Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Kephapaulos on July 05, 2007, 01:43:54 AM
-
Two questions for sedevacantist Cathinfo members:
1) How did you come to adhering to the sedevacantist thesis?
2) If you ended up ever actually meeting Benedict XVI in person, would you tell him straight that he is not Pope?
-
1. I simply came to the conclusion that it was the only Catholic way to account for what I knew infallibly through Unaided Reason about the nature of the post-Vatican II church.
2. No. If for some reason I HAD to meet with him, I would not say, "You are not the pope." I would talk to him with cool reserve but some respect for him as a classy humanist type ONLY about Mozart. That would be how I would make my point, anyway. For me he simply is not someone to whom I should be speaking about Christ or the obedience or faith or anything spiritual at all.
There is no call to be bitter and sour about these things: after all, it is not as though we are OWED a Church or a Pope or Sanctifying Grace or salvation itself. We have to be reasonable and moderate about how we view even our worst enemies. And we ALL have souls to TRY to save. There would be no point in not being as nice to the man as possible if I HAD to meet him for some reason.
Oh, but I would insist on calling him by his first Christian name or his last name with the secular title of his choice and that he dress in a business suit at our meeting. If he did it for his brother at THEIR Mozart-related tete-a-tete he could do it at ours. Any sign of my respecting him as a religious leader would be out of the question.
-
Would you address him as Your Holiness, or Your Wholiness? (joke intended but would you address him as a pope for public decency?)
-
I would not address him as pope, or refer to him as pope. Iw would call him Josef, Joe, Herr Ratzinger, or nothing, politely letting him choose.
I don't see what is so "decent" about calling him pope. I don't think that it creates "public indecency" not to call him pope. What ARE examples of public indecency are the World Youth Day Events that the accepted rulers of the tiny nation of Vatican City sponsor year after year.
-
Wow! Those are great questions, Keph.
My story is long. I won't bore you with it, but suffice it to say that it was the hardest, most painful thing I've ever done. But my choices were to either close my eyes to what was going on or accept the one and only conclusion that fit. Since I had committed myself to the Truth, the whole Truth, and only the Truth years before, I didn't really have a choice.
Question two: I would hope that I had the courage of John the Baptist to say, "It is not lawful..."
Got any more questions?
-
1) How did you come to adhering to the sedevacantist thesis?
I saw that something was seriously "rotten in Denmark" (Rome), dug a little bit deeper, and concluded that such things could not possibly come from the Catholic Church. Ergo, it must be coming from a counterfeit (and thus the leaders thereof are also fakes). There are, of course, more details, but that is it in a nutshell.
2) If you ended up ever actually meeting Benedict XVI in person, would you tell him straight that he is not Pope?
Of course, although I do not know specifically what I would do. I might get Maccabeean on him (a la Mathathias), or I might have a long talk with 'His Crypto-Rabbi-ness'. It also would depend upon the circuмstances surrounding the meeting (public/private, Rome/Vatican/elsewhere, etc.).
-
Well, Keph, I see you don't have any more questions for us, so I'll ask some of you.
What caused you to conclude that the popes are valid?
How do you explain their departure from the teachings of the Church?
-
Like Trinity, Mine is a long story and not worth anyone's valuable time, it would probably mean anything to anyone else anyway.
I would rather not have to meet him, and if I did I might refer to him as "your unholiness", or "Bonjourno, Antipappam!", and make sure I had my Blessed Benedictine Crucifix.
-
As with the others, reading, especially anything written by Popes Leo XII, Pius any number. You see, it simply can not be that the things that they wrote of and said, "If anyone believes of these things, let him be anathema." There was no expiration date, they did not say, only till 1962, then the sky is the limit. Those things can not change and yes, I would confront him with all the love and kindness I could show forth because I do not want to see anyone loose their soul as so many have lost theirs through the New Church.
-
Well, the awaited day has arrived. The Church has returned to the Latin Mass, oh wait, no. Only if the priest has "stable" parishioners. Translate: people who swallow hook line and sinker Vatican II. And, it has been tailore not to offen anyone, especially Jews by praying that they accept Christ as their Saviour. Truth is that if one is honest with one's self, they will come to examine the goings on of this Pontiff especially, they will see he is no Catholic, Any pontiff who will not cast his net as St. Peter to convert all to the one true Faith is no Catholic.
Then, when you realize that the only thing stopping your from saying this man is not Catholic, therefore, can not be on the Chair of St. Peter, will be one's own nature that will prevent you from saying," Trinity, Gladius, Cletus, ect. you were right. You saw this before me, they have not been Catholic, they can not be Pope.
-
Two questions for sedevacantist Cathinfo members:
1) How did you come to adhering to the sedevacantist thesis?
2) If you ended up ever actually meeting Benedict XVI in person, would you tell him straight that he is not Pope?
One might wonder how a person "adheres", sticks, is caught up, is solidified in their solidarity to the notion that a Catholic Pope would kiss the Koran or worship at a mosque. One would wonder about adherence to the idea that a Catholic Pope would say to the Jews - their Messiah has yet to come - when the entire Church is partly built upon our confession of Christ as the great Promised Messiah. And so on.
It's not that Catholics need to explain why we await a Pope. The question is rather why Roman Protestants continue to call themselves, Catholic, when they do what they do at 'services' and elsewhere, and follow clerics who do and say what they do contrary to the letter and spirit of The Church. The burden isn't on Catholics to show that the PC (post-conciliar) 'Popes' aren't. It's self-evident, rather. The burden is on those who claim that these men are part of the long line and succession of Popes to reconcile what they've done, said or failed to do with the behavior one would expect from even one of the historically bad Popes. That is - would a Pope do such a thing? And fill in the blank with a hundred different scandals.
If I had had the chance to meet Wotyla, I would not have bent the knee, or kissed his ring. I would have been polite. But I certainly would not have confessed him at the head of The Roman Catholic Church. The same with Ratzinger. You walk with Christ by standing for Him, and not against Him. These men stand against him, and you can't stand with them.
-
You walk with Christ by standing for Him, and not against Him. These men stand against him, and you can't stand with them.
I made that point awhile back and no one said boo. Go figure.
-
It would be good to admonish the Pope, with all respect, when he is in error (as St. Paul did to St. Peter).
