so much as the the feeneyites I have encountered.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #67 on:** November 05, 2012, 11:15:29 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Hermenegild
All sedevacantists have a problem with that position because they believe that it cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching. It's the reason why sedevacantists exist.

Please don't speak for "all sedevacantists" because you don't and you cannot.

While it is true that "all sedevacantists" have come to those conclusions, which is why they are sedevacantist, it is not correct to say that all sedevacantists believe that these conclusions are dogma and that failure to reach these conclusions is heresy.

Those who believe Benedict 16 is the pope of the Roman Catholic Church are, in my opinion, wrong; but they are not, by that fact, outside the Church. They are outside the Church only in as much as they subscribe to the heresies that Benedict 16 teaches.

Whether Benedict 16 is a true pope is a matter of fact. Like many facts that are ascertained by witnesses and deductive reasoning, not everyone sees the same evidence or understands the evidence they do see in the same way. Only history will tell us who is right just as history tells us that Athanasius was right while Arius was wrong or that Eusebius was right while Nestorius was wrong. At the time, many people were confused and faithful Catholics differed on each case.

The SSPX, for example, is still Catholic as they have not, as an organization, defected from the faith.

On the other hand, I believe that dogmatic anti-sedevacantism is equally as bad as dogmatic sedevacantism for anyone who is dogmatic on either side of this prudential judgment refuses communion with those who disagree with their personal opinion on the matter of the identity of the pope. Matthew and I disagree on the answer to that question, but neither of us declare that the other is not a Catholic for that reason.

CathInfo allows (as opposed to Angelqueen) Catholics to argue the question in a rational manner. Individuals may be convinced of the opposing arguments and reconsider and change their conclusions, but they are not "converted". (Interestingly, the SSPX frequently talks about the need to "convert Rome", but that is another topic altogether.) As long as there is a single claimant to the papacy whose claim has met the external forms (i.e., the people appointed as cardinals meet in conclave and a successor is elected and is accepted by "the world" to be the new pope) the question will remain open. The question of the "heretic pope" is not one that has clearly and unambiguously been settled.

In any event, in practice, all traditional Catholics who reject the heresies of the Conciliar Church and the docuмents that issued from Vatican 2, act in the same way toward those heresies and the papal commands and teachings that emanate from those heresies. The difference seems to me to be one of semantics; which is why, I think, dogmatism by either party could be schismatic and should not be tolerated by Catholics.

Now...the dogmatic sedevacantists have just declared me a heretic.

Well-stated :cheers:

Sometimes I feel like people can't even get to first base when it comes to deductive reasoning [such as when someone suggests that one who surmises that an unquestionably valid Pope was not perfect (sinned, did something imprudent) is attacking the Church], then I see a post like this and have hope.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #68 on:** November 05, 2012, 11:22:36 AM »

Quote from: Sunbeam

Quote from: [i
A Catholic Dictionary[/i]]DOGMA, in its theological sense, is a truth contained in the Word of God, written or unwritten – ie: in Scripture or Tradition – and proposed by the Church for the belief of the Faithful. Thus, dogma is a revealed truth, since Scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost, while tradition signifies the truths which the Apostles received from Christ and the the Holy Spirit, and handed down to the church. ...

Ref: William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold. A Catholic Dictionary. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1909. p.293.

As I would describe it, sedevacantism is a rational conclusion drawn from the application of theological principles to observable facts about words and deeds of certain individuals purported to have succeeded in recent times to the office of Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantism, being a theological position arrived at by human reason, cannot be a revealed truth. Therefore, the adjective corresponding to the noun, DOGMA, viz: DOGMATIC, cannot rightly be applied as an epithet to the term sedevacantism.

“Dogmatic sedevacantism” is an incoherent expression apparently invented for the purpose of pillorying Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position. I don’t deny that having arrived at that position, some sedevacantists, in their enthusiasm, may fall into the temptation of regarding all non-sedevacantist Catholics as heretics. But that is a failure in truth and in charity. The names of a couple of pseudo-Benedictines come to mind.

Another coherant post. I suppose there are many but I focus on the errors in order to correct them.

