Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: lepantoh on October 20, 2017, 11:56:51 PM

Title: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: lepantoh on October 20, 2017, 11:56:51 PM
I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sexual morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 01:04:25 AM
Read this 2015 ebook concerning Francis, important prophecies pertaining to these times, and the Illuminati-Freemasonry plans.  It is so relevant to what you are saying.

Yes, Francis is certainly an anti-Pope for he is a heretic.

https://moimunnanblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/the_last_pope_ebook.pdf
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 01:19:51 AM
Maria Regina, are the other claimants to the Papacy, of the vatican II sect, Popes or antipopes i.e. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI?
Right now, after extensive reading and research, I have come to the conclusion that all the popes who planned for, participated in, or defended the Documents of Vatican II, including Pius XII who set up Diocesan Liturgical Commissions and who allowed the vernacular in the Mass during World War II, were all anti-Popes, but Francis takes the cake. He is the worst of the worst.

Freedom, have you read this 2015 ebook?
https://moimunnanblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/the_last_pope_ebook.pdf (https://moimunnanblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/the_last_pope_ebook.pdf)

It has a lot of information in its 250+ pages that you will find very interesting as it is very well researched. Share it with the Dimond Brothers too.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Last Tradhican on October 21, 2017, 01:27:09 AM
Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!
What Freedom says is brief and good enough, I won't add anything for now. I do not have time to read much here lately, my question is where does Freedom go to receive the sacraments and where would you go?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 01:31:39 AM
Are all the priests who were ordained in the new rite of ordination, are they valid priests?  Do you go to a Novus Ordo church on Sunday?

No. I have not been to a Novus Ordo Mass since 1993, nor have I received communion in those churches. I do not believe that they have the Divine Presence of Christ in their tabernacles.

All the priests ordained in the new Vatican II-inspired rite of ordination should examine their hearts. If they are offered a corrective ordination and a corrective baptism and confirmation by a validly ordained bishop, and they refuse, then something is wrong.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 21, 2017, 06:03:25 AM
I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sexual morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!
Yes, dogma can never change.

What about this dogma, given to us by Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) in 1302?
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

If you choose sedevacantism which you are considering, since you cannot be subject to one you do not believe exists, how, per the above dogma, will you be able to get to heaven?

I will refer you to this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/biblical-proof-that-the-chair-of-st-peter-is-vacant/msg573752/#msg573752).
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: happenby on October 21, 2017, 09:03:39 AM
While it is true Francis is out of his Catholic mind, it is also ridiculous to pretend he isn't Pope. Sedevacantists are like transgender ppl. They want the rest of us to pretend things aren't what they are. Francis sits in the seat, possess the accoutrements, holds the power, has visible recognition, etc. Saying he's a heretic and not the Pope accomplishes nothing. Sedevacantism is nothing but a bunch of finger-pointing. It's a ruse they use in order to shed the responsibility for the crisis in the church we all share. Like Christ, while working out our road to heaven, WE must maintain truth, resist error, suffer and die. Keep the Faith! Francis would have no authority over us unless it were given him from above. Remember, you never have to do what's wrong or obey a false teaching. Francis has never asked you to do anything, so carry on fully Catholic.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on October 21, 2017, 09:35:00 AM
I have found peace of soul within the Roman Catholic church that has come to the sedevacantist position.

I no longer pay much attention, except when it is tossed into my face, either here or the media what Francis is doing.  I find it amusing that those who insist that Francis is the pope are the ones who constantly tear him apart.

I am a Roman Catholic and with the grace of God will die one.  The sedevacantist position, like you, makes sense because there is no compromising with God, no making excuses and furthermore for me when I begged God to show me where the truth was, very soon after my plea I found CMRI.  

Read this link for a better understanding of sedevacantism, and remember to adopt that position one does not deny the Papacy, nor the Office of Pope.  ACTUALLY, WE DEFEND IT!

http://www.cmri.org/why-we-believe-the-chair-of-peter-is-vacant.shtml
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on October 21, 2017, 10:06:53 AM
This is a good response if one wishes to reject Catholic Teaching on Heretics and the invalidity of a non-Catholic being elected Pope.
Yes, typical response although empty like VATICAN II is. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2017, 10:27:51 AM

Quote
Saying he's a heretic and not the Pope accomplishes nothing.
Happenby, I agree 1000%!  I'm all for theoretical and theological discussions; they are fun.  But the fun ends when priests and laymen (and even bishops), with no formal theological training and with no authority from Rome, accuse fellow Catholics of being heretical over this issue.  

The papal situation is so unique and confusing - there's no historical precedent to compare it to!  Yet these self-appointed interpreters expect us all to agree with their interpretation of the writings of theologians and Doctors as if it were DOCTRINALLY BINDING?  That's crazy.  

The 2nd (and more important) point is that if every trad TODAY became a sedevacantist what would that solve?  What would change in the church?  Would it solve society's, the Church's or our family's problems?  Would it solve the crisis of priests or the fewness of religious vocations?  Would it automatically make freemasonry go away or fix the errors of modernism which have taken root in almost all of our minds?  No, no, no and no. 

At best, it would help trads get along better.  But this would last for 5 seconds until we started to argue about other inconsequential issues like 3 baptisms, the problems of the 62 missal or flat earth.  Then anathemas would be thrown around, tempers would flair and divisions would ensue.  Back to square one...
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 10:51:02 AM
This is a good response if one wishes to reject Catholic Teaching on Heretics and the invalidity of a non-Catholic being elected Pope.
Never mind that, for instance and canonically speaking,  being out of one's "Catholic mind" is the equivalent of being dead when it comes to holding office; in other words, "welcome to Sedevacantism Crappinhigh!"
s.a. "Williamson Shakespeare's 'Ode to Mentevacantism.'"
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 10:55:34 AM
This is a good response if one wishes to reject Catholic Teaching on Heretics and the invalidity of a non-Catholic being elected Pope.
... and if one wishes to hide behind one's pointing finger like a Talmud totin', shekel shovelin',  gefilte gobblin' Jew.

"Oh look, Feygele Frank just denied God exists! That's like the time that I walked in on my parents...." *commences sucking thumb in happy place, dreaming of a Flat Earth teeming with fluffy bunnies...*
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 10:59:14 AM
Happenby, I agree 1000%!  I'm all for theoretical and theological discussions; they are fun.  But the fun ends when priests and laymen (and even bishops), with no formal theological training and with no authority from Rome, accuse fellow Catholics of being heretical over this issue.  

The papal situation is so unique and confusing - there's no historical precedent to compare it to!  Yet these self-appointed interpreters expect us all to agree with their interpretation of the writings of theologians and Doctors as if it were DOCTRINALLY BINDING?  That's crazy.  

The 2nd (and more important) point is that if every trad TODAY became a sedevacantist what would that solve?  What would change in the church?  Would it solve society's, the Church's or our family's problems?  Would it solve the crisis of priests or the fewness of religious vocations?  Would it automatically make freemasonry go away or fix the errors of modernism which have taken root in almost all of our minds?  No, no, no and no.

At best, it would help trads get along better.  But this would last for 5 seconds until we started to argue about other inconsequential issues like 3 baptisms, the problems of the 62 missal or flat earth.  Then anathemas would be thrown around, tempers would flair and divisions would ensue.  Back to square one...
The party's really over when the south end of the sheep gets turned into a "pu-pu platter" by a pack of wolves; too bad said entree didn't have any formal training or authority.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 11:04:18 AM
Stopping a smoking car, does nothing to repair it.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 11:18:43 AM
I am asking these questions below for the benefit of those who are considering the sedevacantist position.

1. If priests in the CMRI are sedevacantists, who do they commemorate in the Canon of the Mass?

2. Do they mention the name of a bishop instead of Francis? If so, who?

Right now, I am a home aloner because my husband cannot drive long distances (more than 15 to 30 minutes at the maximum) as he  suffered a stroke and was advised not to travel for any lengthy period of time by his doctors. I cannot drive either, and unless we have a friend who is willing to take us, we cannot attend church regularly. However, even being a passenger is a danger. I really miss not receiving Holy Communion, but we do say our prayers at home, and we try to pray unceasingly observing the presence of God within us as much as possible.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 11:25:09 AM
Ostensible examples of some "human creatures" not subject to the Roman Pontiff:

1. Generations of Senpuku Kirishitan.
2. The baptized sans... :
 1. The use of reason.
 2. Actual volition.
3. (s.a. "The Great Western Schism.")
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2017, 11:32:02 AM
DZ, you make many good points, at times, but your replies are becoming more and more riddle-esque.  Most times, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.  You are beginning to replace Wessex as the most mysterious poster.  I would enjoy hearing your opinion.  If you could be less complex; it would do this site good.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 11:33:24 AM
I am asking these questions below for the benefit of those who are considering the sedevacantist position.

1. If priests in the CMRI are sedevacantists, who do they commemorate in the Canon of the Mass?

2. Do they mention the name of a bishop instead of Francis? If so, who?

Right now, I am a home aloner because my husband cannot drive long distances (more than 15 to 30 minutes at the maximum) as he  suffered a stroke and was advised not to travel for any lengthy period of time by his doctors. I cannot drive either, and unless we have a friend who is willing to take us, we cannot attend church regularly. However, even being a passenger is a danger. I really miss not receiving Holy Communion, but we do say our prayers at home, and we try to pray unceasingly observing the presence of God within us as much as possible.
Ma'am, with all due it is imprecise to refer to oneself as a "home aloner" in your circumstances.

A home aloner would be someone who, for example,  choses to not receive sacraments or otherwise participate in what they hold is invalid and/or illicit.

You just sound like someone who doesn't/can't go due to external circumstance, and not to doubts or mental reservations however in/sufficient, and irregardless of gravity.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 11:37:45 AM
DZ, you make many good points, at times, but your replies are becoming more and more riddle-esque.  Most times, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.  You are beginning to replace Wessex as the most mysterious poster.  I would enjoy hearing your opinion.  If you could be less complex; it would do this site good.
Kind to say but often, as here and now, it is me trying to be simple, transparent,  brief, and clear.

Besides, it's not like these are my "ideas"; I'm not just "makin' crap up."

Perhaps, if it's that bothersome, you would specify just where the wicket sticks for you.

Thanks.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on October 21, 2017, 11:48:04 AM
I am asking these questions below for the benefit of those who are considering the sedevacantist position.

1. If priests in the CMRI are sedevacantists, who do they commemorate in the Canon of the Mass?

2. Do they mention the name of a bishop instead of Francis? If so, who?


Right now, I am a home aloner because my husband cannot drive long distances (more than 15 to 30 minutes at the maximum) as he  suffered a stroke and was advised not to travel for any lengthy period of time by his doctors. I cannot drive either, and unless we have a friend who is willing to take us, we cannot attend church regularly. However, even being a passenger is a danger. I really miss not receiving Holy Communion, but we do say our prayers at home, and we try to pray unceasingly observing the presence of God within us as much as possible.
When a True pope in the past dies and in between the new pope being elected, that period is called Interregnum a term used between two heads, I am sure you know that.  During this time the Church does not name anyone but prays for the intention of the Church.  The intention of the Church should be the same as praying for a particular name of a Pope anyway, I think!  I am not a theologian perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable can explain better.  However, the answer to your number 2. is NO, the name of our bishop is not mentioned.  
As far as CMRI or any other group, SSPX or... if you live close enough to them, I feel they would come to your home to meet you and administer the sacraments, home alone is not the way to go, but I am not in your shoes, only you can decide what is best for your soul.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 11:48:27 AM
Ma'am, with all due it is imprecise to refer to oneself as a "home aloner" in your circumstances.

A home aloner would be someone who, for example,  choses to not receive sacraments or otherwise participate in what they hold is invalid and/or illicit.

You just sound like someone who doesn't/can't go due to external circumstance, and not to doubts or mental reservations however in/sufficient, and irregardless of gravity.
I will not attend the local Novus Ordo parish even though it is within walking distance/driving distance, for it is only five minutes away by car. In addition to the Revolutionary Mass of Red Cardinal Mahony, that local NO parish was singing songs filled with Satanic inferences such as circles and rings back in the late 1980s. This pointed out to me by a devout Catholic gentleman whose wife suffered from severe Parkinson's Disease and who would not leave her alone in that condition. He stopped attending that NO parish or any other one. At that time, an independent priest, Fr. Frederick Schell, was still alive and visited them frequently bringing Holy Communion to the couple
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Tradplorable on October 21, 2017, 11:49:48 AM
DZ, you make many good points, at times, but your replies are becoming more and more riddle-esque.  Most times, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.  You are beginning to replace Wessex as the most mysterious poster.  I would enjoy hearing your opinion.  If you could be less complex; it would do this site good.
What is "enjoyable" about hearing the opinion of a bipolar Fr. Pfeiffer seminary washout?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 11:56:26 AM
What is "enjoyable" about hearing the opinion of a bipolar Fr. Pfeiffer seminary washout?
Some of his posts make sense. As for being in Fr. Pfeiffler's seminary, I would not know, but from Matthew's posts, anyone from that seminary would come out a crock pot or basket case.  We must pray for them.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on October 21, 2017, 12:09:23 PM
I will not attend the local Novus Ordo parish even though it is within walking distance/driving distance, for it is only five minutes away by car. In addition to the Revolutionary Mass of Red Cardinal Mahony, that local NO parish was singing songs filled with Satanic inferences such as circles and rings back in the late 1980s. This pointed out to me by a devout Catholic gentleman whose wife suffered from severe Parkinson's Disease and who would not leave her alone in that condition. He stopped attending that NO parish or any other one. At that time, an independent priest, Fr. Frederick Schell, was still alive and visited them frequently bringing Holy Communion to the couple
Based on your note this priest might help you, I believe he is in your area.
I met him a few weeks ago at the CMRI Fatima Conference, he was there to meet our Bishop because he wants to rectify his ordination.  Sorry, I do not know the details of the why of it or what happened when he met with our Bishop.
http://www.ourladyhelpofchristians.us/sos-series-of-sermons-by-father-joseph-colletti-1-video

The link shows he is at 9621 Bixby Ave, in Garden Grove, Calif. 
 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Tradplorable on October 21, 2017, 12:26:03 PM
Some of his posts make sense. As for being in Fr. Pfeiffler's seminary, I would not know, but from Matthew's posts, anyone from that seminary would come out a crock pot or basket case.  We must pray for them.
Dizzy has made several posts about his time in Boston, KY. But, I don't think Fr. Pfeiffer can be blamed for his mental state and lack of coherence. Dizzy's a basket case all on his own.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 12:27:33 PM
What is "enjoyable" about hearing the opinion of a bipolar Fr. Pfeiffer seminary washout?
It's more "enjoyable" than hearing some mutt crap out the wrong end.

You, "sir", are a despicable liar and calumniator.

But, hey, when did facts ever  get in the way of a good story, like the 'gospel" of Flat Earth?

You just don't care if you sin. You don't care if you lie, cast calumny, scandalize....
Your father is the Devil.
Scumbag.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on October 21, 2017, 01:35:39 PM
It is astounding how many people fail to see the big picture/practical application of this topic in regards to us.

Will God punish you for accepting an antipope as pope and praying for him if he has not been officially condemned by the Church?   Of course not.

Will God punish someone for calling a true pope an antipope and refusing to pray for him, even though God and Our Lady ask us to pray for the pope? Probably yes.

So just remember to make sure you have ALL of your "i"s dotted and your "t"s crossed before  you become sedevacantist. And remember these quotes:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."- Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was John XXII."-Pope Adrian VI

"Pray for the pope, the bishops, and the priests"-Our Lady of Fatima/Akita


Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on October 21, 2017, 02:05:09 PM
It is astounding how many people fail to see the big picture/practical application of this topic in regards to us.

Will God punish you for accepting an antipope as pope and praying for him if he has not been officially condemned by the Church?   Of course not.

Will God punish someone for calling a true pope an antipope and refusing to pray for him, even though God and Our Lady ask us to pray for the pope? Probably yes.

So just remember to make sure you have ALL of your "i"s dotted and your "t"s crossed before  you become sedevacantist. And remember these quotes:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."- Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was John XXII."-Pope Adrian VI

"Pray for the pope, the bishops, and the priests"-Our Lady of Fatima/Akita

As a Roman Catholic who has accepted the sedevacantist position, we are taught to pray for the  ENTIRE Church and the entire world which would include any anti-popes, pretenders, Freemason infiltrators, Modernists, Communists and sinners of all sorts, because CMRI teaches that Jesus Christ shed His Blood for all of us. We are asked to pray through the merits of Jesus Christ who earned them at His passion and there is NO LIMIT to His merits for He is Infinity. Will God punish us if we are so exclusive to pray for the few we hear about?  Probably yes.  

To be a Roman Catholic who understands the TRUE sede position we do not deny the Roman Pontiff and we are subject to ALL TRUE PONTIFFS as Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam has ordered and declared.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 02:31:15 PM
Let's get this straight.

Someone calls someone a "bipolar Fr. Pfeiffer seminary washout," and gets met - from the person sullied, mind you - with "your father is the Devil. Scumbag," and the calumniated, not the calumniator, gets the negative comment.

Wow.

We may have the true faith, but we got no corner on the market of moral judgment.
While I appreciate the observation, what I'm really grateful for is at least the suggestion that I'm not trippin' on crazy pills and, indeed, there's something bass ackwards about how people "think" sometimes.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nadir on October 21, 2017, 03:04:03 PM
Ma'am, with all due it is imprecise to refer to oneself as a "home aloner" in your circumstances.

A home aloner would be someone who, for example,  choses to not receive sacraments or otherwise participate in what they hold is invalid and/or illicit.

You just sound like someone who doesn't/can't go due to external circumstance, and not to doubts or mental reservations however in/sufficient, and irregardless of gravity.
This is exactly what I was going to write to Ma'am you, Maria Regina.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 03:41:38 PM
This is exactly what I was going to write to Ma'am you, Maria Regina.
DZ stated, "A home aloner would be someone who, for example,  choses to not receive sacraments or otherwise participate in what they hold is invalid and/or illicit."