I still fail to understand why it is so necessary to "repudiate" the recent Popes. Do you honestly believe that God is going to require that of us Catholics? When Catholics are trained from birth to reverence their ecclesiastical superiors?
Now the Mass and sacraments are another story. There is nothing wrong with TAKING what rightfully belongs to us, namely the Tridentine Mass, ALL the traditional sacraments, catechism, sermons, etc. and that is what the SSPX is doing. They have no special permission from Rome to say the TLM exclusively, but we know that we don't NEED permission to be Catholic!
So what I'm asking is, what PRACTICAL spiritual benefit is gained by vocally repudiating Benedict XVI? You can't say "we're not compromised as Catholics" because neither are SSPX Catholics, though they leave the Papal issue alone (believing, quite rightly, that it is not for a layman to judge the Pope)
You also can't say the SSPX is following the Pope into error, because the SSPX hasn't fallen into any of the modernist errors. A Catholic isn't obligated to follow heresy or error, even when it comes from the Pope. We in the SSPX try to be prudent in this crisis -- we respect the office, and pray for the man.
In Christ,
Matthew
-
Because that is intellectual dishonesty, Chant. You are saying it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it isn't a duck because look where it's at. And the emperor would NEVER parade through town in the buff.
Look at the nuts and bolts. John XXIII through Benedict XVI have been the enemy of Christ and the mission of the Church. Do the math.
-
What we need, and may have and I am not aware of that, is St. Brigit of Sweden or St. Catherine of Sienna. And, yes, they would use all available forms of modern communication to contact Benedict. SOULS ARE AT STAKE, and so I am sure they would do whatever it takes.
-
I still fail to understand why it is so necessary to "repudiate" the recent Popes.
It is not about "repudiating" Popes - but putting two and two together, realizing these men could not possibly have been Popes, and that the NO cannot possibly be the Catholic Church.
When Catholics are trained from birth to reverence their ecclesiastical superiors?
But they are radically incapable of being ecclesiastical superiors, as they do not even possess the first requirement - Faith.
So what I'm asking is, what PRACTICAL spiritual benefit is gained by vocally repudiating Benedict XVI?
By the use of "vocally", I take you realize you repudiate him in deed - which makes refusal of the vocal repudiation totally inconsistent.
...(believing, quite rightly, that it is not for a layman to judge the Pope)...
This is such an old canard/red herring, it is amazing the mileage it still gets.
-
Hmmm. Try this. If you saw a man in a janitor's uniform, pushing a janitor's cart with cleaning supplies, you would say, "He is a janitor." But if instead of using the cleaning supplies, you saw him busy himself setting up bombs, would you not change your mind and decide he wasn't a janitor, after all?
There are certain things that make a pope a pope, the VICAR of Christ, servant of the servants of Christ and Shepherd of the flock. A man can wear the clothes, sit on the chair, declare himself pope, but if he doesn't do the things that a pope does, then he is not a pope.
One thing Jesus never told us to do, and that is to lie in the face of the truth. He doesn't expect us to rave over the emperor new (nonexistent) clothes. Instead, He said we would know them by their fruits. He said we would KNOW THEM.
-
So what I'm asking is, what PRACTICAL spiritual benefit is gained by vocally repudiating Benedict XVI?
It's an expected act of charity. And while I'm no Saint, the real Saints, were they alive today, would be severe in their public denunciations of the post-Vatican II 'Popes'. Catholics still await a Pope. It's been a long time, decades. This is what the great Saints would say. They would also have the miracles to support them, by God's grace. I don't see that I, or those of the SSPV, or independents, and so on - do - save that we're here in this diabolical new order of the world. Could we move mountains, it would be different. But perhaps Our Lord wishes only to provide for the faithful, that they flourish, or even just survive, but would have the greater institutions punished by allowing them to do as they will. Balaam was punished in this way.
You also can't say the SSPX is following the Pope into error, because the SSPX hasn't fallen into any of the modernist errors.
That you don't know. The Fellayist faction certainly has brought scandal to the organization, and caused former supporters to start looking elsewhere. Some have said they've discovered priests 'grandfathered' in without proper formation. Some point to their defense of the recently revised Canon Law. And so on. This is troubling. The behavior and re-election of Fellay, and on those terms, is particularly troubling.
Have they embraced even some Protestant error? Perhaps?
-
You sound like the mainstream media "Lefebvrists", "Fellayist".
Guess what -- we don't go by those names. They are thrown at us repeatedly, but only heretics go by the name of their founder. We are Christians -- followers of Christ, and Catholics, followers of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ founded. We are "Traditional Catholic" to distinguish us from the mainstream Novus Ordo "Catholics" who are often Catholic in name only (I am talking percentage-wise -- I know there are still sincere Catholics in the Novus Ordo). The loss of faith is a gradual process. Some people have the faith and are in the process of losing it; others have lost it completely.
Anyhow, there are no divisions or factions in the SSPX, except for the usual minor disagreements you get when more than 3 people are involved in any venture.
In a crisis as major as this one, you'll have people disagree about many things, but the Society is quite unified as a matter of fact. Let's put it this way -- I've been involved with the SSPX for over 7 years now, and I couldn't list you any factions (nor have I been led to "choose a side" or anything).
Matthew
-
Matthew,
I imagine you are aware there are some sedevacantist priests in the SSPX. What are your thoughts about this being privately known and condoned, but publicly forbidden, by the higher-ups in the SSPX?
Also, what response would you make to the "allegation" of inconsistency I made in my previous post (re: repudiation in deed vs. vocally)?
-
...only heretics go by the name of their founder. We are Christians -- followers of Christ...
...and Christ is the FOUNDER of our religion, no?
I know what you mean, but look at those words above and tell me they could not be better arranged.
...and Catholics, followers of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ founded...
Well, according to the CDF docuмent (seen in another thread), the Catholic Church has not been, or at least is not now, "fully universal" - which means she isn't even catholic!
-
I did think of that -- but I thought that my subsequent sentences "We are followers of Christ..." sufficiently clarified it for any nit-pickers.
One of the Church Fathers made a point about that -- how all the heretical sects (Nestorians, Arians, etc.) are named after their founder, as opposed to taking their namesake from Christ. Note that this isn't lost on the Bad Guys who always like to slur the SSPX by calling them "lefebvrists".