It is Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope. That can't be questioned.

I guess the dividing line is whether Father Ratzinger is a public heretic. What does "public" mean and what does "heretic" mean and what do the two words together mean.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #69 on:** November 05, 2012, 11:25:06 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Dogmatic sedevacantism is where "sede vacante" (the See is vacant) is raised to the level of a dogma, and that everyone denying this "dogma" is a heretic or non-Catholic.

Dogmatic Sedevacantists claim that those who don't adhere to sedevacantism are not just taking a different path in the Crisis, but that they actually need to be converted. If they don't convert, they must be either ignorant or of bad will -- just like a good Catholic would say about non-Catholics.

The idea the sedevacantism can be considered like a dogma of the Faith is ridiculous. Absolute, googly-eyed, "where's my straightjacket" insanity.

As an aside, dogmatic sedevacantists are NOT welcome on CathInfo. In other words, if you consider most CathInfo members to be non-Catholic, or matter for "conversion", you are not welcome here.

There are plenty of intelligent, educated Catholics of good will who look at Sedevacantism and keep walking. Such is a completely legitimate position.

As someone told me recently, "There are unanswerable questions both for the Sedevacantists and the Recognize-and-Resist side. Neither side has a perfect answer to all the objections/questions."

So we are free to pick our poison.

This is one of the more level-headed quotes from you, on this topic, that I have seen. For many there are numerous emotional barriers they have to overcome to even admit the possibility of SV.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #70 on:** November 05, 2012, 11:38:52 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Sunbeam
Quote from: [i
A Catholic Dictionary[/i]]DOGMA, in its theological sense, is a truth contained in the Word of God, written or unwritten – ie: in Scripture or Tradition – and proposed by the Church for the belief of the Faithful. Thus, dogma is a revealed truth, since Scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost, while tradition signifies the truths which the Apostles received from Christ and the the Holy Spirit, and handed down to the church. ...

Ref: William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold. A Catholic Dictionary. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1909. p.293.

As I would describe it, sedevacantism is a rational conclusion drawn from the application of theological principles to observable facts about words and deeds of certain individuals purported to have succeeded in recent times to the office of Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantism, being a theological position arrived at by human reason, cannot be a revealed truth. Therefore, the adjective corresponding to the noun, DOGMA, viz: DOGMATIC, cannot rightly be applied as an epithet to the term sedevacantism.

“Dogmatic sedevacantism” is an incoherent expression apparently invented for the purpose of pillorying Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position. I don’t deny that having arrived at that position, some sedevacantists, in their enthusiasm, may fall into the temptation of regarding all non-sedevacantist Catholics as heretics. But that is a failure in truth and in charity. The names of a couple of pseudo-Benedictines come to mind.

It's not incoherent. It communicates a very specific reality.

Some sedevacantists DO believe that sedevacantism is the "central dogma" of the Catholic Faith, and that all those who deny it are heretics or non-Catholics.

In reality, they consider themselves sedevacantists first and Catholics second. Though I doubt they'd admit to this. But their actions speak much louder than their words.

Insane, I know. But it doesn't change the fact that such people exist. I would know; I've run a traditional Catholic forum for 6 years. I've had to ban such people on more than one occasion.

I believe there is a tendency to stress what seems to be the least understood which would make it appear as if that is all they (we) care about, much the same as one would stress to a Protestant that Catholics do not worship Mary or statues. They will constantly defend that point until it seems the sincere or well-meaning Protestant gets it. It doesn't mean they believe in the hyper-dulia due to our Lady more important than the latria reserved for God alone but since they don't understand why we owe our Lady honor that is the issue we focus on until they get it. If they can show they understand the reasoning and still reject it we can let it be. But while they dance around the topic or switch to other objections and never grant us the valid points we make, we keep trying until they at least acknowledge the point and stick to the topic without calling me names for trying to explain the position.

Sometimes the protestant never gets it. But the Catholic who wants to convert him keeps trying to help him get it. Of course one need not be a SV in order to be Catholic but I hope you see the point. We stress what seems to be most misunderstood in the hopes that if it continues to be rejected it won't be for the wrong reasons.