We have chosen not to receive the sacraments in the Novus Ordo because we believe that they are not only invalid and illicit, but also downright heretical. The nearby parishes have occasionally sung, "Her name is Jesus" and other songs that seem to support the pagan position where the earth is honored as mother-God, or the Neo-Arian belief that Christ became God, but was not always God. It is absolute weirdness. People have to be sleep-deprived and/or doped on drugs not to see the blatant heresy here.

The non-NO parishes, including the CMRI, are too far for us to travel.  Even being offered a ride does not work out due to health concerns. Thus, we are at the mercy of priests who have limited time in their busy schedules.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 04:23:43 PM
DZ stated, "A home aloner would be someone who, for example,  choses to not receive sacraments or otherwise participate in what they hold is invalid and/or illicit."

We have chosen not to receive the sacraments in the Novus Ordo because we believe that they are not only invalid and illicit, but also downright heretical. The nearby parishes have occasionally sung, "Her name is Jesus" and other songs that seem to support the pagan position where the earth is honored as mother-God, or the Neo-Arian belief that Christ became God, but was not always God. It is absolute weirdness. People have to be sleep-deprived and/or doped on drugs not to see the blatant heresy here.

The non-NO parishes, including the CMRI, are too far for us to travel.  Even being offered a ride does not work out due to health concerns. Thus, we are at the mercy of priests who have limited time in their busy schedules.
Ma'am, a home aloner doesn't believe that there is anyone who can licitly administer the sacraments, typically because of problems with/absence of jurisdiction, esp. jurisdictional bishops.

You admit, at least tacitly, that there is some kind of jurisdiction, and that the sacraments may be licitly administered and received, at least in principle.
"Home aloners" say that you shouldn't receive most sacraments at all because they are illicitly administered.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 04:38:48 PM
Ma'am, a home aloner doesn't believe that there is anyone who can licitly administer the sacraments, typically because of problems with/absence of jurisdiction, esp. jurisdictional bishops.

You admit, at least tacitly, that there is some kind of jurisdiction, and that the sacraments may be licitly administered and received, at least in principle.
"Home aloners" say that you shouldn't receive most sacraments at all because they are illicitly administered.
Okay, thanks for explaining this.
I was taking a more literal interpretation, not one so theologically expressed.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 21, 2017, 04:54:17 PM
While it is true Francis is out of his Catholic mind, it is also ridiculous to pretend he isn't Pope. Sedevacantists are like transgender ppl. They want the rest of us to pretend things aren't what they are. Francis sits in the seat, possess the accoutrements, holds the power, has visible recognition, etc. Saying he's a heretic and not the Pope accomplishes nothing. Sedevacantism is nothing but a bunch of finger-pointing. It's a ruse they use in order to shed the responsibility for the crisis in the church we all share. Like Christ, while working out our road to heaven, WE must maintain truth, resist error, suffer and die. Keep the Faith! Francis would have no authority over us unless it were given him from above. Remember, you never have to do what's wrong or obey a false teaching. Francis has never asked you to do anything, so carry on fully Catholic.
:applause: :applause:
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 05:16:26 PM
Quote from: happenby on Today at 07:03:39 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/i-am-considering-sedevacantism/msg573758/#msg573758)

Quote
While it is true Francis is out of his Catholic mind, it is also ridiculous to pretend he isn't Pope. Sedevacantists are like transgender ppl. They want the rest of us to pretend things aren't what they are. Francis sits in the seat, possess the accoutrements, holds the power, has visible recognition, etc. Saying he's a heretic and not the Pope accomplishes nothing. Sedevacantism is nothing but a bunch of finger-pointing. It's a ruse they use in order to shed the responsibility for the crisis in the church we all share. Like Christ, while working out our road to heaven, WE must maintain truth, resist error, suffer and die. Keep the Faith! Francis would have no authority over us unless it were given him from above. Remember, you never have to do what's wrong or obey a false teaching. Francis has never asked you to do anything, so carry on fully Catholic.

On the contrary, news from the Vatican indicates that Francis most likely will impose changes in the Latin Mass to make it comply with the Novus Ordo. There will be calendar changes with the addition of NewChurch NO saints, additional NewChurch readings (OT and NT), NewChurch prefaces taken from the Novus Ordo, etc.  All those attending Latin Masses under the jurisdiction of Francis will be affected with no exceptions allowed except temporary exemptions. If SSPX folds and comes under Francis, then most likely SSPX will be forced to comply with these new regulations. If SSPX does not comply once they have joined forces with the Vatican, then the local ordinaries (bishops) might seize their chapels and schools. And yes, this is a warning to SSPX faithful who have contributed to building funds. All those funds will be taken away.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 05:35:37 PM
Okay, thanks for explaining this.
I was taking a more literal interpretation, not one so theologically expressed.
"... theologically..."

How generous, ty ma'am.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 05:38:46 PM
So, now that LoT is scarce, and so not here to compare us to bum-boys, Masons and pedophiles, now we have the likes of crappinhigh to compare us to Masons and "Bruised Gender".

Super.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on October 21, 2017, 05:50:27 PM
It gets very very frustrating when people act as though they have a clue about Catholic teaching on the papacy when in fact they know very little. It is the common teaching of theologians that a pope ceases to be pope if he is a manifest heretic. It is also the  common teaching that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and if he was elected pope his election would not be valid.

I could give you many proofs of this being taught, but here is just one example. I use this because it is short and concise:

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 05:59:48 PM
So, now that LoT is scarce, and so not here to compare us to bum-boys, Masons and pedophiles, now we have the likes of crappinhigh to compare us to Masons and "Bruised Gender".

Super.
Who is LoT?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 06:09:50 PM
It gets very very frustrating when people act as though they have a clue about Catholic teaching on the papacy when in fact they know very little. It is the common teaching of theologians that a pope ceases to be pope if he is a manifest heretic. It is also the  common teaching that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and if he was elected pope his election would not be valid.

I could give you many proofs of this being taught, but here is just one example. I use this because it is short and concise:
Thanks.

There is this recent pernicious opinion being expressed by Opus Dei, by certain members of CI, and by other pro-Francis groups that even if the Pope expresses heresy openly, which Francis has done, that he remains Pope until a council declares him a heretic. Of course, isn't it Catholic teaching that the Pope is above a Council with the teaching of Papal Supremacy? Thus, the Pope could void whatever a council declares, and we would be back at the start.

This opinion that a heretical pope remains a pope seems diabolic.

What can we do with this obtuse and wicked Vatican bureaucracy? It seems like the Vatican is convinced that the Pope can remain an obstinate heretic and still rule as Pope.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
Who is LoT?
https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Lover%20of%20Truth/
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 06:40:38 PM
Thanks.

There is this recent pernicious opinion being expressed by Opus Dei, by certain members of CI, and by other pro-Francis groups that even if the Pope expresses heresy openly, which Francis has done, that he remains Pope until a council declares him a heretic. Of course, isn't it Catholic teaching that the Pope is above a Council with the teaching of Papal Supremacy? Thus, the Pope could void whatever a council declares, and we would be back at the start.

This opinion that a heretical pope remains a pope seems diabolic.

What can we do with this obtuse and wicked Vatican bureaucracy? It seems like the Vatican is convinced that the Pope can remain an obstinate heretic and still rule as Pope.
I hear you ma'am, however it mitigates confusion to maintain the distinction "heretical", "heresy" and "heretic".

The most key, bottom line point is to note that, canonically speaking, the presumption of innocence in these types of cases does not apply, and at the same time many tend to forget the key point of pertinacity.

Popes can be wrong, and they can even inadvertently "be" heretical.

What they absolutely cannot be, as was written previously, is a manifest heretic; it takes pertinacity to be such.

This is likely the point when someone chimes in about infallibility, which remains irrelevant no matter how much some would have us fixate upon it.

"He didn't teach anything!"

He doesn't have to "teach" anything, formally or otherwise, to be a manifest heretic. He just has to obstinately doubt or deny an article of faith.

Anyone can look up the definition, and they can see that "teaching", "infallibility" etc. aren't mentioned.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 07:55:17 PM
I hear you ma'am, however it mitigates confusion to maintain the distinction "heretical", "heresy" and "heretic".

The most key, bottom line point is to note that, canonically speaking, the presumption of innocence in these types of cases does not apply, and at the same time many tend to forget the key point of pertinacity.

Popes can be wrong, and they can even inadvertently "be" heretical.

What they absolutely cannot be, as was written previously, is a manifest heretic; it takes pertinacity to be such.

This is likely the point when someone chimes in about infallibility, which remains irrelevant no matter how much some would have us fixate upon it.

"He didn't teach anything!"

He doesn't have to "teach" anything, formally or otherwise, to be a manifest heretic. He just has to obstinately doubt or deny an article of faith.

Anyone can look up the definition, and they can see that "teaching", "infallibility" etc. aren't mentioned.

I am not talking about teaching and infallibility. That is another topic.

In this post, I am limiting the discussion to Papal supremacy and Francis as a manifest obstinate heretic.

In light of the definition of Papal Supremacy by Vatican I, isn't the Pope now considered to be supreme even over an Ecumenical Council and over a council of bishops?  Even if a council of bishops declares Francis to be manifest obstinate heretic, which they have, Francis could deny it, which he has already done.

However, if a heretical Pope, as a manifest heretic, decides to tamper with all the Ecumenical Councils that have ever taken place serious damage could be done.

If a supreme pope can change or void the decisions and canons of all Ecumenical Councils, perhaps that is why Pope Pius XII as Msgr. Pacilli compiled and codified the Code of Canon Law of 1917, just because he could under the authority of Pope Benedict XV, who promulgated this Code on 27 May 1917.

Realize all the damage done in the name of Vatican II:
1. The Latin Mass was essentially destroyed and replaced by the heretical Novus Ordo,
2. The Liturgical books were all perverted, including all the various rites of the sacramentals.
3. The altar was replaced by a table.
4. The sacred chant was replaced by horrible modern music.
5. The beautiful architectural structures of cathedrals and churches was replaced by the profane.
6. Etc.

Now consider what damage a Pope who is a manifest heretic can create if he were to change all the church canons. Note that it has already started. These changes in the Holy Ancient canons started before 1917 under the direction of Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) who served as a canon lawyer. And it continues today because the revised unholy Code of Canon Law of 1983 is now considered woefully out of date. Therefore, these canons are now being changed once again. What will Francis do to these canons?

Okay, since you have more theological training that I do, and have more recently studied the matter, please theologically define the following terms. I do not have a theological dictionary at hand, but perhaps you do. Websters would not be appropriate in this case.

Heretical

Heresy

Manifest Heretic

Pertinacity
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on October 21, 2017, 07:59:30 PM
Right now, after extensive reading and research, I have come to the conclusion that all the popes who planned for, participated in, or defended the Documents of Vatican II, including Pius XII who set up Diocesan Liturgical Commissions and who allowed the vernacular in the Mass during World War II, were all anti-Popes, 
So you say we haven't had a pope since 1939? 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 08:01:42 PM
So you say we haven't had a pope since 1939?
At least.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on October 21, 2017, 08:07:54 PM
DZ, you make many good points, at times, but your replies are becoming more and more riddle-esque.  Most times, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.  You are beginning to replace Wessex as the most mysterious poster.  I would enjoy hearing your opinion.  If you could be less complex; it would do this site good.
I still think Franciscan Solitary is king of mysteriousness. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on October 21, 2017, 08:12:23 PM
At least.
You are going down a dangerous path. Please show me how Pope Pius XII was a manifest heretic? 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on October 21, 2017, 08:26:43 PM
At least.
Exhibit A^ This is one of the problems with sedevacantism.  :facepalm:
::) Quite an interregnum we're having, isn't it?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on October 21, 2017, 08:42:18 PM
Exhibit A^ This is one of the problems with sedevacantism.  :facepalm:
::) Quite an interregnum we're having, isn't it?
Very, very few people who realize that the Roman See is vacant hold that Pope Pius XII was not a true pope. As a matter of fact, this is only the second or third person I've ever encountered that holds this position. Just because the truth is not to your liking doesn’t make it untrue. 
So your red herring is just that, a red herring.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 08:44:48 PM
You are going down a dangerous path. Please show me how Pope Pius XII was a manifest heretic?
I will wait for the definition of manifest heretic.

However, the future Pope Pius XII, as Msgr. Pacelli, was a canon lawyer who helped to change and codify all the Holy Canons, which were written by the Holy Fathers in Ecumenical Councils. These Holy Canons, which had anathemas attached to them, should have never been touched.

I am referring to the Code of Canon Law of 1917. New Vatican II canon lawyers have rewritten and codified this Code of 1917 in 1983, and are now preparing yet another codification. How many times will these canon laws be changed?

Do you see how nefarious this is?

All the Holy Traditions are being attacked by these modernists.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on October 21, 2017, 08:47:28 PM
I will wait for the definition of manifest heretic.
However, the future Pope Pius XII, as Msgr. Pacelli, was a canon lawyer who helped to change and codify all the Holy Canons, which were written by the Holy Fathers in Ecumenical Councils. These Holy Canons, which had anathemas attached to them, should have never been touched.
Please give an example.....
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 08:51:01 PM
Please give an example.....
Go and read them yourself.

One of the Holy Canons says that we should not pray with heretics (pagans).

Yet, JP II prayed with pagans at Assisi. Francis has prayed with those not of the Catholic faith.

One cannon ball down.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/noncath.htm
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on October 21, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
Go and read them yourself.

One of the Holy Canons says that we should not pray with heretics (pagans).

Yet, JP II prayed with pagans at Assisi. Francis has prayed with those not of the Catholic faith.

One cannon ball down.
What on Earth does that have to do with Pope Pius XII??
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 09:15:43 PM
I am not talking about teaching and infallibility. That is another topic.

>> I'm glad that you understand that; for many don't seem to.

In this post, I am limiting the discussion to Papal supremacy and Francis as a manifest obstinate heretic.

>> Redundant ma'am, for a heretic is obstinate by definition.

In light of the definition of Papal Supremacy by Vatican I, isn't the Pope now

>> Now ma'am? Just because a thing is defined at a later date, doesn't mean that it wasn't always so; quite the reverse in these matters, actually.

considered to be supreme even over an Ecumenical Council and over a council of bishops?  Even if a council of bishops declares Francis to be manifest obstinate heretic, which they have, Francis could deny it, which he has already done.

>> Ma'am, please note that there is a basic distinction involved between the sin and the crime; I believe that it was correctly alluded to previously. This is one of the reasons why it is ridiculous to hold that popes, as such, are deposed by any save themselves or God. "The pope is judged by none."

>> The pope is the supreme judge. What this caddywhumpus thinking reflects is an inversion of order. Also, on principle and by extension then, priest could depose bishops/ordinaries, or laity priests. I wish it worked that way in the world, because then we could all just sign a petition and fire the supreme court. Doesn't work that way.


However, if a heretical Pope,

>> Ma'am, do yourself a favor, and forget "heretical" pope. It only confuses the issue. A hereticAL pope, could be so inadvertently as the "...AL" even suggests; otherwise he'd just be a heretIC, and so no longer pope. People might think that he's pope, be he no longer is. 

For example say that Geocentrism were actually an article of faith. People can and have been wrong and confused about the status of various propositions, but a Catholic, for another example, shown that the Blessed Virgin's virginity was, is, and will always be so, will give proper assent. Until that time, innocently holding otherwise, their position is hereticAL. They are not heretics because of they are not (obstinate/STUBBORN/pertinacious etc...)

>> Conversely, say they're ostensible Protestant converts, they still maintain that she had other natural children in spite of being shown and told, would be a heretic. Remember, these things aren't directly of reason, but by faith, in God revealing; i.e., "Because God said so."


as a manifest heretic, decides to tamper with all the Ecumenical Councils that have ever taken place serious damage could be done.

>> I think that you've more than an adequate grasp of the ludicrousness of the situation. Your choice of words is a bit off, and prone to feed bad thinking though. A pope who falls into manifest heresy is deposed "ipso facto", by that very fact. Heretics can neither bind, nor loose, anything of the faith. They are imposters, they may appear to; otherwise the gates of Hell prevail, there would be no ONE faith, because these shenanigans WOULD (note conditional and tense) wreak havoc on the unity of the faith, external and otherwise. There would be no HOLY faith, because Christ is belied. There would be no CATHOLIC faith (there isn't enough room or time to go into universals, theologic or philosophic)

If a supreme pope

>> Not to nitpick ma'am, but our representations are our "software". As the Angelic tells us, a small error at the outset, grows over time. "Supreme pope" is, again, redundant.

can change or void the decisions and canons of all Ecumenical Councils,

>> Smaller bites ma'am. YOu're making some pretty scary leaps; you're tacitly dropping a passel of distinct categories into a blender, and hitting "frappe".

>> Enough for now. It's getting a little of the rails.

...
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 09:16:45 PM
It gets very very frustrating when people act as though they have a clue about Catholic teaching on the papacy when in fact they know very little. It is the common teaching of theologians that a pope ceases to be pope if he is a manifest heretic. It is also the  common teaching that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and if he was elected pope his election would not be valid.

I could give you many proofs of this being taught, but here is just one example. I use this because it is short and concise:
Thanks for the doc, I appreciate it.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 09:21:25 PM
Exhibit A^ This is one of the problems with sedevacantism.  :facepalm:
::) Quite an interregnum we're having, isn't it?
" :facepalm:" ," ::)" and insinuations are weak-sauce.

Specify.

Why can't this, for instance, just be unsound reasoning? Why is it specific to Sedevacantism?

Shall we, for example, dissect your posts and then proclaim "These are the problems with anti-Catholicism"?

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 09:29:29 PM
I will wait for the definition of manifest heretic.

However, the future Pope Pius XII, as Msgr. Pacelli, was a canon lawyer who helped to change and codify all the Holy Canons, which were written by the Holy Fathers in Ecumenical Councils. These Holy Canons, which had anathemas attached to them, should have never been touched.