To that I answer: No, we're just faithful Catholics -- nothing more. We don't have a unique doctrine apart from the Catholic one. SSPX Catholics are specified by the fact that they HAVEN'T changed anything of the Faith.
Matthew
-
Fair enough. However, I do not think the "original Nestorians" called themselves Nestorians. History has used this label, but it is unlikely they did.
I am not being pushy, but if you get the chance, I would like to know your thoughts in response to my other post (above the one of lesser moment).
-
By the use of "vocally", I take you realize you repudiate him in deed - which makes refusal of the vocal repudiation totally inconsistent.
But we're just holding off -- reserving judgement. Being a good Catholic doesn't require taking out a full-page ad (or starting a sedevacantist website) bashing the Pope.
We can humbly disagree with him (and charitably admonish him) when he is in error, but for many people declaring "there is no pope" opens a can of worms -- it creates many more problems than it solves.
How will we know when a true pope is elected? "We'll just know." Yeah, but we're going on individual private judgement here. Others say "St. Michael will elect him" or "It's the end of the world...there will be no more popes" Very well, but I disagree.
Joseph Saraceno fancies himself a prophet. He's a sedevacantist who believes the world will end Pentecost 2009. In the meantime he's busying himself with important, soul-saving tasks such as making sure we all vote for the right U.S. Presidential candidate in November 2008 (and other banal wastes of time).
I'm not saying that all sedevacantists are like him, I'm just giving an example of what happens when a person believes than God has practically abandoned His church!
Seriously -- has God left his Church for good, without a vicar, for 40 (or more) years? When He promised that "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 40 years with no pope sure sounds like hell was pretty "damn" victorious!
Sedes don't even agree on when the last pope was. Some sedes rail against the 1962 Missale and that one REALLY gets me. I am a well-educated Catholic, but I see nothing un-Catholic or dangerous to the Faith in the 1962 Missale.
"Truth is one. Error is many."
But most of all, I am not Sede because I don't trust my personal judgement on such a weighty matter. I'd trust Archbishop Lefebvre, many of the holy priests I've met at the Seminary *in person*, including Bishop Williamson, etc. but I don't know the various Sede personalities on the 'Net well enough to trust my soul to them.
I could be wrong though -- maybe a future council will declare someday that X popes were anti-popes. I would obviously submit to that judgment.
I can fathom God giving us a serious test, as he is doing right now with the Crisis in the Church. But reducing the Church to a couple dozen priests and a few hundred faithful? Who would be able to find the Catholic Church? The Church has to be available to all men, or else the end of the world must come.
I hope that Sedes at least concede that the SSPX says a valid Mass, or even that all 1962 Tridentine Masses are valid. That would at least allow the Faithful all around the world to find and attend Mass. The Faithful aren't expected to be theologians -- but they know Catholic when they see it. It's their Sensus Catholicus.
In Christ,
Matthew
-
Matthew,
I imagine you are aware there are some sedevacantist priests in the SSPX. What are your thoughts about this being privately known and condoned, but publicly forbidden, by the higher-ups in the SSPX?
Also, what response would you make to the "allegation" of inconsistency I made in my previous post (re: repudiation in deed vs. vocally)?
And I'm sure you have names and sources to back up such an allegation?
I'm just wondering how this would work exactly. It's privately known, but yet you seem to know all about it? :detective:
You can't make this stuff up folks! :laugh2:
I happen to have a direct line to a SSPX higher up. Who have you talked to recently for your information? Let's see if the names and faces line up. IF your story is true, you should have no problem naming your source.
No, Fr. Cekada does not count, sorry. :dancing-banana:
"Your story has become tiresome"
-
Speaking of SSPV, someone told me that Fr. Coomaraswamy was (is?) a married man -- with a normal married life -- but was ordained a priest nevertheless.
Is that true?
Wikipedia seems to think so...
Matthew
-
You sound like the mainstream media "Lefebvrists", "Fellayist".
Guess what -- we don't go by those names.
You don't have to. But one has to identify distinct factions. They are identified, if possible, by the leaders.
They are thrown at us repeatedly, but only heretics go by the name of their founder. We are Christians -- followers of Christ, and Catholics, followers of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ founded.
Did Our Lord preach ecuмenism? Did God, The Holy Spirit, say to previous Popes - sit down in the mosque and pray with the Muslims? Did God, The Holy Spirit say to previous Popes - allow the desecration of altars by Buddhists? Did God, The Holy Spirit tell previous Popes to reverently kiss the Koran? Did Our Lord say to the Jews, I am not the Great Promised Messiah, you must wait for him? Did Our Lord say to the Apostles, for you and for everyone - or did He say, for you and for many? And so on.
Are we on the same side, here? Does your group of SSPX take The Church's side on these questions, yet still calls Ratzinger, Pope? as they called Wotyla, Pope? perhaps even personally swearing allegiance to the man and the cult of personality?
Anyhow, there are no divisions or factions in the SSPX
Clearly there are. And it's what is barely saving the SSPX, those who oppose Fellay and those who believe like him.
But as I pointed out, the SSPX suffers from a credibility problem if it's discovered that priests are brought in without proper formation, or that they support the revision to Canon Law under Roman Protestantism, that Fellayists would condemn those who say Catholics still await a Pope, etc. That's even apart from the manipulations of Fellay, himself. Ideally, the SSPX is not headed by one of those bishops, but by someone else. I like Williamson, sure. But not even him. And ideally, whoever heads the organization is not elected to serve - seemingly forever; particularly if he is suspected of favoring a sell-out, or favoring even aspects of heresy (modernism, etc). So.
-
Let's overlook the cute emoticons and the overdone courtroom posturing about how wacky and unbelievable this "stuff" is. The idea of a group's tolerating in its ranks members who follow one tendency of that group's founder to an extreme that the group does not officially countenance is not at all something that would have to be "made up." It is what any shrewd observer of the SSPX would suspect to be the case. For some it WOULD have become "time" to say that the Chair was vacant, though apparently, that time never came for His Lordship.
As for someone knowing something about the SSPX that is not widely known, here is how it might work: Traditionalists, being the blabbermouths of the ages, might by the hundreds gossip to, say, a used Catholic book dealer on the phone year after year, decade after decade, about how this and that and the other Father So-and-So spoke about his sedevacantist convictions to a group of twenty of the faithful at a christening party or on a pligrimage to the shrine of the Blessed Kateri...