1. He just has to be Pope.

2. No one can judge the Pope (but if he can be shown to be a public heretic he is not a Pope that has been shown to be already judged by God.)

3. There is a limit to how long a vacancy can last. (Show me)

4. He has to be a formal heretic. (So if he is just ignorant he can bind heresy on the Church)

5. He might be a bad Father but he is still our father. (

biology doesn't enter into the equation)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #71 on:** November 05, 2012, 11:55:53 AM »

Quote from: gooch

I will play devil's advocate as I do agree with some of the things the banned guy said
1. sedes believe the pope is a heretic and therefore can not be a true pope but an anti pope.
so if you don't agree with the sede position you believe that the present "pope" is either not a heretic or is a heretic but still is pope...I don't believe any of those 2 beliefs to be following Catholic teaching on the matter.

I disagree with his view that I'm not allowed to go to a traditional mass SSPX eventhough I believe the priest to be a heretic, as this is the only option I have to recieve the sacraments.

I would like to read from anyone who believes it's a mortal sin to financially support a heretical priest, since now the only option to recieve the sacraments are to go to a heretical priest I don't see how I can go to the mass without financially supporting them since if everyone did the same the church wouldn't be able to continue.

If you are SV and go to an una cuм Benedictio Mass you are obliged to at least minimally support the Priest you get the Sacraments from but the majority of your donations should go to good SV clergy.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #72 on:** November 05, 2012, 12:02:15 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: gooch
I would like to read from anyone who believes it's a mortal sin to financially support a heretical priest, since now the only option to recieve the sacraments are to go to a heretical priest I don't see how I can go to the mass without financially supporting them since if everyone did the same the church wouldn't be able to continue.

This is nonsense.

Where's your proof that acknowledging Benedict XVI as true Pope is "heresy"? It may not be the correct position, but what dogmatic sedevacantists don't understand is that the sedevacantist position - just like the position of the SSPX - is nothing more than an opinion, and a theory that attempts to explain the current crisis in the Church. Our position on whether or not Benedict XVI is true Pope will not play a role in the salvation of our soul. God isn't going to ask us on Judgement Day whether we were a sede or an SSPXer. Rather, He is going to ask us "Did you keep the Faith?". That is what's important.

Some people seem to forget that we must submit to valid Popes on all he binds on the Church and that our salvation does indeed depend on that in the objective realm. Subjectively if we are not aware of this doctrine or sincerely do not think it applies to our current situation then our invincible ignorance on this (or correct opinion as some would assert) will not damn us.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #73 on:** November 05, 2012, 12:15:48 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: gooch
I would like to read from anyone who believes it's a mortal sin to financially support a heretical priest, since now the only option to recieve the sacraments are to go to a heretical priest I don't see how I can go to the mass without financially supporting them since if everyone did the same the church wouldn't be able to continue.

This is nonsense.

Where's your proof that acknowledging Benedict XVI as true Pope is "heresy"? It may not be the correct position, but what dogmatic sedevacantists don't understand is that the sedevacantist position - just like the position of the SSPX - is nothing more than an opinion, and a theory that attempts to explain the current crisis in the Church. Our position on whether or not Benedict XVI is true Pope will not play a role in the salvation of our soul. God isn't going to ask us on Judgement Day whether we were a sede or an SSPXer. Rather, He is going to ask us "Did you keep the Faith?". That is what's important.

Some people seem to forget that we must submit to valid Popes on all he binds on the Church and that our salvation does indeed depend on that in the objective realm. Subjectively if we are not aware of this doctrine or sincerely do not think it applies to our current situation then our invincible ignorance on this (or correct opinion as some would assert) will not damn us.

Here is the supporting quote:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #74 on:** November 05, 2012, 12:21:09 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Did anyone give Disputaciones an explanation of Ecclesial Defectism (belief that the Church can err) before he was banned?

I haven't noticed. Can you tell me what this is?

Some errors are allowed here I think. The dogmatic feeneyites seem to post quite regularly.

There are all sorts of debates with people erring on one side or the other on this forum.