I am referring to the Code of Canon Law of 1917. New Vatican II canon lawyers have rewritten and codified this Code of 1917 in 1983, and are now preparing yet another codification. How many times will these canon laws be changed?

Do you see how nefarious this is?

All the Holy Traditions are being attacked by these modernists.
Ma'am, human law is neither divine nor eternal law. You're juggling too many balls ma'am.

The very axiom "necessity makes licit" of itself evidences this. We can never murder.
Under ordinary circumstances, the laity aren't to fondle the Blessed Sacrament.

However, if there is a danger of greater profanation, then "necessity makes licit"

This isn't meant to be an excuse to "do our own thing", but merely to illustrate principle.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 09:32:16 PM
What on Earth does that have to do with Pope Pius XII??
Maybe let her take a breath. This thread could give the impression of her being cornered, which makes people emotional/desperate, which makes people stupid.

And no ma'am, I"m not calling you stupid, I'm calling you human.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 21, 2017, 10:15:15 PM
What on Earth does that have to do with Pope Pius XII??

Pius XII as Pacelli worked on the Code of Canon Law in 1917. That involved a lot of changes.

Then Pius XII permitted Holy Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular during World War II in England, France, and Germany. Since people in Europe got used to hearing the Mass in the vernacular, was it no surprise that this New Mass would be forced on us? Pius XII was no dummy.

Finally, Pius XII established Diocesan Liturgical Commissions throughout the world when he published his encyclical Mystici corporis Christi on 29 June 1943. If the Mass were not broken, why would Pius XII ask all dioceses to establish these diocesan liturgical commissions? What was the purpose of these commission? These commissions ultimately paved the way for the disastrous Vatican II council and the Novus Ordo.

Yes, I realize that the initial papers for Vatican II were much better than the final drafts. Nevertheless, it was Pius XII who initiated the plans for Vatican II, and it was he who initiated all the changes in the Code of Canon Law of 1917.

I have read the encyclical Mystici corporis Christi several times. First for my college classes, then in a study group, and finally as a review. I was never impressed by it as it seemed so deceptive.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: songbird on October 22, 2017, 09:07:28 AM
How very sad for Pope Pius XII.  Our Lady referred to him, Pope.  Yet, after so many times Our Lady asked for his help to consecrate Russia, he was told by Sr. Lucia, Our Lady says you did it with "half measure".   I see Pope Pius XII has validly nominated, but his actions were likened to a politician who is on the fence; leaning both ways.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Augustine Linst on October 22, 2017, 10:20:46 AM
Quote from: happenby on Today at 07:03:39 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/i-am-considering-sedevacantism/msg573758/#msg573758)

On the contrary, news from the Vatican indicates that Francis most likely will impose changes in the Latin Mass to make it comply with the Novus Ordo. There will be calendar changes with the addition of NewChurch NO saints, additional NewChurch readings (OT and NT), NewChurch prefaces taken from the Novus Ordo, etc.  All those attending Latin Masses under the jurisdiction of Francis will be affected with no exceptions allowed except temporary exemptions. If SSPX folds and comes under Francis, then most likely SSPX will be forced to comply with these new regulations. If SSPX does not comply once they have joined forces with the Vatican, then the local ordinaries (bishops) might seize their chapels and schools. And yes, this is a warning to SSPX faithful who have contributed to building funds. All those funds will be taken away.
This  (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com.mt/2017/10/how-ordinary-form-of-mass-can-enrich.html)and the links in the same article show the trap you are mentioning M.R.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on October 22, 2017, 12:42:28 PM
Thanks for the doc, I appreciate it.
You are most welcome!
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on October 22, 2017, 01:46:10 PM
Pius XII as Pacelli worked on the Code of Canon Law in 1917. That involved a lot of changes.

It was ordered by St. Pius X and was necessary to codify the code. All of the laws in the 1917 code are good and holy.

Then Pius XII permitted Holy Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular during World War II in England, France, and Germany. Since people in Europe got used to hearing the Mass in the vernacular, was it no surprise that this New Mass would be forced on us? Pius XII was no dummy.

I have heard this accusation before, however please cite proof. Also, even if it were true, it is not contrary to any article of faith.

Finally, Pius XII established Diocesan Liturgical Commissions throughout the world when he published his encyclical Mystici corporis Christi on 29 June 1943. If the Mass were not broken, why would Pius XII ask all dioceses to establish these diocesan liturgical commissions? What was the purpose of these commission? These commissions ultimately paved the way for the disastrous Vatican II council and the Novus Ordo.

There have always been changes and improvements in the liturgy throughout the history of the Church. This can in no way whatsoever be used to condemn Pope Pius XII.

Yes, I realize that the initial papers for Vatican II were much better than the final drafts. Nevertheless, it was Pius XII who initiated the plans for Vatican II, and it was he who initiated all the changes in the Code of Canon Law of 1917.

Even if it were true that VII was planned during the reign of Pius XII, it proves absolutely nothing.

I have read the encyclical Mystici corporis Christi several times. First for my college classes, then in a study group, and finally as a review. I was never impressed by it as it seemed so deceptive.

In my opinion it was a great encyclical that is so extremely important today. If you want to make the argument that Pius XII was imprudent, was a weak leader, or didn’t do enough to rid the Church of modernists, yes you can make that argument (I wouldn’t nessessarly agree with it), however to claim that he wasn’t a true pope is just plain irresponsible, foolish, and ignorant.


Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 22, 2017, 01:51:42 PM
The
I don't that she's an adequate grounding in basics here, such as those between "accident" and "substance".

"First things first".

Pretty solid post though; I'm noticing a very "Home-aloney/Tricky Dick Ibranyi" trend among trads(?) nowadays.

It certainly isn't waning.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on October 22, 2017, 02:38:09 PM


Maria Regina subconsciously perhaps you think about home alone because you haven't found a priest that agrees with you about PiusXII.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 22, 2017, 03:19:08 PM

Maria Regina subconsciously perhaps you think about home alone because you haven't found a priest that agrees with you about PiusXII.
Oh, I have, but it is a great distance to travel to see him in person (12 hours or more) as taking a plane is not an option. We chat over the phone and that helps. He said that there are others who disagree with Pius XII, but many of those priests are elderly, and likewise cannot travel.

The publication of Hitler's Pope opened my eyes and that of my priest, and so did other publications. Pius XII made a lot of serious mistakes and was not consistent. Definitely he was pushed into a corner and was threatened by Hitler, the Freemasons, and others into taking certain actions which had horrible consequences. However, some of his appointments and some of those he consecrated to bishop should never have taken place as he put into place those cardinals (1) those who would elect the anti-Pope John XXIII; (2) those who would betray the Catholic Church at Vatican II; and (3) those who would promote the Novus Ordo and all the sacramental changes.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 23, 2017, 01:50:48 PM
Oh, I have, but it is a great distance to travel to see him in person (12 hours or more) as taking a plane is not an option. We chat over the phone and that helps. He said that there are others who disagree with Pius XII, but many of those priests are elderly, and likewise cannot travel.

The publication of Hitler's Pope opened my eyes and that of my priest, and so did other publications. Pius XII made a lot of serious mistakes and was not consistent. Definitely he was pushed into a corner and was threatened by Hitler, the Freemasons, and others into taking certain actions which had horrible consequences. However, some of his appointments and some of those he consecrated to bishop should never have taken place as he put into place those cardinals (1) those who would elect the anti-Pope John XXIII; (2) those who would betray the Catholic Church at Vatican II; and (3) those who would promote the Novus Ordo and all the sacramental changes.
.
I find your denouncement of Pope Pius XII interesting. I don't agree with your conclusions, however.
.
If Pius XII was not really a pope then his solemn definition of Our Lady's Assumption in 1950 was allowed by God to take place even though it would have been a deception for the whole world. All the saints canonized by Pius XII would have been for the deception of the world and some or even all of them were not really saints at all. This would include the canonizations of not only Pope St. Pius X, for example, but also St. Catherine Laboure, St. Gemma Galgani, St. Louis Grignion de Montfort, St. Maria Goretti and St. Anthony Mary Claret, among many others. 
.
However, I find it interesting what you have done by carrying the criticism of the many shortcomings of Pius XII to the apparently logical extreme of condemning his whole pontificate (against all reason, it seems to me) because this is something that the CMRI fails to do. You are doing what I should expect of the CMRI, since they condemn John XXIII and all his successors on the same grounds, but they refuse to carry that same denouncement to the papacy of Pius XII.
.
In fact, when questioned about these failures of Pius XII, CMRI priests get visibly upset. They don't like such questions. They act like these are personal insults or something like that.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on October 23, 2017, 02:14:05 PM
Very, very few people who realize that the Roman See is vacant hold that Pope Pius XII was not a true pope. As a matter of fact, this is only the second or third person I've ever encountered that holds this position. Just because the truth is not to your liking doesn’t make it untrue.
So your red herring is just that, a red herring.
My "red herring" is this:
It is a very slippery slope when one uses their own private judgement to determine whether or not a pope is a true pope. When a catholic goes around basing the validity of a papal election(an act administration) on a debated claim(that a heretic "ipso facto" loses his office), using his own private judgement to decide whether it meets the criteria, ridiculous claims like these happen. I wonder if the poster I was referring to holds St. Pius X as an anti-pope for changing the breviary(?). Using the "ipso facto" argument and Cum Ex to determine who is a pope would mean that numerous true popes in Catholic history were actually anti-popes. Do you see the absurdity in this way of thinking?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 23, 2017, 02:24:37 PM
Pius XII as Pacelli worked on the Code of Canon Law in 1917. That involved a lot of changes.

Then Pius XII permitted Holy Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular during World War II in England, France, and Germany. Since people in Europe got used to hearing the Mass in the vernacular, was it no surprise that this New Mass would be forced on us? Pius XII was no dummy.
.
Prior to the first Code of Canon Law (1917) there had never been any such Code. So there had been nothing to "change."
.
The enormity and devastation of WWI had profoundly affected then Bishop Eugenio Pacelli, which is evident from the fact that he was a close associate of Benedict XV and of Pius XI, whose writings are readily available to read. When Pius XII first came to office Europe was obviously on the verge of another great war, and Pius XII was right in the middle of it. He must have been terrified. It's not impossible to see that his allowing the Mass to be vernacularized in some places had been an act of desperation. Keeping the Mass in Latin didn't help avoid WWI, after all. Why would it help avoid WWII? 
.
Quote
Finally, Pius XII established Diocesan Liturgical Commissions throughout the world when he published his encyclical Mystici corporis Christi on 29 June 1943. If the Mass were not broken, why would Pius XII ask all dioceses to establish these diocesan liturgical commissions? What was the purpose of these commission? These commissions ultimately paved the way for the disastrous Vatican II council and the Novus Ordo.

Yes, I realize that the initial papers for Vatican II were much better than the final drafts. Nevertheless, it was Pius XII who initiated the plans for Vatican II, and it was he who initiated all the changes in the Code of Canon Law of 1917.

I have read the encyclical Mystici corporis Christi several times. First for my college classes, then in a study group, and finally as a review. I was never impressed by it as it seemed so deceptive.
.
When Pius XII set up the liturgical commissions he was trying something new in hopes of finding a solution to the numerous problems the world was facing, and he no doubt had problematic advisers. The solution he was groping for could have easily been achieved by making the Collegial Consecration of Russia together with all the bishops of the world. For whatever reason, he apparently listened to his advisers instead of to the actual request of Our Lady. This is very mysterious. 
.
The language of Mystici Corporis Christi was beginning to resemble that which was used throughout Vat.II. While the things that he said in the encyclical are very good things, the WAY he said them was a bit different, and in retrospect could have been better. Also, there were some issues that Pius XII fell short of addressing at the time which he did for whatever reasons, but later they would become opportunities for the Church's enemies to make progress against the Church. It seems to me that he was trying to make accommodation to the modern world, expecting that would help encourage world peace. He lent his ear also to impostors, perhaps by mistake, and I think he had good intentions but was under enormous pressure to modernize things. Being Pope in those days was no walk in the park.
.
If it was difficult to be Pope in those days, imagine how difficult it would be TODAY. Blessed Jacinta Marto had it right when she advocated prayer and sacrifice for the Holy Father.
.
Perhaps the worst effect of sedevacantism is that it deprives the current pope from prayers of Catholics. That many more Masses are said without mention of prayers for the Holy Father (because of the "una cum" dissension).
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 23, 2017, 02:47:34 PM
.
Prior to the first Code of Canon Law (1917) there had never been any such Code. So there had been nothing to "change."

Prior to the first Code of Canon Law (1917) there were the Ancient Canons which had anathemas on them. These Holy Canons were penned by Ecumenical Councils and considered to be infallible. Thus, changing them carried great risk of heresy and/or certainly opened the door for heresy.

These Holy Canons should have never been changed, but changed they were to accommodate the modernists and Freemasons who were already in the Vatican.
.
The enormity and devastation of WWI had profoundly affected then Bishop Eugenio Pacelli, which is evident from the fact that he was a close associate of Benedict XV and of Pius XI, whose writings are readily available to read. When Pius XII first came to office Europe was obviously on the verge of another great war, and Pius XII was right in the middle of it. He must have been terrified. It's not impossible to see that his allowing the Mass to be vernacularized in some places had been an act of desperation. Keeping the Mass in Latin didn't help avoid WWI, after all. Why would it help avoid WWII?

This does not follow at all.

If you believe that the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) can be changed into the vernacular thereby inadvertently introducing changes through errors of translation, then yes, the vernacularization of the TLM would be a danger. And if you believe that the TLM imparts grace, then denying the use of the TLM would cut off graces. WWII was far worse than WWI.
..
When Pius XII set up the liturgical commissions he was trying something new in hopes of finding a solution to the numerous problems the world was facing, and he no doubt had problematic advisers. The solution he was groping for could have easily been achieved by making the Collegial Consecration of Russia together with all the bishops of the world. For whatever reason, he apparently listened to his advisers instead of to the actual request of Our Lady. This is very mysterious.

It sounds like you are grasping at straws here.  There was no need for these liturgical commissions. Besides, Pius XII had opened Pandora's box by letting certain countries experiment liturgically, changing not only the TLM into the vernacular, but introducing other liturgical novelties and practices such as that done by the infamous Jesuit, Teillard de Chardin. All Pius XII needed to do was stop these illicit liturgical practices, but he set up liturgical commissions instead -- liturgical commissions that would speed the progress of the modernists and Freemasons in the church who desired even more innovations, so that the sacredness of the Mass would be destroyed, as it has been.
.
The language of Mystici Corporis Christi was beginning to resemble that which was used throughout Vat.II. While the things that he said in the encyclical are very good things, the WAY he said them was a bit different, and in retrospect could have been better. Also, there were some issues that Pius XII fell short of addressing at the time which he did for whatever reasons, but later they would become opportunities for the Church's enemies to make progress against the Church. It seems to me that he was trying to make accommodation to the modern world, expecting that would help encourage world peace. He lent his ear also to impostors, perhaps by mistake, and I think he had good intentions but was under enormous pressure to modernize things. Being Pope in those days was no walk in the park.

Pius XII was a modernist who spoke the language of modernists.
.
If it was difficult to be Pope in those days, imagine how difficult it would be TODAY. Blessed Jacinta Marto had it right when she advocated prayer and sacrifice for the Holy Father.
.
Perhaps the worst effect of sedevacantism is that it deprives the current pope from prayers of Catholics. That many more Masses are said without mention of prayers for the Holy Father (because of the "una cum" dissension).

On the contrary, every time Francis opens his mouth, more people pray for Francis, that he will be converted.  How can those who love Christ not pray for those who oppose Christ for Christ our God told us to pray for our enemies, and unfortunately, Francis has become our enemy.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 23, 2017, 03:31:35 PM
Quote
Pius XII was a modernist who spoke the language of modernists.
.
Why would a Modernist canonize as a saint his own predecessor who defined and condemned Modernism?
.
You're arguing against yourself -- you don't need any help.
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 23, 2017, 03:48:15 PM
Perhaps the worst effect of sedevacantism is that it deprives the current pope from prayers of Catholics. That many more Masses are said without mention of prayers for the Holy Father (because of the "una cum" dissension).
Thus spaketh "Nil Obstat"
Credibility zero. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on October 23, 2017, 04:03:43 PM
.
I find your denouncement of Pope Pius XII interesting. I don't agree with your conclusions, however.
.
If Pius XII was not really a pope then his solemn definition of Our Lady's Assumption in 1950 was allowed by God to take place even though it would have been a deception for the whole world. All the saints canonized by Pius XII would have been for the deception of the world and some or even all of them were not really saints at all. This would include the canonizations of not only Pope St. Pius X, for example, but also St. Catherine Laboure, St. Gemma Galgani, St. Louis Grignion de Montfort, St. Maria Goretti and St. Anthony Mary Claret, among many others.
.

However, I find it interesting what you have done by carrying the criticism of the many shortcomings of Pius XII to the apparently logical extreme of condemning his whole pontificate (against all reason, it seems to me) because this is something that the CMRI fails to do. You are doing what I should expect of the CMRI, since they condemn John XXIII and all his successors on the same grounds, but they refuse to carry that same denouncement to the papacy of Pius XII.
.
In fact, when questioned about these failures of Pius XII, CMRI priests get visibly upset. They don't like such questions. They act like these are personal insults or something like that.
.
Perhaps CMRI feels as your bolded above, Pope Pius XII knew the enemy was not only at the door but inside and he may have been influenced by them, is it any wonder.  He was a pope fighting for the Church.
Also those who do not understand how anyone can make a "judgment", is it any wonder ALSO, when you see Francis and his beliefs.  See this article for just one example:
Pope Francis and  NIHILISM (http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2017/05/pope-francis-and-nihilism.html) 

Does Pope Francis believe that there is no "possibility of an objective basis for truth" and that there is no objective meaning or reality? (Dictionary.com definitions of nihilism)

The nihilist Michel de Certeau believed in all of the above.