Fr So-and-So himself might find himself unable to resist the temptation to unburden himself to his barber, or his acolyte, or his used Catholic book dealer.
The superiors of these sedevacantist SSPX priests might spill the beans while boasting of their own tolerance and forebearance in letting them stay on as long as they keep their belief that there is no Holy Father a deep dark secret.
It would be very strange if there were no sedevacantist SSPX priests. More than a few SSPX priests who have quit have declared themselves sedevacantists and cited that as their reason for quitting. It stands to reason that there are some SSPX priests who are sedevacantists but have not quit yet. And it would take a miracle for them not to become known privately, as it were, through the ordinary channels of Traditionalist rumor-mongering.
Let's get clear on something. It is one thing to be taunted for having a weak case in a debate. It is another to be mocked as a fool who is spouting absurdities. In the context of a formal debate we may well disregard what is claimed without evidence to back it up. But the victorious other side is going too far when he suggests that because something is stated without evidence to back it up that it is logically incredible or "stuff that cannot be made up."
The sentence preceding the Sherlock Holmes emoticon above is a textbook case of a non sequitur. Yes, that SSPX Fr So-and-So is a sedevacantist is an open secret in Traditionalist circles. No, this will not be noised about in THE ANGELUS or in one of Bishop Williamson's sermons. So what is not publicly admitted (meaning, officially, on the record, to all and sundry) but is privately condoned, can be well known to hundreds, to thousands, who for one reason or another have an "in" into the personalities and situations involved.
I shall not attack the non sequitur in the last challenge to gladius veritatis at this time.
Dancing bananas and pictures of weird men and quotes from obscure worldly vanities do not pertain to logical demonstration in a serious religious debate. They do not strengthen anyone's case. I think that this needs to be pointed out.
Is there an emoticon of old Sherlock taking dope?
-
Speaking of SSPV, someone told me that Fr. Coomaraswamy was (is?) a married man -- with a normal married life -- but was ordained a priest nevertheless.
Is that true?
Wikipedia seems to think so...
Matthew
Depends on the wikipedia moderator for that article, the particular clique, etc. The reliability of wikipedia is very much dependent on the particular article in question. Some are useful, even accurate. Others are junk.
Rama Coomaraswamy, in addition to his valid criticisms of the late Mother Teresa, directed to her, personally, in writing, was also author of a book called, The Destruction of the Christian Tradition. It's one of the best-written classics in this ongoing critique of Roman Protestantism. Others, of course, included a couple from von Hildebrand, from Anne Muggeridge, from Demers, and some others, including Gamber's critique of the new Pauline services.
But as for his ordination, that's a matter of whether one approves of the Thuc line, or not. I believe the SSPV, for example, has been very clear in opposing the Thuc bishops, at least as being valid, or at least Bishop Kelly has. Not only was Coomaraswamy married, but sworn to celibacy after ordination, much like the Eastern Orthodox, but so the man who consecrated him similarly had been married and then swore, along with his wife, to celibacy, before himself being ordained. Coomaraswamy would make the case, in fact, against the sufficient and valid consecration of those like Ratzinger under the new rite.
-
Seriously -- has God left his Church for good, without a vicar, for 40 (or more) years? When He promised that "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 40 years with no pope sure sounds like hell was pretty "damn" victorious!
I shall say more later, but on this one point:
Is 40+ years without a Vicar worse that 40+ years with so-called Vicars that force boulders down the throats of the sheep when they ask for bread? Who has been "victorious" in the scenario where these wicked men have been true Vicars of Christ, sending/leading hundreds of millions into the spiritual meat grinder, day after day?
The man you call Christ's Vicar just told you he and his predecessors are lying monsters, for there never was an abrogation of the TLM. They have been bitch-slapping their children for decades, and now they tell them there really wasn't any offense for which they have received such treatment! Cheers.
-
By the use of "vocally", I take you realize you repudiate him in deed - which makes refusal of the vocal repudiation totally inconsistent.
But we're just holding off -- reserving judgment. Being a good Catholic doesn't require taking out a full-page ad (or starting a sedevacantist website) bashing the Pope.
No, you are not "reserving judgment".
Your answer totally evades the question of consistency. You already repudiate him in deed. To "prudently reserve judgment" where the words are concerned is, at least, inconsistency, at worst, hypocrisy.
What newspaper ads or websites have to do with the question of consistency, I know not.
-
...for many people declaring "there is no pope" opens a can of worms -- it creates many more problems than it solves.
The can is already open, brother - no stopping that, SSPX or sede.
Sedevacantism is not meant to be a "solution", but a simple statement of fact. Those who worry about this or that aspect of the solution to this crisis are missing the bigger picture (btw, no one, sede or otherwise, has any idea how this will all pan out, as we are clearly up a creek the likes of which we have never seen). One cannot get anywhere in this battle (or even properly survive) until the identity of the enemy is established.
Would it make sense to say, "Because I am uncertain as to how we shall find our way out of these woods, I shall refuse to acknowledge the plain fact that we are actually, deeply in the woods."?
-
The man you call Christ's Vicar just told you he and his predecessors are lying monsters, for there never was an abrogation of the TLM. They have been bitch-slapping their children for decades, and now they tell them there really wasn't any offense for which they have received such treatment! Cheers.
There is so much more that they have done to us. In the spirit of determining who the enemy is, it would be a good thing to list what the "shepherds" have done to the "sheep".
For starters:
They have downgraded Our Lady
Colluded with our known enemies (Jews/communists)
Slyly did away with the sacraments
Destroyed the authority of the Church
Destroyed the mission of the Church
Turned us against one another
-
Very interesting conversation, I hope I'm not interupting.
To get my berings straight:
The SSPX wants to remain faithful to what they see as the Catholic Church, i.e. the hierarchy - the Pope.
However, they see the the bad fruits in this hierarchy, and they criticise it.
They accept this, but they also want to be able to denounce the error that it promotes. They want to "strattle the fence" so to speak, they don't want to have to make up their minds.
Sedevacantists: see the errors of the V2 hierarchy, and denounce it as non-Catholic for it's non-Catholic practices and views. In doing so, they denounce the "pope" as a heretic for the deeds that he has committed against the Faith, and do the same with the council that sanctions such heretical actions under the seal of the Holy See.
What I don't understand:
SSPX:
Claims that the "Pope" is the Pope, sees it's sinister deeds, and denounces them as such.
They oppose an authoritative Council of the "Church"
They oppose infallible statements and promulgations by the "Popes". The Catholic Church states that when such pronouncements are made, all Catholics are bound to obey under pain of anathema, therefore, how can they oppose a Council of the "Church", which is supposed to be guided by the Holy Ghost and seat of Peter and therefore cannot err?
Benedict XVI has now bound all who profess the faith of the modern Vatican to accept the authority and teachings of Vatican II. How can the SSPX oppose such a thing, and not be schismatic? They now have two choices, completely repudiate the entire Vatican II sect, or whole-heartedly join it, and its authority. SSPXers, what then is the right course of action?
Sedevacantists don't pretend to have the answer, and they may be varied, but if what they say is correct, then the central authority of the hierarchy of the Church is virtually non-existent, and therefore it is understandable that so many different groups should exist, there is no authority. But the question is, how can a heretic be pope? Can he who errs in matters of faith and morals speak infallibly in that matter?
-
Someone please take these things and run. But run carefully, one point at a time, because they are all important, esp. in the final analysis.
-
Speaking of SSPV, someone told me that Fr. Coomaraswamy was (is?) a married man -- with a normal married life -- but was ordained a priest nevertheless.
Is that true?
Wikipedia seems to think so...
Matthew
The Catholic Church teaches that a married man may become a priest, but a priest may not marry. If he were, it would still be valid, If he were not married, it would still be valid.
Of course this is not commonly practiced nowadays, but it is a statement of fact. Wikipedia is not factual, most of it's information is slanted in a way that benefits certain parties, and that article cannot be corrected, it is either protected, or the changes will be removed. That is how the truth is suppressed on that site, I call it personal experience, my edits never last more than a few hours.
-
But we're just holding off -- reserving judgement. Being a good Catholic doesn't require taking out a full-page ad (or starting a sedevacantist website) bashing the Pope.
We can humbly disagree with him (and charitably admonish him) when he is in error, but for many people declaring "there is no pope" opens a can of worms -- it creates many more problems than it solves.
How will we know when a true pope is elected? "We'll just know." Yeah, but we're going on individual private judgement here. Others say "St. Michael will elect him" or "It's the end of the world...there will be no more popes" Very well, but I disagree.
Joseph Saraceno fancies himself a prophet. He's a sedevacantist who believes the world will end Pentecost 2009. In the meantime he's busying himself with important, soul-saving tasks such as making sure we all vote for the right U.S. Presidential candidate in November 2008 (and other banal wastes of time).
I'm not saying that all sedevacantists are like him, I'm just giving an example of what happens when a person believes than God has practically abandoned His church!
Seriously -- has God left his Church for good, without a vicar, for 40 (or more) years? When He promised that "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 40 years with no pope sure sounds like hell was pretty "damn" victorious!
Sedes don't even agree on when the last pope was. Some sedes rail against the 1962 Missale and that one REALLY gets me. I am a well-educated Catholic, but I see nothing un-Catholic or dangerous to the Faith in the 1962 Missale.
"Truth is one. Error is many."
But most of all, I am not Sede because I don't trust my personal judgement on such a weighty matter. I'd trust Archbishop Lefebvre, many of the holy priests I've met at the Seminary *in person*, including Bishop Williamson, etc. but I don't know the various Sede personalities on the 'Net well enough to trust my soul to them.
I could be wrong though -- maybe a future council will declare someday that X popes were anti-popes. I would obviously submit to that judgment.
I can fathom God giving us a serious test, as he is doing right now with the Crisis in the Church. But reducing the Church to a couple dozen priests and a few hundred faithful? Who would be able to find the Catholic Church? The Church has to be available to all men, or else the end of the world must come.
I hope that Sedes at least concede that the SSPX says a valid Mass, or even that all 1962 Tridentine Masses are valid. That would at least allow the Faithful all around the world to find and attend Mass. The Faithful aren't expected to be theologians -- but they know Catholic when they see it. It's their Sensus Catholicus.
In Christ,
Matthew
But we're just holding off -- reserving judgement. Being a good Catholic doesn't require taking out a full-page ad (or starting a sedevacantist website) bashing the Pope.
Good Catholics have to make a decision where matters of the faith are concerned, he cannot simply decide to sit back and see how things work out, he must take sides, that does not necessarily mean that he has to spread his view.
We can humbly disagree with him (and charitably admonish him) when he is in error, but for many people declaring "there is no pope" opens a can of worms -- it creates many more problems than it solves.
If he errs concerning the faith, calling articles of the faith into doubt, that is an heretical action. One who does such is a heretic. That is a statement of a fact, it is not trying to push an agenda or make a problem, like in math, in order to solve it, we must first acknowledge that there is a problem to solve.
We acknowledge this, we know that there are problems, we have the courage to open our eyes and see them, for they are there, whether we should choose to see them or no.
How will we know when a true pope is elected? "We'll just know." Yeah, but we're going on individual private judgement here. Others say "St. Michael will elect him" or "It's the end of the world...there will be no more popes" Very well, but I disagree.
simply because we have no solution to the problem, does not mean that there is no problem. In Math, simply because there is no answer, does not mean that there is no problem desirous of a solution; ergo, denying a problem based on the logic that it cannot exist because there is no solution is to employ a false logic.
Joseph Saraceno fancies himself a prophet. He's a sedevacantist who believes the world will end Pentecost 2009. In the meantime he's busying himself with important, soul-saving tasks such as making sure we all vote for the right U.S. Presidential candidate in November 2008 (and other banal wastes of time).
It is a dishonest tactic to find the wakiest fringe groups of a movement in order to discredit it. I do not insinuate CCD, that you have any such intention, I state a fact.
I'm not saying that all sedevacantists are like him, I'm just giving an example of what happens when a person believes than God has practically abandoned His church!
Sedevacantists do not believe that God has abadoned His Church, otherwise there has not been one since the Arian Crisis.
The logic you employ here does not apply to the sedevacantist issue.
Seriously -- has God left his Church for good, without a vicar, for 40 (or more) years? When He promised that "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 40 years with no pope sure sounds like hell was pretty "damn" victorious!