In simple words, de Certeau's theology denies objective truth.

The present Pope considers him the most eminent modern theologian. Francis said:

"For me, de Certeau is still the greatest theologian for today." (onepeterfive.com, March 8, 2016, "Pope Francis Reveals His Mind to Private Audience")

De Certeau in his greatest book "Heterologies" said:

"It is not Mr. Foucault who is making fun of domains of knowledge... It is history that is laughing at them. It plays tricks on the teleologists who take themselves to be the lieutenants of meaning. A meaninglessness of history." ("Heterologogies," Pages 195-196)

Historian Keith Windschuttle shows that the Pope's favorite modern theologian is a radical who thinks that there is no outside reality. Windschuttle wrote:

"Of all the French theorists... de Certeau is the most radical. He is critical of the poststructuralist Foucault for his use of documentary evidence and of Derrida for the way he privileges the practice of writing. For de Certeau, writing is a form of oppression... he argues... writing itself constitutes the act of colonisation..."

"Like both structuralist and poststructuralist theorists, de Certeau subscribes to the thesis that we have access only to our language and not to any real, outside world..."

"De Certeau claims that writing can never be objective. Its status is no different from that of fiction. So, because history is a form of writing, all history is also fiction." ("The Killing of History," Pages 31-34)

By Francis's greatest modern theologian's logic then Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who walked the earth during the reign of Pontius Pilate is fiction.

The central doctrine of Catholism, the Incarnation, is fiction.

Post Structuralists like de Certeau, more widely known as Postmodernists, believe all reality is fiction or "narrative."


They change the "narrative" or story usually to compile with their leftist or liberal views on politics, sexual morality or whatever their pet project happens to be.

They rarely use scholarship to backup their "narrative" point of view, only mind numbing long confusing writing that obscures instead of clarifying.

The Postmodernists in the media are one exception to the obscurantism of non-clarity.

Their "narratives" are clear and well written, but again rarely is there scholarship or strong evidence to backup their stories. They use spin to obscure.

Media spin "narrative" is "news and information that is manipulated or slanted to affect its interpretation and influence public opinion." (Dictionary.com)

They usually use their "narratives" in history, news, the Bible and any writing as a vehicle to promote their ideological ideas.

With that background, here is the Pope's favorite theologian's central religious ideas. The de Certeau Scholar Johannes Hoff wrote:

"According to this new approach to the Biblical narrative, the focal event of Christianity is not the incarnation, the crucifixion, or the resurrection of Christ, but the empty tomb. The Christian form of life is no longer associated with a place, a body, or an institution, but with a quest for a missing body: the missing body of the people of Israel, and mutatis mutandis the missing body of Jesus."
(Article by Johannes Hoff, "Mysticism, Ecclesiology And The Body Christ: Certeau's (Mis-) Reading of Corpus Mystium and the Legacy of Henri de Lubac" Page 87, Titus Brandsma Institute Studies In Spirituality, Supplement 24, "Spiritual Spaces: History and Mysticism in Michel De Certeau")

The nihilist theologian believes that the central truths of Christianity are about "absence" or nonexistence. De Certeau scholar Graham Ward wrote:

"For de Lubac the... Eucharist is not a sign of the presence of Christ's body, it is Christ's body... And yet Certeau... makes the Eucharist (as later the church and body of mystical text he treats) into substitutes, acts of bereavement, signs of absence." ("Michel de Certeau - in the Plural, " Page 511)

In other words, Francis's greatest modern theologian believes that the Eucharist is not the body of Christ present, he doesn't even believe it is a sign of the presence of Christ's body like some Protestants, but a sign of "absence."

Might de Certeau's influence on Francis be the reason he never kneels before the Eucharist, but kneels to wash the feet of those he like Certeau might consider oppressed?

De Certeau's influence on Francis may be the reason he reportedly said:

"It is not excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church." (Der Spiegel magazine, December, 23, 2016)

De Certeau scholar Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt wrote:

"Certeau... came increasingly to stress the clash of interpretation, the "law of conflict," that applies even to the church. Under the pressure of this clash, the ecclesial/eucharistic body is "shattered." ("Michael de Certeau - in the Plural", Page 359)

Francis's greatest modern theologian doesn't believe in the central truths of the Catholic Church.

The Pope's most eminent modern theologian doesn't even believe in objective truth.

Does Francis believe in the central doctrines of the Catholic Church or in objective truth?

The question needs to be asked:

If the Pope is a disciple of de Certeau and Postmodernism, then what ultimately do he and these thinkers believe in?

Philosopher Stephen Hicks said:

The "Left thinkers of the 1950s and 1960s... Confronted by the continued poverty and brutality of socialism, they could either go with the evidence and reject their most cherish ideals - or stick by their ideals and attack the whole idea that evidence and logic matter..."

"Postmodernism is born of the marriage of Left politics and skeptical epistemology..."

"Then, strikingly, postmodernism turns out not to be relativistic at all. Relativism becomes part of a rhetorical political strategy, some Machiavellian realpolitik employed to throw the opposition off track..."

"Here it is useful to recall Derrida: 'deconstruction never had any meaning... than as a radicalization... within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism.'" ("Explaining Postmodernism," Page 90, 186)

For Postmodernists like de Certeau, Derrida, Foucault and it appears Francis, if he is their disciple, falsehood or truth doesn't matter.

The only thing that matters is achieving power for their liberal ideology or group.

Instead of economic Marxism, the post-modernist in the 1970's focused on what de Certeau and other post-modernists termed "oppression" of groups.

Power not truth for groups such as women, gays, transexauls, workers and any sub-category of minorities was the new goal to achieving control.

An example is abortion: women had to have power over their bodies so the truth that the unborn baby is human must be denied and politically incorrect.

Another example is homosexual acts: gays had to have power over their bodies so the truth that is was a sin and lead to disease and an early death had to be denied and politically incorrect.

Remember that liberals, who never use Marxist words, are nothing but post-modernist who use words like equality and compassion as masks for raw power.

Venezuela is another example.

The liberals from Fr. James Martin to Pope Francis will not lift a finger or say a word to stop the Venezuelan people from being starved and brutalized because the country's dictator is part of their liberal group.



The liberals means to achieve power in the Church is praxis theology.

Internationally renowned theologian Dr. Tracey Rowland said Francis's "decision - making process" outlined in Evangelii Gaudium is "the tendency to give priority to praxis over theory."

She states that chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia "might be described as the praxis chapter rather than a theory chapter." Theory meaning Catholic doctrine.

The renowned theologian asks how footnote 351 of Amoris Laetitia "can be consistent with paragraph eighty-four of John Paul II's Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio and paragraph twenty-nine of Benedict XVI's Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis? A pastoral crisis may arise if the lay faithful and their priests have to choose between... two Popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI) on one side, and a third Pope (Pope Francis) on the other." ("Catholic Theology," Page 192, 198, 199)

The choice appears to be between the infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church or praxis theology.

Rowland says "praxis types agree in rejecting classical metaphysics." She then explains praxis ideology or "theology":

"Doctrinal theory is at best extrinsic and secondary. The reflex character of theory-praxis tends toward a reduction of theory to reflection on praxis as variously understood. The normativity tends toward an identification of Christianity with modern, secular (liberal or Marxist) process." ("Catholic Theology," Page174)

If what the internationally renowned theologian is saying is true of Pope Francis and praxis "theology," then the Church is in the greatest crisis in history.

The Church has a Pope who has betrayed Jesus Christ and His Gospel for the world.

It appears that Francis has exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ for "secular (liberal or Marxist)" ideology which denies objective truth.

Pray for the Church, the beloved bride of Jesus Christ."













Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Maria Regina on October 23, 2017, 04:07:28 PM
.
Why would a Modernist canonize as a saint his own predecessor who defined and condemned Modernism?
.
You're arguing against yourself -- you don't need any help.
.
Modernists, as well as communists, cleverly do the duck walk.
While men such as Pius XII may appear to be traditionalists by supporting and even canonizing good men, such as St. Pius X, they also appoint key modernists to high positions. Patience is their game plan as they slowly increment the grand scheme. Pius XII did exactly that by positioning key modernists and even freemasons as bishops, cardinals, and Vatican bureaucrats who would ultimately vote for his successors, John XXIII and Paul VI, destroy the sacredness of the Mass, and tear down the church.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: songbird on October 23, 2017, 09:10:32 PM
If Our Lady refers to Pope Pius XII as "Pope", then I go with that.  Our Lady asked Sr. Lucia to ask Pius XII to consecrate Russia, and more than once.

Question is, as we know, Pope Pius XII was a disappointment and that is putting it nicely, I think.  I often wonder, in my opinion, is there Pontius Pilate a prefigure of Pope Pius XII.  Christ says to Pontius Pilate," You have the authority to release me or crucify me."  At the end of the day, scriptures say Pontius Pilate made friends with his enemy.  In my opinion, Pius XI and Pius XII were with some modernism and weaknesses.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on October 23, 2017, 09:12:27 PM
" :facepalm:" ," ::)" and insinuations are weak-sauce.

Specify.

Why can't this, for instance, just be unsound reasoning? Why is it specific to Sedevacantism?

Shall we, for example, dissect your posts and then proclaim "These are the problems with anti-Catholicism"?

Show me that ONE of my posts is anti-Catholic, and then maybe I will start to take you seriously, Dizzy.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: songbird on October 23, 2017, 09:13:34 PM
So, IF Our Lady refers to Pope Pius XII to consecrate, he had the authority to do so.  As we know, it did not happen, very deplorable.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 23, 2017, 10:42:19 PM
Show me that ONE of my posts is anti-Catholic, and then maybe I will start to take you seriously, Dizzy.
As to whether anyone even could is beside THE POINT. 

Know what? Just be a jerk; take that, and me, however you like. 

Jerk.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 23, 2017, 10:43:51 PM
So, IF Our Lady refers to Pope Pius XII to consecrate, he had the authority to do so.  As we know, it did not happen, very deplorable.
You can't know what isn't, only that it isn't. 

It did happen miss/ma'am. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on October 23, 2017, 10:59:02 PM
As to whether anyone even could is beside THE POINT.
If it is beside the point, don't call my posts examples of "anti-Catholicism". Kapeesh?
Know what? Just be a jerk; take that, and me, however you like.

Jerk.
 :laugh1:

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: songbird on October 24, 2017, 09:09:56 PM
I don't see Russia converting in the past 60 years, and Communism continues to spread error.  Actions speak louder than words!  You will know them by their fruits!
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 24, 2017, 09:26:52 PM
*avoiding direct eye contact and backing away slowly...
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on October 24, 2017, 11:29:44 PM
*avoiding direct eye contact and backing away slowly...
Was this a reply to me?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 24, 2017, 11:59:33 PM
Was this a reply to me?
No, it was a response to another.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: songbird on October 25, 2017, 03:10:42 PM
Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII both gave it their try to consecrate Russia, so these two thought they did.  Pope Pius XII was known as "The Fatima Pope".  both were disappointments.   Do you not agree, that there is no conversion?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 25, 2017, 03:15:55 PM
Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII both gave it their try to consecrate Russia, so these two thought they did.  Pope Pius XII was known as "The Fatima Pope".  both were disappointments.   Do you not agree, that there is no conversion?
Do "who" not agree?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: songbird on October 25, 2017, 03:17:50 PM
Freedom:  "Human Race" is not "Russia".  This using of other words, blows the attempt.  Half Measure.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: St Ignatius on October 25, 2017, 10:19:11 PM
"Actions speak louder than words!"
.
Yes, they do, so why don't you read and see what happened regarding the action that did take place!  You might even be surprised.
.
.
Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, wouldn't it be better to have the facts of history?  This is the problem.  Songbird, for you edification.
.
.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/consecration-russia-fatima-lucy/
You are a blasphemous LIAR!  You and your Diamond sisters claim that Pope Pius XII Consecrated Russia, you LIARS! Where's the conversion?! Where's the peace?! Fifty years without a pope YOU say, Russia still in schism, the West preparing for the war of ALL wars, and you say Russia has been Consecrated! You make me sick! Go back to the halls of Legion were you belong, you PIG!
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: songbird on October 25, 2017, 10:20:24 PM
The Whole Truth About Fatima by Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 25, 2017, 10:44:22 PM
You are a blasphemous LIAR!  You and your Diamond sisters claim that Pope Pius XII Consecrated Russia, you LIARS! Where's the conversion?! Where's the peace?! Fifty years without a pope YOU say, Russia still in schism, the West preparing for the war of ALL wars, and you say Russia has been Consecrated! You make me sick! Go back to the halls of Legion were you belong, you PIG!
You okay there man? 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: songbird on October 25, 2017, 10:59:39 PM
Page 509 of The Whole Truth: words of Sr.Lucia to Fr. Fuentes: This satanic project of attacking first  on all consecrated souls and priests, this necessity for the faithful to be converted to a holier life w/o waiting for a call to penance "on the part of the Holy Father for the whole world, on the part of bishops for their dioceses, or from the religious congregations.  In other words, in December of 1957, even before the death of Pius XII, Our Lady's messenger already foresaw the grave crisis the Church would have to face. 

Page 508 Sr. Lucia states: No matter how difficult any problem is, the Rosary solves the problem.  Our Lady has given "new efficacy" to the recitation of the Rosary.

So, each person must not only save his/her own soul, but also all the souls that God has place on our path..

Even Sedevacantist pray for their enemies: even if it be the one who claims to be pope,  Catholics pray for the enemy and that is what Our Lady is asking for us to do.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 26, 2017, 01:22:37 AM
Even the most succulent is repulsive, if served with a side of shit.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 26, 2017, 02:26:12 AM
.
Ignoramus quote.
You are a blasphemous LIAR!  You and your Diamond sisters claim that Pope Pius XII Consecrated Russia, you LIARS! Where's the conversion?! Where's the peace?! Fifty years without a pope YOU say, Russia still in schism, the West preparing for the war of ALL wars, and you say Russia has been Consecrated! You make me sick! Go back to the halls of Legion were you belong, you PIG!
.
.
DZ you were not direct, as to who your comment is directed to?   Me or the Ignoramus.
You. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 26, 2017, 05:18:27 AM
Even the most succulent is repulsive, if served with a side of shit.
We finally agree on something ha ha!
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 26, 2017, 01:36:39 PM
We finally agree on something ha ha!
Save, clearly though typically, which be which.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 27, 2017, 04:46:52 PM
.
Stubborn all that you serve is garbage, period!  You are a devil, a heretic.
Did you fall down and go boom again?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 27, 2017, 06:06:22 PM
Too many scams riding on Russia never being consecrated, regardless of the facts; it's become an industry.

What is it that's said about the love of money?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 27, 2017, 07:00:20 PM
Evidently. That and a cult following.
Sheep to fleece, and where there're cults, there's perversion and loot involved; it's like the 'marriage' of Catholicism, and Scientology.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Fanny on October 30, 2017, 03:16:10 PM
Sheep to fleece, and where there're cults, there's perversion and loot involved; it's like the 'marriage' of Catholicism, and Scientology.
Cults don't always have money, especially if it is spent as fast as it is received.  Perversion has a broad range.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 30, 2017, 03:19:58 PM
Cults don't always have money, especially if it is spent as fast as it is received.  Perversion has a broad range.
Even granting that were true ma'am, by your very words money is involved; it doesn't have to be profit optimized or directed.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Fanny on October 30, 2017, 03:33:47 PM
I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sexual morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!
I have been traditional Catholic for 32 years.
Every good Catholic has investigated sedevecantism, so good for you.  Sedevecantis are the most charitable people I have ever met.
In as much as it is easy to say "he CAN'T be our pope because he is not Catholic," the pope is indeed our pope, practicing Catholic or not.
What it boiled down to me was this: 
It takes a lot of gall to say I know better (that the pope is not the pope)
It is more plausible that the pope is the head of two churches.  
God knows all and will sort it all out.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 30, 2017, 03:36:47 PM
It takes gall to accord with Catholic teaching, but not to contradict it.

"Good, is evil"
"Up, is down"
"Left, is right"
"Black, is white"
"Lies, are truth."
"etc., etc,...."
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Meg on October 30, 2017, 04:06:56 PM
I have been traditional Catholic for 32 years.
Every good Catholic has investigated sedevecantism, so good for you.  Sedevecantis are the most charitable people I have ever met.
In as much as it is easy to say "he CAN'T be our pope because he is not Catholic," the pope is indeed our pope, practicing Catholic or not.
What it boiled down to me was this:
It takes a lot of gall to say I know better (that the pope is not the pope)
It is more plausible that the pope is the head of two churches.  
God knows all and will sort it all out.

I have to agree to most of what you wrote, except for where you say that sedevacantists are the most charitable people you have ever met. Evidently, you haven't spent much time on this forum.
Most of the Sedevacantists here spiteful and very arrogant. They are basically the Jews of the trad movement. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Fanny on October 30, 2017, 04:23:59 PM
I have to agree to most of what you wrote, except for where you say that sedevacantists are the most charitable people you have ever met. Evidently, you haven't spent much time on this forum.
Most of the Sedevacantists here spiteful and very arrogant. They are basically the Jews of the trad movement.
"Met" not "read"...  :)
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Fanny on October 30, 2017, 04:32:23 PM
It takes gall to accord with Catholic teaching, but not to contradict it.

"Good, is evil"
"Up, is down"
"Left, is right"
"Black, is white"
"Lies, are truth."
"etc., etc,...."
You're an idiot.
Why Matthew allows you here is beyond me.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Fanny on October 30, 2017, 04:58:01 PM
.
I guess length of time, necessarily, is a prerequisite for knowing the truth?  .
.
Not at all, but it takes time to find the truth.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Fanny on October 30, 2017, 05:13:23 PM
.
Rely on Our Lady and the Holy Ghost, by saying the Rosary everyday, all 15 decades.  Then see how long it takes!?
.
Sometimes hard to distinguish.
Short for some, longer for most.
The middle ground is hard to find.  Not too liberal, not too nit-picky.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 30, 2017, 05:27:40 PM

It is more plausible that the pope is the head of two churches.  