Then there was no Great western schism, it was all a trivial game then. Do you imply that the Great Western Schism never happened, that the people of Europe were not able to account for the true pontiff? Hell triumphed over the Church 500 years ago, what are we all bothering about, there is no Church then!
Sedes don't even agree on when the last pope was. Some sedes rail against the 1962 Missale and that one REALLY gets me. I am a well-educated Catholic, but I see nothing un-Catholic or dangerous to the Faith in the 1962 Missale.
Whether or no there is agreement is no argument against the fact that a man in Rome commits actions that are arguably heretical. There are many theories, but since we have had no real authority to consult, we do our best under the guidance of the Magisterium. The 1962 Missal was heavily modernized.
It was not all that Great, the previous missals were closer to the real celebration.
"Truth is one. Error is many."
Then I suppose you are Novus Ordo? That is their argument against all traditionalists, including the SSPX.
But most of all, I am not Sede because I don't trust my personal judgement on such a weighty matter. I'd trust Archbishop Lefebvre, many of the holy priests I've met at the Seminary *in person*, including Bishop Williamson, etc. but I don't know the various Sede personalities on the 'Net well enough to trust my soul to them.
So you don't trust the Magisterium enough to abide by it's authoritative teachings that no heretic can be Pope? You trust a man, a dissident from a heretic Church who never decided where his loyalty lay.
I could be wrong though --
Well, that is a possiblity, I been thinking of that one for a little while. :laugh1:
maybe a future council will declare someday that X popes were anti-popes. I would obviously submit to that judgment.
Maybe, but if previous definitions of the Church have already stated people who believe X and X are not Catholic, but heretics, and therefore, no heretic can command in that which he is no member. Common sense,Canon Law, and Church Magisterium all state that one.
I can fathom God giving us a serious test, as he is doing right now with the Crisis in the Church. But reducing the Church to a couple dozen priests and a few hundred faithful? Who would be able to find the Catholic Church? The Church has to be available to all men, or else the end of the world must come.
So you cannot believe that the Arian Crisis ever happened?
True, who knew which was right during the Great Western Schism? Your reasoning here fails the test of precedent.
I hope that Sedes at least concede that the SSPX says a valid Mass, or even that all 1962 Tridentine Masses are valid. That would at least allow the Faithful all around the world to find and attend Mass. The Faithful aren't expected to be theologians -- but they know Catholic when they see it. It's their Sensus Catholicus
We do believe that as long as the correct matter an form are present, the sacraments of the SSPX are valid. 1962 Missal is valid, but heavily modernized.
Your reasoning implies that there was a Catholic Church in every country during every century of its history, ergo, even before the discovery of the new World, there was an official Catholic Church there. That is ridiculous, and history disavows it.
One doe snot have to be a theologian to tell that a man who calls into doubt the validity of Christ is not Catholic, no real theology necesary there.
In Christ,
Matthew
I suppose, but I mean nothing against the ChantCD here, I respect your views, and I believe in your honesty and sincerity, however, I do not see the logic in your logic.
-
Does Clodovicus have this right?
SSPX:
Claims that the "Pope" is the Pope, sees it's sinister deeds, and denounces them as such.
They oppose an authoritative Council of the "Church"
They oppose infallible statements and promulgations by the "Popes". The Catholic Church states that when such pronouncements are made, all Catholics are bound to obey under pain of anathema, therefore, how can they oppose a Council of the "Church", which is supposed to be guided by the Holy Ghost and seat of Peter and therefore cannot err?
-
Yes, his statement is correct. The SSPX et alii will, of course, argue about the nature of the council, the obligation to adhere to the docuмents, etc. In the end, however, these people are refusing to accept the interpretation given to those docuмents by the men they call the Vicar of Christ. His interpretation alone matters - not their own.
Leaving that aside for the moment, there is also the issue of the 1983 (so-called) Code of Canon Law, as one example out of many. This Code contains evil disciplines, and was undoubtedly promulgated by JP2. A Catholic must accept it, evil disciplines and all, if JP2 was legit - but such is impossible.
-
And this?
Sedevacantists don't pretend to have the answer, and they may be varied, but if what they say is correct, then the central authority of the hierarchy of the Church is virtually non-existent, and therefore it is understandable that so many different groups should exist, there is no authority. But the question is, how can a heretic be pope? Can he who errs in matters of faith and morals speak infallibly in that matter?
I have a problem with the word "virtually".
-
Well, Keph, I see you don't have any more questions for us, so I'll ask some of you.
What caused you to conclude that the popes are valid?
How do you explain their departure from the teachings of the Church?
Don't worry, Trinity, I did not forget your questions for me, but why would you think I don't have any more questions for you and the other sedevacantists? :laugh1:
Anyway, I should have some responses soon for your questions.
-
Well, I asked you if you had anymore questions for us and you never answered, so I figured.... Hey, fire away, Keph, questions and answers.
-
Most of the possible questions were asked at FE a while back. I still have a link to that folder, should anyone like to have it.
-
And this?
Sedevacantists don't pretend to have the answer, and they may be varied, but if what they say is correct, then the central authority of the hierarchy of the Church is virtually non-existent, and therefore it is understandable that so many different groups should exist, there is no authority. But the question is, how can a heretic be pope? Can he who errs in matters of faith and morals speak infallibly in that matter?
I have a problem with the word "virtually".
Well, it is true that there is absolutely no central authority in the Church anywhere.
All that exists is certain bishops who have pronounced themselves as such an authority in some society that they have founded.
-
I guess we should be grateful for that much. No Peter, but we do have James, John, Andrew, etc.
-
Well, I asked you if you had anymore questions for us and you never answered, so I figured.... Hey, fire away, Keph, questions and answers.
You did not ask me if I had any more questions it seems to me. It seems to me you put it forth as if I did not have any more. Anyway, alright, on to the answering of your questions...
-
What caused you to conclude that the popes are valid?