It is?  How so?  Where does the Catholic Church teach that this is possible?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 30, 2017, 06:17:37 PM
I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sexual morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!
OP....are you still around?  I see you posted this almost 10 days ago and never returned to the thread.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 30, 2017, 06:57:44 PM
It is?  How so?  Where does the Catholic Church teach that this is possible?
Welcome to "Idiot Alley" man.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: poche on October 31, 2017, 12:20:20 AM
Anyway, there can be no question about the following four points:

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1515
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 31, 2017, 12:23:23 AM
Anyway, there can be no question about the following four points:
  • Pope Benedict XVI (a) announced that he would resign, (b) announced his resignation, (c) has mentioned his resignation since, and (d) has steadfastly avoided the slightest suggestion that he still has any claim on the See of Peter. Although he is officially called Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger (his birth name) stated that he preferred to be called simply “Father Benedict”.
  • Pope Francis was duly elected Pope by the College of Cardinals.
  • There is absolutely no other way for a pope to lose his office except through death or resignation. He cannot lose it through “heresy”, nor can he lose it because of sin, nor for gross ineptitude.
  • The Church has all the guarantees she needs in her Divine Constitution to endure a pope who may be very bad in any number of ways, without any danger that the truths of the Faith will be abrogated, that the sacraments will lose their power, that Christ will cease to be the Church’s head and bridegroom, or that Christ’s promise to be with her will become void.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1515
Keep on lying over time P, and people with think it's the real thing.

"Intellectual Historian" of the NO, and what does he do? Lead off with name-calling masses of people.

Classic.

Joke.

Credibility in the deep negatives.

Way to link though P.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 03:39:42 AM
It is?  How so?  Where does the Catholic Church teach that this is possible?
Yes.

Reality.

In Scripture.

Where does the Catholic Church teach this is impossible?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 31, 2017, 04:47:21 AM
Yes.

Reality.

In Scripture.

Where does the Catholic Church teach this is impossible?
Hi Stubborn...please share the source of the Catholic teaching (whether through Scripture or otherwise) that teaches that the Pope can be the head of two separate churches, the Catholic Church and some other church.  

It's always been my understanding that the Church and Scripture teaches that Christ made St Peter the Head of one church, Christ's Church.  Christ doesn't have two different Churches.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 31, 2017, 04:55:16 AM
Hi Stubborn...please share the source of the Catholic teaching (whether through Scripture or otherwise) that teaches that the Pope can be the head of two separate churches, the Catholic Church and some other church.  

It's always been my understanding that the Church and Scripture teaches that Christ made St Peter the Head of one church, Christ's Church.  Christ doesn't have two different Churches.  
It's you're understanding because, thus fare, you've not shown yourself to be either a liar, or an idiot.

He's being stupid, or lying. It's counter to reason on its face, before you even get into Catholic teaching.

Regardless, he's living down to his name, and continues to manifest a monstrous will.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 05:11:06 AM
It's you're understanding because, thus fare, you've not shown yourself to be either a liar, or an idiot.

He's being stupid, or lying. It's counter to reason on its face, before you even get into Catholic teaching.

Regardless, he's living down to his name, and continues to manifest a monstrous will.
It's just that idiots like yourself don't speaka da lango. Your bad will begins and ends at the rejection of the dogma, when you chose hell over heaven for the sake of your own opinion.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 05:27:19 AM
Hi Stubborn...please share the source of the Catholic teaching (whether through Scripture or otherwise) that teaches that the Pope can be the head of two separate churches, the Catholic Church and some other church.  

It's always been my understanding that the Church and Scripture teaches that Christ made St Peter the Head of one church, Christ's Church.  Christ doesn't have two different Churches.  
Hi 2V. You certainly are correct, Christ has only one Church and He made St. Peter and his successors the head of His one Church. St. Peter's conciliar successors made themselves head of the conciliar Church, God didn't do that, they did it themselves, entirely on their own of their own free will.

Where does the Catholic Church teach this is impossible?

As for the Church teaching the pope can be head of two Churches, the Scripture I was thinking about probably doesn't apply except indirectly since it is by way of allegory, not literal. Check out Jeremias (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1310.html), the whole chapter 23 is very good, verse 16 in particular since by way of example, instructs us as to what we are to do about the conciliar popes and hierarchy.        
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 31, 2017, 07:05:47 AM
Hi 2V. You certainly are correct, Christ has only one Church and He made St. Peter and his successors the head of His one Church. St. Peter's conciliar successors made themselves head of the conciliar Church, God didn't do that, they did it themselves, entirely on their own of their own free will.

Where does the Catholic Church teach this is impossible?

As for the Church teaching the pope can be head of two Churches, the Scripture I was thinking about probably doesn't apply except indirectly since it is by way of allegory, not literal. Check out Jeremias (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1310.html), the whole chapter 23 is very good, verse 16 in particular since by way of example, instructs us as to what we are to do about the conciliar popes and hierarchy.        
OK, so this Old Testament passage doesn't teach the pope can be the head of two churches.  The Haydock Catholic commentary doesn't even mention the pope.
   
When Christ dubs Peter "The Rock" because of his profession of faith and states that He would build His Church on him, how does having a Peter who simultaneously heads up, is a member of, and professes the faith of a false church maintain his position as "The Rock"?  This Scripture passage shows that a pope of the Catholic Church couldn't possibly be "The Rock" of the Catholic Church if he also headed up and professed the faith of a false church. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 08:03:51 AM
OK, so this Old Testament passage doesn't teach the pope can be the head of two churches.  The Haydock Catholic commentary doesn't even mention the pope.
Maybe 3rd times the charm.......Where does the Catholic Church teach this is impossible?

The Scripture I referenced merely shows that pastors and prophets (the pope and hierarchy) can teach heresies and when they do, we are not to listen to them. It is a very good allegory for today's crisis:  "For the prophet and the priest (pope? and hierarchy) are defiled: and in my house (the Church) I have found their wickedness, saith the Lord.....Hearken not (don't listen to him)  to the words of the prophets that prophesy to you, and deceive you".




Quote
When Christ dubs Peter "The Rock" because of his profession of faith and states that He would build His Church on him, how does having a Peter who simultaneously heads up, is a member of, and professes the faith of a false church maintain his position as "The Rock"?  This Scripture passage shows that a pope of the Catholic Church couldn't possibly be "The Rock" of the Catholic Church if he also headed up and professed the faith of a false church.
He maintains his position as "The Rock" because that position was assigned specifically to him by Christ, which means no matter what he does in any respect or disrespect to that assignment, he is "The Rock" via the command of God the Son.

Christ did not give him that position conditionally or on any type of temporary basis - such a thing is not even implied anywhere in Scripture.

He's "The Rock" because God made *him* "The Rock", from that moment on, outside of his death or abdication, there is nothing on earth that can ever change that by virtue of the command of God - so when the pope decides he wants to head two churches, though he sins terribly, he still remains the pope, head of Christ's Church on earth, by virtue of the directive from God, meanwhile, he starts and heads up his own church at the same time - woe unto him is what we all say: "Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord."


Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 31, 2017, 08:32:00 AM
Maybe 3rd times the charm.......Where does the Catholic Church teach this is impossible?


I answered your question with Scripture.  You disagree with me.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 31, 2017, 09:01:33 AM
Maybe 3rd times the charm.......Where does the Catholic Church teach this is impossible?

The Scripture I referenced merely shows that pastors and prophets (the pope and hierarchy) can teach heresies and when they do, we are not to listen to them. It is a very good allegory for today's crisis:  "For the prophet and the priest (pope? and hierarchy) are defiled: and in my house (the Church) I have found their wickedness, saith the Lord.....Hearken not (don't listen to him)  to the words of the prophets that prophesy to you, and deceive you".


He maintains his position as "The Rock" because that position was assigned specifically to him by Christ, which means no matter what he does in any respect or disrespect to that assignment, he is "The Rock" via the command of God the Son.

Christ did not give him that position conditionally or on any type of temporary basis - such a thing is not even implied anywhere in Scripture.

He's "The Rock" because God made *him* "The Rock", from that moment on, outside of his death or abdication, there is nothing on earth that can ever change that by virtue of the command of God - so when the pope decides he wants to head two churches, though he sins terribly, he still remains the pope, head of Christ's Church on earth, by virtue of the directive from God, meanwhile, he starts and heads up his own church at the same time - woe unto him is what we all say: "Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord."
The Old Testament scripture you referenced still does not reference the pope and neither does the Catholic commentary that goes along with it.

Christ gave Peter the title of Rock because of Peter's profession of faith, the true faith. If he had not made that profession of faith, Christ would not have given Him that title.  Haydock commentary also makes it clear that this title (Rock, foundation) refers to Peter and his successors.  In order to be like Peter, all successors need to profess the same faith.  If they do not (by professing a different faith in a false church as its head), then it is impossible for them to be part of the same foundation and the gates of Hell would prevail.

And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on October 31, 2017, 09:02:07 AM
Consider also when Peter suggested Jesus change His plan, after being called the Rock, Jesus heard Peter's suggestion and said, "Get Behind Me Satan."  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 09:03:11 AM
Resistance is not appropriate in the current situation. A true Pope can never bind the whole Church to error. This goes against the promises of Christ.
A false pope can't bind the whole Church to error - that much is for sure.
Which error(s) did the pope bind the whole Church to?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 09:03:44 AM
Consider also when Peter suggested Jesus change His plan, after being called the Rock, Jesus heard Peter's suggestion and said, "Get Behind Me Satan."  
Yes, and even then St. Peter was still "The Rock".
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 31, 2017, 09:06:44 AM
Yes, and even then St. Peter was still "The Rock".
I agree.  But that is true because although he tempted Christ, Peter didn't profess a different faith.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 31, 2017, 09:10:07 AM
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio

http://www.sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cumex.html
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on October 31, 2017, 09:10:48 AM
Yes, and even then St. Peter was still "The Rock".
Yes, and Peter today would never recognize Francis as his successor. 
 
Peter when He heard Jesus reply to him, did Peter still go on with his suggestion that Jesus change?

Answer that! 
 
No, he submitted to the Will of God. 
 
Is your current Francis, do you suppose even considering the Will of God?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 09:14:38 AM
The Old Testament scripture you referenced still does not reference the pope and neither does the Catholic commentary that goes along with it.

Christ gave Peter the title of Rock because of Peter's profession of faith, the true faith. If he had not made that profession of faith, Christ would not have given Him that title.  Haydock commentary also makes it clear that this title (Rock, foundation) refers to Peter and his successors.  In order to be like Peter, all successors need to profess the same faith.  If they do not (by professing a different faith in a false church as its head), then it is impossible for them to be part of the same foundation and the gates of Hell would prevail.

And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it.
Pre-V2, all the popes - cardinals, bishops and priests for that matter - made the profession of faith, yet during or after V2, they all professed the conciliar faith - that doesn't mean they all lost their offices, it does mean "woe unto them..."

I would agree that in order to be like St. Peter, all the successors need to profess the same true faith, but there is nothing to stop them from not doing so, hence not being like him spiritually, yet remain St. Peter's successors by virtue of the command of God bestowing that office on St. Peter and his successors. Again, there is nothing and no power on earth that can ever countermand Christ's directive, not even the popes' own abandonment and infidelity to the faith. Rather, woe unto him when he faces God if he doesn't correct himself before then.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on October 31, 2017, 09:18:56 AM
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio

http://www.sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cumex.html
Yes read it especially number 6:
"In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]


that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:



(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions, and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.



7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-
that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
(i) the clergy, secular and religious;
(ii) the laity;
(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains, and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;
shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.

8. [The provisions of this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity"
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 09:23:11 AM
I agree.  But that is true because although he tempted Christ, Peter didn't profess a different faith.  
Our Lord said "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church ....", He did not say, "....on this rock I will build my Church, if you ever lose the faith, or, ...if you ever preach heresy, or ....if you ever start another church, you lose your office ipso facto". He never said that and it is not implied anywhere.

Applying basic Catholic principles, what Our Lord told St. Peter when He made St. Peter the first pope is, basically: "Peter, you're it, I am making you the supreme authority on earth, answerable only to Me - you and your successors knowing that salvation is only possible in my Church, you and your successors had better do your jobs and feed my sheep, or you've had it come your judgement day".
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 09:26:10 AM
Yes read it especially number 6:
"In addition, [by this Our......
All we are concerned with is the instruction Pope Paul IV gave us - this is what his direction is to us, to let us know the extent of what we are to do in times like this.


1. In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 31, 2017, 09:28:28 AM
Our Lord said "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church ....", He did not say, "....on this rock I will build my Church, if you ever lose the faith, or, ...if you ever preach heresy, or ....if you ever start another church, you lose your office ipso facto". He never said that and it is not implied anywhere.

Applying basic Catholic principles, what Our Lord told St. Peter when He made St. Peter the first pope is, basically: "Peter, you're it, I am making you the supreme authority on earth, answerable only to Me - you and your successors knowing that salvation is only possible in my Church, you and your successors had better do your jobs and feed my sheep, or you've had it come your judgement day"......
.....And in the mean time I will allow you to help lead others to damnation because I want everyone to still look to you as the visible head of My Church."


Sorry, not buying it Stubborn.  Never did. Never will.


Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 09:34:36 AM
Yes, and Peter today would never recognize Francis as his successor.
Yes he would, pope Francis faces a worse sufferings than the rest of us by virtue of his office. He not only faces the wrath of almighty God, but also the wrath of Sts. Peter and Paul. That's what awaits him.



Quote
Peter when He heard Jesus reply to him, did Peter still go on with his suggestion that Jesus change?

Answer that!
 
No, he submitted to the Will of God.
 
Is your current Francis, do you suppose even considering the Will of God?

Right, St. Peter submitted, and pope Francis hasn't - he only keeps getting worse. IMO, he better correct himself before he dies.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 09:48:12 AM
.....And in the mean time I will allow you to help lead others to damnation because I want everyone to still look to you as the visible head of My Church."


Sorry, not buying it Stubborn.  Never did. Never will.
For as basic as it is, it's too bad you havn't or ever will accept it.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 31, 2017, 11:49:19 AM
Impudent imps...
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 31, 2017, 11:50:56 AM
.....And in the mean time I will allow you to help lead others to damnation because I want everyone to still look to you as the visible head of My Church."


Sorry, not buying it Stubborn.  Never did. Never will.
Ma'am, it's good to see that you seem to be opting out of the masochism.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 12:53:02 PM
Ma'am, it's good to see that you seem to be opting out of the masochism.
It's a terrible injustice you do her by egging her on.

What exactly is it that she's not buying or never has therefore never will? That she refuses to exchange her opinion for the truth?

The dogma decreed by Pope Boniface VIII states: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Do you suppose the Holy Ghost forgot to add at the end: "...unless you don't believe he is the pope"?  Or do you believe that God foresaw today's crisis and specifically worded it just as He did anyway on purpose, or perhaps better said, not without purpose?  Because it is dogma it is timeless and always a requirement, it may as well have been decreed in 1920, or 1960, or 2000 as 1302. If you believe the latter, then you understand that God knew of today's crisis when He decreed the dogma yet said what He said anyway.

It is through faith that we believe that God saw today's crisis clearer than we who live it see it, and still said that in order to get to heaven, we are to be the popes' subjects no matter what our opinion in the matter is -  not make our own decision in the matter, decide his status, decide he's not the pope, then claim the dogma doesn't apply under because the popes' are heretics. That idea makes the whole idea of dogma a colossal farce and demonstrates zero faith in God in His decree.  

The dogma says we must be subject to the pope, it does not say we are to blindly submit to the pope, blindly follow his commands even if that meant that by obeying the pope, we offend God. That would be very stupid of God if He were to make or even intend such a decree - no? - particularly knowing that He foresaw this crisis and excluded our opinion in the matter on purpose.    
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 01:07:26 PM
You did fall down go boom! Right on your head apparently.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 31, 2017, 01:13:21 PM
Quote
It's a terrible injustice you do her by egging her on.
Noting hopeful indications that she's not playing any more, i.e. "egging her..." off = "egging her on".

The mad flailings of a mind unhinged by lying and heresy.

Classic "stubborn".

"Black is white"
"Day is night"
"Left is right"

"Wrong is right" i.e. "Good is evil..."

Woe..

"Terrible injustice" = Stubborn as "Lord and Savior"

Woe...
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 01:23:51 PM
Noting hopeful indications that she's not playing any more, i.e. "egging her..." off = "egging her on".

The mad flailings of a mind unhinged by lying and heresy.

Classic "stubborn".

"Black is white"
"Day is night"
"Left is right"

"Wrong is right" i.e. "Good is evil..."

Woe..

"Terrible injustice" = Stubborn as "Lord and Savior"

Woe...
That's all you have, ad hominems. You accuse others of the very thing you, like Freedom idiot, do best. You have nothing, no argument except against my person, you have nothing, no faith, no brains, nothing.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 31, 2017, 01:35:59 PM
It's a terrible injustice you do her by egging her on.

What exactly is it that she's not buying or never has therefore never will? That she refuses to exchange her opinion for the truth? 
Let 's be clear here Stubborn.  You and I were discussing Church teaching that backed the idea that a true pope could be the head of two churches..one true and one false.  You never provided proof that your theory is true. Therefore you have NO business telling me that I should exchange my opinion for "the (your) truth".  Your "truth" is just your opinion.  Until you can provide clear Catholic teaching that a true pope can head Christ;s church and a false church at the same time, that is all it will ever be.
I happen to believe that Matthew 16:18 provides proof of my opinion, but you don't see me telling you that you must exchange your opinion for my truth do you?
Apparently, even though it has been a long time, I was crazy to get into another debate with you.
Good day.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Meg on October 31, 2017, 01:40:54 PM
That's all you have, ad hominems. You accuse others of the very thing you, like Freedom idiot, do best. You have nothing, no argument except against my person, you have nothing, no faith, no brains, nothing.  

Sounds like the basic requirement for being a sedevacantist. No brains, Faith, or real argument. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 01:43:21 PM
Let 's be clear here Stubborn.  You and I were discussing Church teaching that backed the idea that a true pope could be the head of two churches..one true and one false.  You never provided proof that your theory is true. Therefore you have NO business telling me that I should exchange my opinion for "the (your) truth".  Your "truth" is just your opinion.  Until you can provide clear Catholic teaching that a true pope can head Christ;s church and a false church at the same time, that is all it will ever be.
I happen to believe that Matthew 16:18 provides proof of my opinion, but you don't see me telling you that you must exchange your opinion for my truth do you?
Apparently, even though it has been a long time, I was crazy to get into another debate with you.
Good day.  
Your belief that Matthew 16:18 is conditional, that is, dependent upon the sanctity of the pope, IS your opinion. How you arrived at that opinion that His words include or imply any conditions at all and where you got that opinion from, only you know, but rest assured, it is only your opinion, even if shared with others for the simple reason that it says what it says.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
Sounds like the basic requirement for being a sedevacantist. No brains, Faith, or real argument.
Seems to be the case.

There's a reason the sede priests started their own chapels, seminaries, schools and have their own bishops - and that reason plays out here daily.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2017, 02:00:03 PM
.
I want to point out the evil deception on the part of Stubborn.  It seems to appear by Stubborn, in his presentation of a partial rendering of  “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio”, he gives the impression that Pope Paul IV, is saying that if the Pope is contradicted, it must be more counteracted.  Stubborn, is that what you are implying?  Please clarify?  If this was not what you meant, then at the very least, you are not counteracting, in fact, you are supporting these antipopes, as popes!
It's not that I am implying it, that's the pope's instructions to us, telling us the extent of action we are to take in this crisis. That's it and that's all of it.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 31, 2017, 02:31:27 PM
Quote
What this document deals with is heresy coming from a Pope all the way down to laymen and that concerning heresy, and the detection of it, excommunication is automatic, no sentence needed.  

You are not distinguishing between the SPIRITUAL excommunication (which is immediate) and the loss of the TEMPORAL office of the pope (which requires canon law procedures).  The SPIRITUAL punishment of excommunication is IMMEDIATE; the TEMPORAL punishment of removal from office, IS NOT.    

Heresy is first in the internal forum of the person's mind, whereby they reject truth.  No one can judge that except God.  This is why canon law says that a person who rejects the truth is judged immediately (i.e. ipso facto) by their own actions.  This is a SPIRITUAL penalty.  Excommunication is a SPIRITUAL penalty until it is TEMPORALLY ratified by the Church.  When one is SUSPECTED of heresy then they are 1) questioned, tried, interrogated, and then if the errors are still held, they are 2) removed from their office.  The process of interrogation and removal from office is part of canon law and until that happens, the person still holds office.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on October 31, 2017, 04:24:30 PM
You are not distinguishing between the SPIRITUAL excommunication (which is immediate) and the loss of the TEMPORAL office of the pope (which requires canon law procedures).  The SPIRITUAL punishment of excommunication is IMMEDIATE; the TEMPORAL punishment of removal from office, IS NOT.    

Heresy is first in the internal forum of the person's mind, whereby they reject truth.  No one can judge that except God.  This is why canon law says that a person who rejects the truth is judged immediately (i.e. ipso facto) by their own actions.  This is a SPIRITUAL penalty.  Excommunication is a SPIRITUAL penalty until it is TEMPORALLY ratified by the Church.  When one is SUSPECTED of heresy then they are 1) questioned, tried, interrogated, and then if the errors are still held, they are 2) removed from their office.  The process of interrogation and removal from office is part of canon law and until that happens, the person still holds office.
Possession doesn't mean ownership!
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Fanny on October 31, 2017, 06:23:16 PM
So many canon lawyers here.
Our Faith is not complicated.
Keep it simple and have Faith of a child.
Our Father will sort it all out.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 31, 2017, 06:31:09 PM
One could say the same as, say, a Protestant; does this include having the mind and "diet" of a child as well? I ask because, first off, if you were addressing me as a child earlier, then you need to be turned over a knee and strapped by your parent or guardian.

Wait, "Fanny"...

Well that adds up.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: sedevacantist3 on October 31, 2017, 07:16:00 PM
Sounds like the basic requirement for being a sedevacantist. No brains, Faith, or real argument.
sounds like the basic requirement for someone who thinks a non Catholic heretic from hell can be the head of the Church of Christ...No brains, Faith, or real argument.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 31, 2017, 08:32:05 PM
Your belief that Matthew 16:18 is conditional, that is, dependent upon the sanctity of the pope, IS your opinion. How you arrived at that opinion that His words include or imply any conditions at all and where you got that opinion from, only you know, but rest assured, it is only your opinion, even if shared with others for the simple reason that it says what it says.
I do believe that I stated that I was giving my opinion, so I'm really unsure why you would tell me over and over again that this is "my opinion".  
The point is : you gave your opinion as well.  Your opinion that a true pope can be the head of the Catholic Church and a false church is not "the truth" and you have no business telling me nor anyone else that we must believe in "your truth". 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 31, 2017, 08:34:24 PM
Dear sede populace-
I'll cease responding to distinguish the various canon law requirements which you want to ignore.  I forgot your motto:  "Outside sedevacantism there is no salvation!"

Carry on.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 31, 2017, 08:40:57 PM
Sounds like the basic requirement for being a sedevacantist. No brains, Faith, or real argument.
Your recent anti-sedevacantist posts drip with irony.  You respond to Stubborn's comments complaining of ad hominems from DZ and you then drop numerous ad hominems on a whole group of people. 

Tell me Meg:  why do you enter threads about sedevacantism if you are so disgusted by those who hold the sedevacantist position? Have you provided any post here that is actually productive?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on October 31, 2017, 08:43:25 PM
sounds like the basic requirement for someone who thinks a non Catholic heretic from hell can be the head of the Church of Christ...No brains, Faith, or real argument.
You just took the rabid, anti-sede bait.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 31, 2017, 08:50:26 PM
You just took the rabid, anti-sede bait.
Sometimes a fight is necessary, but regardless of "faction" there is a very pronounced spirit of strife roaming about; CI is no exception.

It's about impossible to even joke, tease, or otherwise make light to defuse it; seems all that you can do is step away, pray, and be silent.

Not to breed suspicion and a conspiratorial mind, but Satanists do have their own version of "merit", and one of the ways they "earn" it is to sow discord, break up Churches, start crap on websites...
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: poche on October 31, 2017, 10:45:40 PM
Keep on lying over time P, and people with think it's the real thing.

"Intellectual Historian" of the NO, and what does he do? Lead off with name-calling masses of people.

Classic.

Joke.

Credibility in the deep negatives.

Way to link though P.
I wasn't refering to his name calling. I was referring to to the issues he raised.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 31, 2017, 11:23:10 PM
I wasn't refering to his name calling. I was referring to to the issues he raised.
Keep calling them "issues" too, you're sure to bag a few more. 

Hey, can I just make naked categorical assertions if I'm a "historian" too, I mean as long as somebody calls them "issues"?

Can I just declare things to be facts, like magic? 

My will be done?

If so, will you then cite me to drive your point(?) home?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: StCeciliasGirl on November 01, 2017, 01:33:18 AM
The papal situation is so unique and confusing - there's no historical precedent to compare it to!  Yet these self-appointed interpreters expect us all to agree with their interpretation of the writings of theologians and Doctors as if it were DOCTRINALLY BINDING?  That's crazy.
So strange popping back in here when I used to lean more sede but you couldn't be dogmatic back then. (Note: I def. do NOT think Bergoglio has any place in the Church because he was a public apostate  pre-"election", and continues: you can't worship several gods, as he did publically before election in that conclave. However, I am not sure the Seat is vacant; I just can't imagine it's occupied by the current physical "occupier", though there are other possibilities I can almost imagine, not "Pope Michael" of course.)

But your point (from WAY back, sorry) is good I think, and may have historical precedent: with Our Lord's Incarnation, He let Himself be subjected to all manner of sin from Pharisees/Sadducees/maybe infidels, and it seems to me He healed, taught, etc, and then said follow the Law, go to the Temple and let a priest see you are healed. Also:

Quote
The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. —Our Lord, Matt 23
Plus +Jesus and the Holy Mother and many Faithful knowingly subjected themselves to the known-fallen Temple. Approximately the same Temple that Ezekiel had seen the Holy Ghost pack up and leave while [Ezekiel] was exiled in Babylon (though I think the Temple was moved a bit in the 500+ years before the Holy Incarnation; the Vatican itself has "moved" a few times, as well.)

Not saying anyone should go glory in the N.O. places of hippie healing whatever-it-is-they-do. I'm simply not that strong. The new local NO priest who tries to PUSH into our lives (like Jehovah's Witness) wore pink pu--y hat in local march earlier this year and ...is not even "catholic" with little "c": he's atheist, feminist, "chows down on 'Lord's memory dinner' with Lutheran leader but that's okay since he doesn't believe in "historical +Jesus" and he doesn't consecrate his "sammich" (sic) ...oh, and he is a practicing homo.

But worst of all (unless he diddles with kids): this guy is a persecutor of the Faithful who are privately using older Missals and wearing veils and Sacramentals. He's fine if Muslims roll out the prayer mats, face Mecca, and screech to some demon pedophile; he is offended only if one prays in Latin with a veil, or uses a Douay or older Missal, and he will TELL you so, quite publically.

Still, just for me, that quoted Scripture above trips me up. (As do others in Holy Writ, as well — both ways, regarding the vacancy of the Seat!) I think Our Lord's sufferings, and those Saints of the early Church, seem to be where we are: some people have NO priests who are atheist homos that refuse to give even Montini's NO mass, while others may have at least little-"c" priests who try to say some kind of mass.

So I can't answer, and have decided I'm simply can't be dogmatic either way. But I think Our Lord attending Temple devoid of God — except Himself — may have been an actual precedent in Holy Writ of attending Temple after it has fallen to apostates. Not that we're Jewish, but they had a "foreshadowing" of Mass. Plus +Jesus being God and apparently taking over the "sermon" readings often is just not appropriate for most of us to do, so I'm not sure Matthew 22's teaching is even applicable. But I'm not sure it's NOT applicable, either.

Our Lord submitted Himself to rulings of Jews who knew not what they did (crucified God made Flesh), though He offered Himself freely as Sacrifice for the Faithful, thus fulfilling Holy Prophecy. And yet I doubt He would have abided worshiping Baal "alongside" God/Himself at the Temple; He didn't abide sales of pigeons and got quite physical about it. And there's a big difference between St. Paul trying to teach Greeks about God in pagan buildings to proselytize, and actually worshiping Zeus (which St. Paul did not do!) in some misguided attempt to reach the fallen. The former is holy (proselytizing), the latter is horrible inversion of worshiping God (apostasy).

Does anyone else think Matthew 22 might apply to this question?

ALL SAINTS OCTAVE! Please pray for the repose of the soul of my dad Samuel, who died earlier this year in the Faith. I will add the Faithful of CathInfo to my prayer intentions, as well. Let's get to the graveyards and pray!
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 01, 2017, 05:11:39 AM
I do believe that I stated that I was giving my opinion, so I'm really unsure why you would tell me over and over again that this is "my opinion".  
The point is : you gave your opinion as well.  Your opinion that a true pope can be the head of the Catholic Church and a false church is not "the truth" and you have no business telling me nor anyone else that we must believe in "your truth".
That's the issue, I did not give my opinion, I, along with the Church, take literally the words of Christ, what Christ literally said is literally what He meant, the Church adds no qualifications to His directive to St. Peter. None, absolutely none whatsoever.

The Church has always taught that what He literally said is what He literally meant and extends to St. Peter's successors, period. The Prots say Our Lord's words do not mean what they say, but the Church does not and never has added any qualifications - the sedevacantists add them, but the Church which is Christ, does not add any qualifications to His words. Do not fool yourself 2V, it is not my or an opinion at all, it is what the Church teaches that you disagree with. 

You wrongfully but conveniently claim Christ's words, which can only contain nothing but the whole truth, to be only "my truth" and to be only "my opinion", but as you admit, you can only come up with your explanation, not using what Christ said, but only by using your opinion of what Christ meant - but your opinion is wrong because it not what He said therefore not what He meant.

What you are doing is adding your own qualifications, then admitting those qualifications are only your opinion, then saying I am wrong because your opinion disagrees with my opinion - when it is not my opinion you are disagreeing with at all. You are disagreeing with the words of Our Lord via your qualifications. That is the truth.



Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 01, 2017, 05:14:48 AM
You must accept Vatican II as a true Catholic council to be in communion with the conciliar antipopes.
Be as specific as you were when you made the false claim: "Resistance is not appropriate in the current situation. A true Pope can never bind the whole Church to error. This goes against the promises of Christ".

Which error(s) did the pope bind the whole Church to?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on November 01, 2017, 03:31:58 PM
That's the issue, I did not give my opinion, I, along with the Church, take literally the words of Christ, what Christ literally said is literally what He meant, the Church adds no qualifications to His directive to St. Peter. None, absolutely none whatsoever.

The Church has always taught that what He literally said is what He literally meant and extends to St. Peter's successors, period. The Prots say Our Lord's words do not mean what they say, but the Church does not and never has added any qualifications - the sedevacantists add them, but the Church which is Christ, does not add any qualifications to His words. Do not fool yourself 2V, it is not my or an opinion at all, it is what the Church teaches that you disagree with.  

You wrongfully but conveniently claim Christ's words, which can only contain nothing but the whole truth, to be only "my truth" and to be only "my opinion", but as you admit, you can only come up with your explanation, not using what Christ said, but only by using your opinion of what Christ meant - but your opinion is wrong because it not what He said therefore not what He meant.

What you are doing is adding your own qualifications, then admitting those qualifications are only your opinion, then saying I am wrong because your opinion disagrees with my opinion - when it is not my opinion you are disagreeing with at all. You are disagreeing with the words of Our Lord via your qualifications. That is the truth.
You sure did give your opinion...on whether a true pope can be the head of a false and true church at the same time. You NEVER provided Church teaching to support the theory that this is a truth taught by the Church.  SHOW ME where Christ states that a true pope can be the head of a false and His Church at the same time.  If you can say that His words don't support my opinion, then His words don't support yours either.

I will re-post my post up-thread: 

Let 's be clear here Stubborn.  You and I were discussing Church teaching that backed the idea that a true pope could be the head of two churches..one true and one false.  You never provided proof that your theory is true. Therefore you have NO business telling me that I should exchange my opinion for "the (your) truth".  Your "truth" is just your opinion.  Until you can provide clear Catholic teaching that a true pope can head Christ's church and a false church at the same time, that is all it will ever be.

I happen to believe that Matthew 16:18 provides proof of my opinion, but you don't see me telling you that you must exchange your opinion for my truth do you?

Apparently, even though it has been a long time, I was crazy to get into another debate with you.
Good day.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 01, 2017, 04:02:39 PM
You sure did give your opinion...on whether a true pope can be the head of a false and true church at the same time. You NEVER provided Church teaching to support the theory that this is a truth taught by the Church.  SHOW ME where Christ states that a true pope can be the head of a false and His Church at the same time.  If you can say that His words don't support my opinion, then His words don't support yours either.
No, you gave your opinion, I posted the literal teaching of the Church as regards the words of Our Lord -not my opinion. The words of Our Lord are the law, He included zero qualifications in His words. Being the words were spoken by God Himself, it is Divine Law that the pope is the pope, that his office is not dependent upon his sanctity or his evils, nor upon popular or unpopular opinion.

Read it for yourself in the Decrees of the First Vatican Council (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm): "Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."

I'm sure I could find many more of these same teachings from past popes and councils demonstrating they are not my opinion, but I like this one because first, it is a direct quote of V1, second, it exactly agrees with me while it exactly disagrees with sedevacantism - and *that* is not my opinion.

Poster "Freedom" calls infallible teachings pertaining to the validity of the pope like this one as coming from the pit of hell - that's how badly his opinion has blinded him. Do not be like him.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on November 01, 2017, 04:28:46 PM
No, you gave your opinion, I posted the literal teaching of the Church as regards the words of Our Lord -not my opinion. The words of Our Lord are the law, He included zero qualifications in His words. Being the words were spoken by God Himself, it is Divine Law that the pope is the pope, that his office is not dependent upon his sanctity or his evils, nor upon popular or unpopular opinion.

Read it for yourself in the Decrees of the First Vatican Council (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm): "Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."

I'm sure I could find many more of these same teachings from past popes and councils demonstrating they are not my opinion, but I like this one because first, it is a direct quote of V1, second, it exactly agrees with me while it exactly disagrees with sedevacantism - and *that* is not my opinion.

Poster "Freedom" calls infallible teachings pertaining to the validity of the pope like this one as coming from the pit of hell - that's how badly his opinion has blinded him. Do not be like him.
When I continue to get responses like these from you, this is when I question whether you are of good will...and whether I can ever discuss anything with you:  

I keep telling you that we were discussing whether there is Church teaching to support the opinion (your opinion) that a pope can be the Head of a false church and the true church at the same time.  

You and I were NOT discussing Vatican I here.  You and I were NOT discussing the SV position vs the sedeplenist position here.  You and I WERE discussing whether a pope can be the Head of a false church and the True Church at the same time.  

It is a very specific focus.  For most of our discussion you seemed to stay on topic, but your last few posts seem to want to change the focus of this conversation.  So that you and the readers are clear on what the original focus was:

Let 's be clear here Stubborn.  You and I were discussing Church teaching that backed the idea that a true pope could be the head of two churches..one true and one false.  You never provided proof that your theory is true. Therefore you have NO business telling me that I should exchange my opinion for "the (your) truth". Your "truth" is just your opinion.  Until you can provide clear Catholic teaching that a true pope can head Christ's church and a false church at the same time, that is all it will ever be.