Well, first of all, I say that I think at one time I sort of bought into what Fr. Trosch believed concerning John Paul II, which is that he was a legal pope but not a moral one. Now, I think that it could be possible that a pope could lose his office, but I know now that can only be known surely unless it is declared de jure by cardinals during the time the Pope would be living or after his death whether he had lost his office and at which point he did. Recently, I thought about St. Peter. Did he not betray our Lord? Would that mean he lost his office then? It seems he did not. Believing heresy is of course betraying our Lord, and so if any Pope were to do that he could be held to be remaining in his office, but then again it would probably be best if he was declared to have lost it if he did indeed fall into formal heresy. The thing is that sedevacantists oversimplify or make things too clearcut concerning the papacy. Does every single Pope have to have the requirement that he be a saint in order to be validly elected or what? It would nice of course if every Pope we would have would be a saint, but history tells us otherwise. Popes have erred and have failed, even if none has actually professed any formal heresy.
How do you explain their departure from the teachings of the Church?
Well, I consider the theology and philosophy post-Pius XII popes have either for which had sympathy or believed. Many hold contradictions in their minds so easily now, and you have to understand that the common sense of the world has fooled many even though some do mean well. So many are still in the Novus Ordo, remember. A lot of that has to do with the common sense of the world infecting the minds of so many Catholics. There is the fact that even though there are naturally kind people out there, if you present the Catholic faith to one of such people and even clearly, they can be turned away. Naturalism is indeed diabolical then. Many are not of good will now sadly. Now with conservative Catholics though, you could probably get good answers to basic questions about the Catholic faith, but then they could add in things that are heretical or erroneous. Most likely, you would get similar answers if you asked Pope Benedict XVI basic questions about the Catholic faith. Obviously, there is material heresy present, but then I do not see everyone actually trying to profess any false religion entirely. Unfortunately, many end up doing so because of the contradictions with which they were fooled or raised. Of course, a sedevacantist could try to argue though that the NO is a false religion. It is but if there is someone in it who is aware of doctrinal errors running amuck, rejects all heresy, adheres to the Catholic faith, and only has what has been given to him or her, you cannot blame them being deprived of the fullness of Catholic Tradition. It does indeed start at the top. We could keep going on and on and on arguing about the sedevacantist issue, but we simply have to wait for a judgment of the Church concerning the post-Pius XII popes.
-
That was a lot, Keph, and I don't think I can cover it all. but a few things did stand out for me. Keep in mind that "wait" is a choice, too.
I was thinking today about how it seems to me that non sede's tend to base their choice on theological rhetoric. Can't say for sure about the sede's, but I know that such legalisms do nothing for me.
First off, the world doesn't have "common sense" and that is the problem. Common sense is in the realm of wisdom. The world is replete with nonsense to the point of sheer insanity. Derry Brownfield has a column in his newsletter called "Ignorance Gone to Seed", if you know what that means. In it he tells of some particularly stupid shenanigan someone in the world is up to.
But the crux of the matter is not to be found in theology or any other legal work. Remember when Jesus told the religious leaders that God doesn't want sacrifice, He wants love. This was a great mystery to them because they were used to straining at gnats and swallowing camels, so to speak. So if you are looking for the route to heaven in legalese, your chances aren't good. Why aren't they good? Because the "letter" of the law is lifeless, and is often used to promote the exact opposite of what it should be used for. Find the "spirit" of the law.
Again, when Jesus taught he used short, to the point, declarative sentences, or parables. You have heard it said...but I say... You just can't miss or twist His words. People can and do misapply them, but they can't make them what they aren't.
It's late and that's enough of that. Do I understand you correctly to say that it takes a legal authority to issue a legal declaration that the chair is vacant? The pope is false? IF so there is a really big problem with that. He would have to turn himself in. Somehow I just can't see him standing up and saying "I am an imposter." Is that what you are waiting for?
-
The thing is that sedevacantists oversimplify or make things too clearcut concerning the papacy. Does every single Pope have to have the requirement that he be a saint in order to be validly elected or what?
This is a nonsensical red herring, kepha, as no sedevacantist argues that one needs to be a saint to be pope. What is required is that one possess, confess, and teach the Holy Catholic Faith.
-
Your explanation of the errors of these men is lacking, as it is, quite literally, impossible for a man to hold contradictory ideas/concepts simultaneously. [Please read the "Mente-vacantism" article.]
I appreciate the time you devoted to provide the answers, my friend, but you might want to reflect upon what you have said.
Essentially:
We see error, heresy, apostasy, etc., and we know it to be such. [There is, btw, a very real, and acceptable, judgment taking place in this.]
We cannot know the interior dispositions of those in error, and, consequently, must wait on a de jure decision on the matter. [We need someone to tell us a spade is a spade. Never mind that even Holy Church cannot know the interior dispositions of a man, and will judge based upon the facts of the external forum.]
Therefore, we cannot act, basing our actions upon what is plain to all. [This is not how Catholics in the past have acted. For example, those who were under Nestorius at the time he preached his heresy.]
-
-
Your explanation of the errors of these men is lacking, as it is, quite literally, impossible for a man to hold contradictory ideas/concepts simultaneously. [Please read the "Mente-vacantism" article.]
People do, gladius. Were we not at one time in the NO ourselves? Were we I guess guilty of mortal sin 24/7 even if we did not know of the fullness of Catholic Tradition or at first had little knowledge of it?
I appreciate the time you devoted to provide the answers, my friend, but you might want to reflect upon what you have said.
Essentially:
We see error, heresy, apostasy, etc., and we know it to be such. [There is, btw, a very real, and acceptable, judgment taking place in this.]
We cannot know the interior dispositions of those in error, and, consequently, must wait on a de jure decision on the matter. [We need someone to tell us a spade is a spade. Never mind that even Holy Church cannot know the interior dispositions of a man, and will judge based upon the facts of the external forum.]
Therefore, we cannot act, basing our actions upon what is plain to all. [This is not how Catholics in the past have acted. For example, those who were under Nestorius at the time he preached his heresy.]
Sedevacantists though make a judgment by the very fact that they declare and spread the false idea that Benedict XVI and the four previous popes were not really popes. It is one thing to have doubts, but it is another thing to make a complete judgment concerning a situation on which the Church has yet to make a judgment.
It seems that sedevacantists like to nitpick a lot. It was so predictable I would get a response to what I had posted before. The sedevacantist thesis also seems to be moreso the end-all and be-all of the sedevacantist camp than the Catholic faith. Simply a detail concerning whether the Pope is pope or not is ridiculous to get so overly concerned about right now. We must accept the post-Pius XII pontificates until the Church has judged them. Again, we may have doubts, but it is another thing to go all the way to making a complete judgment before the Church would make one on the issue at hand.