I'm not interested in going any further with you on this topic because I think you and I have said our piece, but I wanted to try to clear up any confusion our most recent interactions may have caused here. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Fanny on November 01, 2017, 05:58:13 PM
Sometimes a fight is necessary, but regardless of "faction" there is a very pronounced spirit of strife roaming about; CI is no exception.

It's about impossible to even joke, tease, or otherwise make light to defuse it; seems all that you can do is step away, pray, and be silent.

Not to breed suspicion and a conspiratorial mind, but Satanists do have their own version of "merit", and one of the ways they "earn" it is to sow discord, break up Churches, start crap on websites...
Amazingly, I actually agree with you.
I suggest you set a good example and step away, pray and be silent a little more often.
Satanists are not the only ones to sow discord and break up churches.  I've been to many chapels (fssp, sspx, independent, sede, resistance, etc) who have sown discord and broke things up. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: StCeciliasGirl on November 01, 2017, 06:03:05 PM
You and I were NOT discussing Vatican I here.  You and I were NOT discussing the SV position vs the sedeplenist position here.  You and I WERE discussing whether a pope can be the Head of a false church and the True Church at the same time.  

It is a very specific focus.  For most of our discussion you seemed to stay on topic, but your last few posts seem to want to change the focus of this conversation.  So that you and the readers are clear on what the original focus was:

Let 's be clear here Stubborn.  You and I were discussing Church teaching that backed the idea that a true pope could be the head of two churches..one true and one false.  You never provided proof that your theory is true. Therefore you have NO business telling me that I should exchange my opinion for "the (your) truth". Your "truth" is just your opinion.  Until you can provide clear Catholic teaching that a true pope can head Christ's church and a false church at the same time, that is all it will ever be.

I'm not interested in going any further with you on this topic because I think you and I have said our piece, but I wanted to try to clear up any confusion our most recent interactions may have caused here.
Oh woah: sorry I burst in. I was back on first pages. Please forgive; I should have read whole thread first but was disturbed by a recent happening in news. My bad!

For what it's worth, my opinion and I hope we ALL agree on this, there is no way a Pope can be Vicar of True Church and "head" of false church at the same time. Surely we all agree on that. That is also in Holy Writ. By +Jesus Himself. That "house divided against itself" bit.

God bless!
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 01, 2017, 06:36:37 PM
Amazingly, I actually agree with you.
No ma'am, you do not.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 03:35:40 AM
When I continue to get responses like these from you, this is when I question whether you are of good will...and whether I can ever discuss anything with you:  

I keep telling you that we were discussing whether there is Church teaching to support the opinion (your opinion) that a pope can be the Head of a false church and the true church at the same time.  

You and I were NOT discussing Vatican I here.  You and I were NOT discussing the SV position vs the sedeplenist position here.  You and I WERE discussing whether a pope can be the Head of a false church and the True Church at the same time.  

It is a very specific focus.  For most of our discussion you seemed to stay on topic, but your last few posts seem to want to change the focus of this conversation.  So that you and the readers are clear on what the original focus was:

Let 's be clear here Stubborn.  You and I were discussing Church teaching that backed the idea that a true pope could be the head of two churches..one true and one false.  You never provided proof that your theory is true. Therefore you have NO business telling me that I should exchange my opinion for "the (your) truth". Your "truth" is just your opinion.  Until you can provide clear Catholic teaching that a true pope can head Christ's church and a false church at the same time, that is all it will ever be.

I'm not interested in going any further with you on this topic because I think you and I have said our piece, but I wanted to try to clear up any confusion our most recent interactions may have caused here.
Fine then, be done and don't reply, I completely understand your frustration - though your frustration is certainly with me, it is actually with quoted Church teaching. I pray some day soon you will realize that, honest, I really do pray that.

The Church teaching that addresses your question regarding today's reality about the pope being head of two churches, is the same Scripture you opine does not teach what it teaches, namely, that it is by Divine Law that a pope remains pope, period, and because no qualifications are in the law, this does not change no mater what else he may be - even if while pope, he heads another, false church, or two or more for that matter.

As the direct infallible quote from V1 clearly states, the Church anathematizes whoever says the pope is not the pope - so no matter whatever else you think, for your own good and the good of those in your care, don't keep saying it. End of story.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 03:48:49 AM
Oh woah: sorry I burst in. I was back on first pages. Please forgive; I should have read whole thread first but was disturbed by a recent happening in news. My bad!

For what it's worth, my opinion and I hope we ALL agree on this, there is no way a Pope can be Vicar of True Church and "head" of false church at the same time. Surely we all agree on that. That is also in Holy Writ. By +Jesus Himself. That "house divided against itself" bit.

God bless!
Feel free to burst in any time.

 The point we can all agree on, the point we are actually bound under pain of mortal sin to agree on, is that whoever says the pope is not the pope anathematizes themselves. The reason we must all agree on that is because it is a dogma of the Catholic Church, decreed during the First Vatican Council and by, yep, you guessed it - by a "true" pope, Pius IX.

This is a dogmatic fact, is not anyone's opinion. We should be thankful that V1 taught us what we must believe in the matter thereby wholly removing our opinion from the formula.

"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." - Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 03:49:02 AM
... your frustration is certainly with me, it is actually with quoted Church teaching.
i.e., "Stubborn" = "Church teaching"? 

Freudian slip, and matching teddy?

What other LOGICAL alternatives can there possibly be?

No Stubborn, I'm still not knowingly talking to liars, sophists, or question begging  heretics such as yourself.

But please, don't disappoint us by omitting the infil of your standard,  bullshit, Jewfinger response now.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 03:50:39 AM
Resistance is not appropriate in the current situation. A true Pope can never bind the whole Church to error. This goes against the promises of Christ.
I thought perhaps you needed a little example, so here is an example of a pope binding the whole Church - from V1:

"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 03:57:01 AM
i.e., "Stubborn" = "Church teaching"?

Freudian slip, and matching teddy?

What other LOGICAL alternatives can there possibly be?

No Stubborn, I'm still not knowingly talking to liars, sophists, or question begging  heretics such as yourself.

But please, don't disappoint us by omitting the infil of your standard,  bullshit, Jewfinger response now.
Don't be shy, tell us what you really think!

All you have is stupidity galore, all you ever offer is ridiculous ad homenems against my person, and that in order to side track the fact that you have no faith. Learn the Catholic faith or keep side tracking that you have none. There see, now you have a choice. :)

How long were you in the Novus Ordo?


Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 04:07:30 AM
Don't be shy, tell us what you really think!

>>> As opposed to LYING HERETICS like Stubborn, who don't have the stones to just say that they think Christ lies.

All you have is stupidity galore, all you ever offer is ridiculous ad homenems against my person,

>> Says the LYING HERETIC who is his own "Ad hominem" (like this is a LOGICAL argument in the first place) against his own "person".

>> His father? Still THE DEVIL.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 04:31:29 AM
Something I find interesting that a lot of folks may not realize, is that there are an awful lot of today's dogmatic sedes who were either Novus Ordo for some length of time, or came from the Novus Ordo right into sedeism, where dogma is heresy and heresy is dogma.

A while back, I even checked on some of "The Nine", those whose info in that regards is advertised on the web. The chief instigators of sedeism -  Fr. Cekada, Bishops Dolan, Kelly and Sanborn, were all NO and all had NO training prior to their entrance into Econe, coincidence? I think not.

So how long were you in the NO?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 04:40:17 AM
Fr. Cekada, Bishops Dolan, Kelly and Sanborn, were all NO and all had NO training prior to their entrance into Econe, which must be where the sedes got placing so high a value on their own opinions.
Turds of a Stubborn feather...
HERETICS ALL, so "Who cares, and why?"
They will be proximate to the "stubborns" of the world in Hell.

Irrelevant to THE FAITH.
Come with LOGICAL correction, or "Don't come at all."

Enough was miles back. I don't care if you're butt hurt. I don't care if you're offended. I don't care if you're the site owner. I only care if you are Catholic, and can PROVE how I"m not being the same, and do so AS A CATHOLIC.
s
Otherwise, get bent. You're worthy of the same consideration as a Satanist and are likely, at LEAST substantially, THE SAME THING.

Patience is a virtue, and TEMPERANCE is another.

Enough is enough.
Delete my account, answer THAT ASKED,  or just just SHUT UP.

Jesus Christ is NOT A way, A truth, or A life.

S. Catherine of Siena, this world is beyond rotten from silence and castrati, please pray for us.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on November 02, 2017, 04:44:42 AM



Enough is enough.
Delete my account, answer THAT ASKED,  or just just SHUT UP.
Matthew, please make his wish come true!


Please don’t construe this as a defense, in any way, of Stubborn’s post.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 04:46:54 AM
Did you forget to take your meds?

I know sedes are generally afraid to answer questions, but dang, when such a simple question like that enrages  :cussing: you so terribly, that's not good, no, not good at all.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 04:48:44 AM
Agreed, or get off the pot. Fences demarc sides, they aren't sides.

Take a stand Matt. Am I a brother, or am I an enemy?

Tread cautiously, for you you will answer.

Who will you serve? HOw much does the digital Mammon pay?

Is it worth your soul, that of your wife, or of your children?

If I'm an enemy, then squeeze, don't pull.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on November 02, 2017, 04:53:07 AM
Fine then, be done and don't reply, I completely understand your frustration - though your frustration is certainly with me, it is actually with quoted Church teaching. I pray some day soon you will realize that, honest, I really do pray that.

The Church teaching that addresses your question regarding today's reality about the pope being head of two churches, is the same Scripture you opine does not teach what it teaches, namely, that it is by Divine Law that a pope remains pope, period, and because no qualifications are in the law, this does not change no mater what else he may be - even if while pope, he heads another, false church, or two or more for that matter.

As the direct infallible quote from V1 clearly states, the Church anathematizes whoever says the pope is not the pope - so no matter whatever else you think, for your own good and the good of those in your care, don't keep saying it. End of story.
You, sir, have not proven that Matthew 16:18 teaches any such thing.  And yes, I won't respond to anything you write until you have Catholic teaching that teaches that the Vicar of Christ can be the Head of Christ's Church and various false churches at the same time. 
   
St Cecelia's Girl...

As you can see, we don't all agree that the Vicar of Christ can not be the Head of a False Church in addition to Christ's Church.  In fact, it now appears that, according to some, the Vicar of Christ can also be the Head of MULTIPLE false churches in addition to Christs' Church.  

By the way, there is nothing wrong with your "bursting in".  The thread itself was more general and allowed for any comments.  I was just referring to the specific sub-topic Stubborn and I were discussing as a result of Fanny's post #127 on page 9 (there she stated that "It is more plausible that the pope is the head of two churches." ).  You can start there to read the discussion he and I were having if you are interested in seeing exactly how it evolved.  Unfortunately I still haven't got a response from the person I questioned, Fanny.  

As a side note:  this formatting is truly frustrating.  Why does it increase the size of fonts when I don't ask it to do so? 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 04:55:29 AM
Enough was miles back. I don't care if you're butt hurt. I don't care if you're offended. I don't care if you're the site owner. I only care if you are Catholic, and can PROVE how I"m not being the same, and do so AS A CATHOLIC.
s
All who claim the name Catholic are bound under pain of mortal sin to this dogma since it was decreed till the end of time. It's a yes or no answer - Is pope Francis the successor of St. Peter?

"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."




Quote
Otherwise, get bent. You're worthy of the same consideration as a Satanist and are likely, at LEAST substantially, THE SAME THING.

Now you get bent.
.
.
.
Go ahead, go bend yourself.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 05:01:08 AM
As a side note:  this formatting is truly frustrating.  Why does it increase the size of fonts when I don't ask it to do so?
AMEN and add, regardless of what "side" you find yourself on, for you thus far haven't shown yourself a LIAR which is the Devil's, because there is a word for "Heaven", and a word for "Earth" for a very good reason.

That's why.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 05:02:37 AM
You, sir, have not proven that Matthew 16:18 teaches any such thing.  And yes, I won't respond to anything you write until you have Catholic teaching that teaches that the Vicar of Christ can be the Head of Christ's Church and various false churches at the same time.  
Ah, so you're not done. I don't fully understand why you need it to be proved that Our Lord meant what He said, or that Pope Pius IX at V1 meant what he said.

We know that the sedes all believe we must blindly submit to the pope in his teachings. Yet here we have Pope Pius IX teaching we're anathema if we say the pope isn't the pope, but the sedes are not only not submitting to it, they revolt against it.  :confused:  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on November 02, 2017, 05:11:16 AM
Ah, so you're not done. I don't fully understand why you need it to be proved that Our Lord meant what He said, or that Pope Pius IX at V1 meant what he said.

We know that the sedes all believe we must blindly submit to the pope in his teachings. Yet here we have Pope Pius IX teaching we're anathema if we say the pope isn't the pope, but the sedes are not only not submitting to it, they revolt against it.  :confused:  
Yep, you still haven't proven that Our Lord stated that His Vicar can be the Head of false churches in addition to His One True Church.  

Nothing you have quoted teaches any such thing. 
 
But I suspect you know that. 

By the way, Stubborn are sedevacantists Catholic?  Yes or No.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 05:18:47 AM
Yep, you still haven't proven that Our Lord stated that His Vicar can be the Head of false churches in addition to His One True Church.  

Nothing you have quoted teaches any such thing.
 
But I suspect you know that.

By the way, Stubborn are sedevacantists Catholic?  Yes or No.
Just you don't keep saying the pope is not the pope, no matter what anyone else says, you don't say it and don't believe it.

I've met sedes who are Catholic (those who only doubt, "the doubting sede"), but dogmatic sedes? - no, in my opinion, they are not Catholic, they not only will never make it, they have no hope of making it - that's dogma. But as long as they're alive, there's always hope.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 05:22:02 AM
Just you don't keep saying the pope is not the pope, no matter what anyone else says, you don't say it and don't believe it.

>> Clear as mud. 

I've met sedes who are Catholic (those who only doubt, "the doubting sede"), but dogmatic sedes? - no, in my opinion, they are not Catholic, they not only will never make it, they have no hope of making it - that's dogma. But as long as they're alive, there's always hope.

>> So much for "Yes or no"

>> Doubting is one thing, declaring the opposite is another.

>> Snake-tongued Stubborn, true to form.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 05:31:25 AM

^^^^ You are a lost cause - too many years in the NO is my guess. Still, for your own sake, stop saying and promoting the pope is not the pope. I know you wrongly believe that such a thing as that is a terrible heresy, but it isn't, it's for your own good. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 05:37:07 AM
^^^^ You are a lost cause - too many years in the NO is my guess. Still, for your own sake, stop saying and promoting the pope is not the pope. I know you wrongly believe that such a thing as that is a terrible heresy, but it isn't, it's for your own good.
"^^^" Says the HERETIC. 

May as well take piety tips from Arius.
Liar.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 05:40:11 AM
Unless your cussing, you're pretty much and incoherent sede.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 05:43:43 AM
Perspective check: note very carefully

1. The number of posts of the OP
2. The lag
3. The results/consequences

This strongly resembles the kinds of ops that Satanists mount.

The Devil is as old as time, and his inspirations are very real.

We are in a war.

Wake up. Capture is only an option in the eternal sense.

You should mind the people that whisper to, or side-bars with, you most carefully.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 05:45:56 AM
"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 05:47:50 AM
Unless your cussing, you're pretty much and incoherent sede.
Unless you're lying, you're pretty much silent.

Coherent enough, heretic?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 05:52:10 AM
You make way, way too many false accusations to ever be taken seriously - even when you're understandable.

But I gotta give you credit when it's due - you did give good advise in your other post when you said "You should mind the people that whisper to, or side-bars with, you most carefully."

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 05:56:21 AM
You make way, way too many false accusations to ever be taken seriously - even when you're understandable.

But I gotta give you credit when it's due - you did give good advise in your other post when you said "You should mind the people that whisper to, or side-bars with, you most carefully."
Note: rarely, if ever, SIMPLY answers "Yes or no".

Check the heretic's past posts, back to front likewise carefully, and mine as well while you're at it.

"No one has a good enough memory to be a good liar."

A. Lincoln, allegedly at least.

"NON SERVIAM"

  Stubborn the First.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 05:59:21 AM
It wasn't a yes or no answer, too many different choices of sedes out there for it to be a yes or no answer. At least I answered with what my opinion is in the matter.

How long were you a NOer or are you one still? I have met a few sedes who were also NO, a few EENSers who were NO too.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on November 02, 2017, 06:01:59 AM
^^^^ You are a lost cause - too many years in the NO is my guess. Still, for your own sake, stop saying and promoting the pope is not the pope. I know you wrongly believe that such a thing as that is a terrible heresy, but it isn't, it's for your own good.
Stubborn, you are too much! 
Bergoglio is the embodiment of the Novus Ordo, but it is wrong to be “in the NO”, but he’s still the pope, but you don’t have to submit to him, but you do have to be subject to him (Stubborn ‘s personal definition of subject), but, you can think he’s a heretic just as long as you don’t *completely* doubt he is pope!

 Do you see how convoluted and circular your thinking is?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 06:05:06 AM
Stubborn, you are too much!
Bergoglio is the embodiment of the Novus Ordo, but it is wrong to be “in the NO”, but he’s still the pope, but you don’t have to submit to him, but you do have to be subject to him (Stubborn ‘s personal definition of subject), but, you can think he’s a heretic just as long as you don’t *completely* doubt he is pope!