-
But these dudes ARE the church! It would take Bruce Almighty to accomplish what you are waiting for, Keph.
The theological legalisms which Veritatis and Clodovicus put up there fit very, very well, but they don't work for me as well as a parable. Like the janitor I mentioned earlier. Even though he wore the uniform and pushed the cart, planting bombs either indicated he wasn't a janitor or he wasn't there in the capacity of a janitor. Either way, as a concerned human being, you need to be evacuating the building, not waiting for his "boss" to fire him.
I am glad you say we sedes simplify things. Through the years I have noticed that God's ways are simplicity itself---usually so simple we can't imagine "how" beforehand. Always it is man who chooses the convoluted ways.
-
People do, gladius.
No, they do not. You can assert this 10,000 times - it will never be true. It cannot be true.
Were we not at one time in the NO ourselves?
Yes, and...?
It was so predictable I would get a response to what I had posted before.
This is a rather mindless, whiney statement, kepha. Of course someone would respond - that is what these boards are for! You are the one who started the bloomin' thread; please deal with the discussion that follows like a man.
The sedevacantist thesis also seems to be moreso the end-all and be-all of the sedevacantist camp than the Catholic faith. Simply a detail concerning whether the Pope is pope or not is ridiculous to get so overly concerned about right now.
As you know very little of the "sedevacantist camp" (zero, in fact, from the inside), or the men therein, I shall inform you that your assessment of it and its "focus" is erroneous. You cannot fight at all until you have determined the identity of the enemy. Call it "silly" or whatever you want, but this does not change the facts involved, nor the immense gravity of this matter.
-
Oh, Keph, you are a very dear heart, but Veritatis is sooooo right. This is immensely important. It is every bit as important as your soul, because it is messing with your soul. Who you follow determines where you wind up, and you have GOT to know that a servant of satan is going to lead you to hell, not heaven. And even if you are wily enough to avoid going where he leads, there are so many who aren't. Which is where you come in as your brother's keeper.
-
Oh, Keph, you are a very dear heart, but Veritatis is sooooo right. This is immensely important. It is every bit as important as your soul, because it is messing with your soul. Who you follow determines where you wind up, and you have GOT to know that a servant of satan is going to lead you to hell, not heaven. And even if you are wily enough to avoid going where he leads, there are so many who aren't. Which is where you come in as your brother's keeper.
Obviously, you would agree with gladius, Trinity, since you are both sedevacantists. And, gladius, about when I said "predictable," allow me to clarify: I mean it is indeed predictable that sedevacantists would respond to if I ever say anything against their thesis. It seems there always a negative attitude when sedevacantism is promoted. Is there really joy in trying to promote it as the "truth" of our current situation then?
It also obvious that we should not follow a pope into error if he so goes into it, but that does not mean we question what his role is. Can any sedevacantist please name a time before 1900 when the sedevacantist thesis was ever considered seriously and clearly? I do not know of any, although I recall something about Dante Alighieri doubting the election of Pope Boniface VIII.
-
First I'd have to make sure that we're all agreed that St Robert Bellarmine and Pope Paul IV lived and taught before 1900. Maybe there is a disagreement about that, the way there is about the thesis that in all his writings St Augustine never refers to a precise moment in his life.
In any case, why the reference to the year 1900 in particular?
And by the way, it is the ESSENCE of the "role" of the Supreme Shepherd on earth of Christ's flock NOT to go into error and attempt to lead the flock into it.
-
And, gladius, about when I said "predictable," allow me to clarify:
Please do...
I mean it is indeed predictable that sedevacantists would respond to if I ever say anything against their thesis. It seems there always a negative attitude when sedevacantism is promoted. Is there really joy in trying to promote it as the "truth" of our current situation then?
These are more (unsubstantiated) generalizations and whining, kepha (and you know through interaction with me at FE that the "negativity" was almost exclusively from the sedeplenists). You started a thread titled "For sedevacantists"! Did you not expect people to make an argument? I sure expected you and the other sedeplenists to argue against sedevacantism.
The only thing remotely "negative" so far is this 'whiney baby, poopy pants' nonsense.
You seem to be shadow-boxing, pulling stuff out that has nothing to do with actually getting somewhere in this discussion.
Can any sedevacantist please name a time before 1900 when the sedevacantist thesis was ever considered seriously and clearly?
Can you explain what this has to do with the price of tea in China?
Read De Romano Pontifice (St. Robert Bellarmine), etc.
-
First I'd have to make sure that we're all agreed that St Robert Bellarmine and Pope Paul IV lived and taught before 1900. Maybe there is a disagreement about that, the way there is about the thesis that in all his writings St Augustine never refers to a precise moment in his life.
In any case, why the reference to the year 1900 in particular?
Before, I chose 1900 I think because I was considering preceeding time well before Vatican II. Plus, now I would pose the same question because I remember that gladius would give quotes of an expert (theologian or canon lawyer) or two who lived in the first half of the twentieth century. How about I alter the question though? What about before the year 1000?
EDIT: Well, Cletus, I had edited this post a few times. :laugh1: I was not the most sure of why I chose the year 1900. Anyway, I think something like what I say here in response to an above quote of yours maybe would at least partly explain something of why even if not in the best way.
-
How about I alter the question though?
To what purpose?
What about before the year 1000?
And the price of tea in China is...?
-
Keph, I think this has gotten out of hand. You were gracious enough to ask questions and to answer some, that's enough. I don't know why you think this is not an important issue (is the pope for real or not), but given that you do, I can see why you think it is safely set on the back burner.
But you are wrong about me agreeing with Veritatis because we are both sedevacantists. I simply see them as extremely dangerous people, like a fox in the hen house. So let's all get off Keph's case now, ok?
-
So let's all get off Keph's case now, ok?
I suppose my comments are seen as "getting on his case". They have not been offered in such a spirit, and I pray they have not been received that way. However, at this stage it is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. The actual topic might be a good place to pick up this thread, should anyone care to do so.
-
I guess I need to define my terms better. I didn't mean "Keph's case" in a negative way. Sorry about that. I just meant we should maybe leave Keph's beliefs alone now. That's twice now you've apologized where no apology was needed, Veritatis---last count it was twice, but who's counting?