 Do you see how convoluted and circular your thinking is?
It all starts at the dogma. Go from there and your confused conclusion above should clear right up. All we need to do is remain the popes' good subject (but God's first), or no human creature will never make it to heaven.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 06:07:51 AM
It all starts at the dogma. Go from there and your confused conclusion above should clear right up. All we need to do is remain the popes' good subject (but God's first), or no human creature will never make it to heaven.
Which presupposes the very point which is under contention, which is the DEFINITION OF QUESTION BEGGING, which the LIAR, and HERETIC Stubborn, will merely obfuscate by more of same.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 06:10:52 AM
Cowards are first on Hell's waiting list.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on November 02, 2017, 06:11:55 AM
It all starts at the dogma. Go from there and your confused conclusion above should clear right up. All we need to do is remain the popes' good subject (but God's first), or no human creature will never make it to heaven.
I guess, according to your “logic” a great many people went to hell during the Great Western Schism for being subject to a false pope, right?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 06:13:24 AM
Which presupposes the very point which is under contention, which is the DEFINITION OF QUESTION BEGGING, which the LIAR, and HERETIC Stubborn, will merely obfuscate by more of same.
You really are such an idiot. You think your opinion that he lost his office is a dogmatic fact - you place way, way too high a value on your own opinion. Regardless, unless you are the popes' subject, you will never make it to heaven.

Now I completely understand that to you, this is heresy - but being that it is dogma, that fact in and of itself should tell you how screwed up you are, but you won't let it, it's much easier to spew ridiculous accusations all over the place.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 06:14:44 AM
You really are such an idiot. You think your opinion that he lost his office is a dogmatic fact - you place way, way too high a value on your own opinion. Regardless, unless you are the popes' subject, you will never make it to heaven.

Now I completely understand that to you, this is heresy - but being that it is dogma, that fact in and of itself should tell you how screwed up you are, but you won't let it, it's much easier to spew ridiculous accusations all over the place.
And there it is, the deterministic pathology of the pit.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 06:17:59 AM
I guess, according to your “logic” a great many people went to hell during the Great Western Schism for being subject to a false pope, right?
That not my logic at all. Do you understand that to even compare a time when there were 3 or 4 popes running around to today when there is only one, is in fact illogical? There is no logic whatsoever in comparing the two, none whatsoever.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 06:19:34 AM
And there it is, the deterministic pathology of the pit.
Ah, see, I knew you and Freedom both agree that dogma is from the pit - by the way, how long were you a NOer? - or are you still?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on November 02, 2017, 06:22:42 AM
That not my logic at all. Do you understand that to even compare a time when there were 3 or 4 popes running around to today when there is only one, is in fact illogical? There is no logic whatsoever in comparing the two, none whatsoever.
There are several antipopes today, Bergoglio being the most prominent. What about those who are subject to “pope” Michael?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 02, 2017, 06:30:09 AM
Ah, see, I knew you and Freedom both agree that dogma is from the pit - by the way, how long were you a NOer? - or are you still?
Says an agent of antithesis, which means that it is a "NOer" itself, hiding behind its own accusatory, tribal finger.

The Jew ever wanders.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 06:32:36 AM
There are several antipopes today, Bergoglio being the most prominent. What about those who are subject to “pope” Michael?
They will no doubt be lost forever if they die in that state. That is dogma.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 07:51:30 AM
That begs the question of why does that not apply to the followers of false popes during the GWS?
Because today and for the last 600 years, there is and has only ever been one pope at a time.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 08:02:01 AM
You keep saying this - "All we need to do is remain the popes' good subject (but God's first)..."

But you've admitted that you believe that the "pope" is a heretic.  

What you're actually saying is this - "All we need to do is remain the popes' heretics' good subject (but God's first)..."

Your mind is twisted, man, and everyone can see it but you.    
What I am actually saying is the EXACT same thing as the dogmas and papal teachings already decreed numerous times throughout the history of the Church. I wholly surrender my opinion to the judgement of the Church, which judgement states that nobody gets into heaven who says the pope is not the pope and who is not subject to him. As you did above, you change the dogma, not me - then you claim I'm the twisted one. :confused:

For me, I have no doubt the pope is a heretic - that and $1.00 will buy you any size coffee at McDonalds. This means that my opinion doesn't mean a hill of beans when it comes to the popes' status. God made the law, not me - but to hear you crazy sede's talk, you would think God's law is my own novel invention.



Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 10:03:23 AM
Vatican II promotes the public expression of false religions (as long as public order is preserved) which is outright heresy and an insult to God and His religion. Therefore just by this heresy alone, Vatican II is exposed as heretical, blasphemous and non-Catholic.

Your turn.
Of course V2's teachings are heretical, blasphemous and non-Catholic, but it does not bind religious liberty on the whole Church, it doesn't even bind religious liberty on anyone at all.

You may have missed this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/i-am-considering-sedevacantism/msg576577/#msg576577):

I thought perhaps you needed a little example, so here is an example of a pope binding the whole Church for all time under pain of mortal sin (anathema) - from V1:

"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 10:13:03 AM
Also, all the documents in Vatican II were officially promulgated, and an extraordinary definition is not required from a Catholic General Council in order to require adherence. Anything declared or delivered (see the Tridentine Creed) must be also considered infallible (just in case you try to use that excuse).
You are right, an extraordinary definition is not required to bind us, but the truth is - it is the truth that binds us, decreed through the Church, often via the pope or council. Religious liberty is false, it is a lie of liberals which can never bind anyone -  regardless of the method. It is the truth that binds us, not the method.

Also, Pope Pius IX at V1 decreed the necessary criteria for infallibility, if those criteria are not present, then there is no infallibility - "Anything declared or delivered [from a council?]" is not found anywhere among those criteria.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 10:15:05 AM
Right!  You subject yourself to a heretic, knowingly and willingly...it's not complicated, mate.  
See how you twist what I said then say I'm the twisted one?

No, not likely I guess.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 10:43:29 AM
How do you know that Pope Pius IX taught the truth and not Bergoglio? How do you know that Vatican I taught the truth and not Vatican II? What is the criteria you use to differentiate between infallible and non-infallable teachings? Is your judgement of greater weight than your Pope Bergoglio?
I discern truth from lies the (hopefully) same way you discern truth from lies.

There was a time before V2 that all Catholics knew truth from lies and most always stuck with the truth, then along came V2 and most Catholics allowed themselves to be convinced that the method is what *really* matters, truth be damned. This is the mindset that remains prevalent even today and especially in this thread, but the binding truth remains the binding truth, no matter the method.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 10:59:22 AM
Stubborn, the more I think about what you believe, the more I realize that you believe in a useless pope. In a Church that has no need for a pope.
No, the Church most assuredly needs good popes, what She does not need are popes like the conciliar popes. To paraphrase Fr. Wathen -  "no one on earth can prove the conciliar popes have not been anti-Catholic conspirators". I entirely agree with him.

But it is a bit funny that you make such an observation when it is you who have presumably kept the faith without a pope for the last +50 years, effectively proving that as individuals, we have no need of a pope in order to be saved.


Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 11:02:43 AM
Most nominal Catholics adhere to the heresies and errors of Vatican II because if the conciliar anti-popes are true Catholic Popes then THEY MUST ADHERE TO THEM (the heresies and errors of Vatican II) ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC TEACHING. It has nothing to do with "the method".
Your thinking is the product of teachings that originated (in my opinion) with certain "well respected" 19th and 20th century theologians, but your post above in no way reflects the teaching of the Church.

The Church demands True Obedience, not Blind Obedience, which is what you are preaching.

Read your last post:

10. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother
 and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome,
 successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.



And from V1:

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals,but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on November 02, 2017, 11:06:51 AM
No, the Church most assuredly needs good popes, what She does not need are popes like the conciliar popes. To paraphrase Fr. Wathen -  "no one on earth can prove the conciliar popes have not been anti-Catholic conspirators". I entirely agree with him.

But it is a bit funny that you make such an observation when it is you who have presumably kept the faith without a pope for the last +50 years, effectively proving that as individuals, we have no need of a pope in order to be saved.
Do you know what circular reasoning is? I don't think you do, when you have a chance, look it up.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on November 02, 2017, 11:08:26 AM
Your thinking is the product of teachings that originated (in my opinion) with certain "well respected" 19th and 20th century theologians, but your post above in no way reflects the teaching of the Church.

The Church demands True Obedience, not Blind Obedience, which is what you are preaching.

Read your last post:

10. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother
 and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome,
 successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

And you are not at all obedient.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 11:10:00 AM
Do you know what circular reasoning is? I don't think you do, when you have a chance, look it up.
Reality is circular reasoning for you - sorry but it is.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 11:10:33 AM
And you are not at all obedient.
I am not blindly obedient - discern the difference.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 01:04:39 PM
No one said anything about blind obedience. Adhering to what is declared in a Catholic General Council IS true obedience. Vatican II is not Catholic. Your cardboard pope says it is, and that those in communion with him must believe the same. Do you see the problem here? You are severely limiting the scope of the infallibility of the Church. Infallibility is not limited to extraordinary definitions by the Pope! Vatican I was defining what constituted a Papal ex Cathedra definition. You erroneously believe that is the extent of the Church's infallibility. :facepalm:
Your idea of infallibility is altogether wrong as is your understanding of V1. You must have learned what you know from reading the wrong books/web sites. Typical, sad, but typical, particularly for sedevacantists.

OTOH, if what you say were in fact true, it isn't, but if it were true, then it only serves to prove you have absolutely no faith whatsoever in your own belief, because if in fact you had faith in it, you could not be sedevacantist, rather, you should champion Religious Liberty and all the other teachings which came from the Council because you're saying that for you, it is the method that binds us, not the truth that binds us.

Since I fail to see how you can possibly disagree here, can we at least agree on this much?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Recusant Sede on November 02, 2017, 01:42:03 PM
Your idea of infallibility is altogether wrong as is your understanding of V1. You must have learned what you know from reading the wrong books/web sites. Typical, sad, but typical, particularly for sedevacantists.

OTOH, if what you say were in fact true, it isn't, but if it were true, then it only serves to prove you have absolutely no faith whatsoever in your own belief, because if in fact you had faith in it, you could not be sedevacantist, rather, you should champion Religious Liberty and all the other teachings which came from the Council because you're saying that for you, it is the method that binds us, not the truth that binds us.

Since I fail to see how you can possibly disagree here, can we at least agree on this much?
Again: look up the term: "CIRCULAR REASONING".....PLEASE! You are a classic case.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 02:57:32 PM
Again: look up the term: "CIRCULAR REASONING".....PLEASE! You are a classic case.
You make no sense - here, *this* is circular reasoning:

Whatever comes out of Councils is infallible. The Second Vatican Council was not infallible. So much for faith in your misguided idea of infallibility.

Whatever the all the bishops teach in union with the pope is infallible, even when all the bishops are dispersed throughout the world - except not the bishops who were all assembled together in union with the pope at the second Vatican Council. So much for faith in your misguided idea of infallibility.

I could go on and on, the bottom line is you have no faith whatsoever in your own misguided idea of infallibility, none whatsoever. All YOU have is circular reasoning that in the end, leaves you without a pope, without a hierarchy, without a Church but with a very strange religion - and for what? For no reason at all, that's the sad part.
 
Outside of having no doubt whatsoever that the pope is not the pope, do you even know what you believe? You have no faith whatsoever in the absoluteness of dogma, the words of Our Lord or the infallible decrees of past popes. So far, the only truth that comes through is the truth that whoever disagrees with your confusion, has circular reasoning.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2017, 03:10:23 PM
What?!? That would make them valid Popes if they were merely anti-Catholic conspirators? Earth to Stubborn. Anti-Catholic conspirators are not Catholic, hence they cannot be Popes of the Catholic Church!
Because I say and you say they are heretics, anti-Catholic conspirators and etc., means exactly that - what it does not mean is that they are not popes no matter how strongly you feel about it. Your opinion in the matter of the popes' status is absolutely, completely and totally worthless. You have the free will to anathematize yourself by saying the pope is not the pope all you want, but I will never say such a thing because for me it is forbidden by defined dogma. Apparently you don't care about dogma or think you have figured out how to circumvent it, but unlike you, the rest of us are not going to gamble our eternity away - for no reason at all.
 

Quote
A living Pope is not required to attain salvation. Otherwise anyone baptized during an interregnum could not attain salvation if they died before the election of the next Pope. This also debunks your misunderstanding of the dogma regarding the absolute necessity of submission to a Roman Pontiff for salvation.
Good heavens man, the lengths some sedes will stoop to keep themselves fooled - really, it is an unbelievable thing to see. I don't think I would believe it if I didn't see it with my own eyes every day here.

Do you honestly think that I believe the dogma applies between the death and election of popes? Honestly? You simply cannot be that ignorant, least ways not by mistake.

The dogma stating whoever says the pope is not the pope is anathema - how are you able to circumvent that dogma with a clear conscience anyway?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2017, 06:23:34 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on Yesterday at 04:10:23 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/i-am-considering-sedevacantism/msg576743/#msg576743)

Quote
Because I say and you say they are heretics, anti-Catholic conspirators and etc., means exactly that - what it does not mean is that they are not popes no matter how strongly you feel about it. Your opinion in the matter of the popes' status is absolutely, completely and totally worthless.

Wrong again. What matters is the external forum. If there is heresy in the external forum, a Catholic always presumes dolus (malice) until the contrary is PROVEN. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. It can also be found in the 1917 code of canon law. Innocent until proven guilty may apply in American courts, but it's the opposite in the Catholic Church.
As I have said repeatedly, we can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable. That’s just a matter of observing what has been said - and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy.

What sedes reject is the fact that while we may say he is a heretic, we cannot say on that account that he his not the pope because 1) none of us possess that authority and 2) the dogmas and teachings of the Church forbids it.



Quote
Saying a non-Catholic is not a Pope is not forbidden anymore than saying woman or a 2 year old is not a Pope. All three are forbidden by Divine Law. I believe the conciliar popes are imposters because they attempt to bind the whole Church to error and heresy. This is something a true Pope can never do. This is just basic knowledge of the Catholic faith. You don't need to read hearts and minds.
You do not know what Divine Law even is grasshopper. Please look it up before you claim something is Divine Law that isn't, your claim is really quite silly to everyone who actually knows what Divine Law is so please look it up. You need to know what you are talking about whenever you reference Divine Law lest you be guilty of invoking the Divine Law in behalf of your errors.

You will find that Divine Law are all laws decreed by God Himself, that is why the Laws are "Divine". The 10 Commandments are Divine Law and it is Divine Law that St. Peter and his successors are the pope - this is just basic knowledge for Catholics, see the decrees of the First Vatican Council I already posted for you to read - and understand:

"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."  



Quote
Quite frankly, with some of the things said and believed on this forum, anything is possible. Your reference to that dogma is irrelevant to Catholics however, since the Catholic position in this stage of the apostasy is to hold that we have no pope.

There is no dogma saying that any man standing in St. Peter's with a white robe and a beanie must be considered the Pope! That is essentially what you are saying. Cum Ex says even if all the Cardinals, nay even nearly the whole Church accepts a heretic as Pope, his election would nevertheless be NULL and VOID. Pope Paul IV doesn't say that the faithful can't judge!

It is by Divine Law that the man elected and accepted is the successor of St. Peter, Roman Pontiff. That is the teaching of the Church. Whatever other opinions you hold in reference to Cum ex, are entirely erroneous in this matter of the popes' status. Accept the fact that whatever else the pope may be, he most certainly is the pope.

With faith, we can be certain that whatever else he is, he is the pope -  because have the words of Our Lord, the teachings of the Church and defined dogma telling us so. Without faith, we have no ears to hear these things and go about decrying that the pope is not the pope, anathematizing our self in the process.    

Dogma is always relevant because it is eternal. It's purpose is as an immovable foundation for our faith and our refuge - we are no longer permitted to doubt or have any other opinion in the matter. To say dogma is irrelevant in this matter is to wholly reject it - which is anathema. To say the dogma is irrelevant as regards Christ's calming of the sea is fine, but to say it is irrelevant as regards to the pope is to wholly reject it for the sake of your own opinion, your own convenience. That's the way dogmas work, on purpose.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Gwaredd Thomas on November 03, 2017, 08:51:36 AM
I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sexual morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!
There was a time when I considered this position so I'll toss in my two quid for what they're worth. After some careful consideration, I rejected the Sedevacantist position out of hand. Some people have asked how can the SSPX priests, for example, pray for the pope, even the priests of the Resistance knowing all the while that the pope is a tad cracked and may, in fact, be an anti-Pope. The answer is quite simple: everyone needs prayers, especially the pope and the Sedevacantists omit the pope's name from the Canon of the Mass.
As a further illustration, I will provide you with a phrase from the Encyclical Quo Primum: "...We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure". [Pope Pius V - 14 July, 1570] This Encyclical has never been abrogated.

Sedevacantists, who have arrogated to themselves the position of Canon Lawyers, weasel about with this phrase leading many people up a blind alley.

Therefore, I'll stick with the words of the Encyclical rather than follow the lead of the Sedevacantists.

I hope this helps clarify the matter.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on November 03, 2017, 09:15:16 AM
Quote
We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure". [Pope Pius V - 14 July, 1570] This Encyclical has never been abrogated.
Nothing was omitted; God never expects the impossible from any of us.  To believe there is no pope at this time of our existence would be the same as what is prayed during Mass when one pope dies till another can be validly elected.  Interregnum!  

During that part, the priest prays for the intention of the Church which is the same as praying for the intention of a True pope, In otherwords, a True pope always has the intention of the Church before him. therefore there is no displeasure.  

Read this short link here recently:   https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/praying-for-the-pope's-intentions-not-really/

  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2017, 09:18:20 AM
Fr. Jenkins does real good except his questioning toward the last few minutes, those questions have been answered in this thread. At any rate, 24:20 - 24:45 is most pertinent to the recent posts in this thread:

https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459 (https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459)
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Gwaredd Thomas on November 03, 2017, 09:19:14 AM
Nothing was omitted; God never expects the impossible from any of us.  To believe there is no pope at this time of our existence would be the same as what is prayed during Mass when one pope dies till another can be validly elected.  Interregnum!  

During that part, the priest prays for the intention of the Church which is the same as praying for the intention of a True pope, In otherwords, a True pope always has the intention of the Church before him. therefore there is no displeasure.  

Read this short link here recently:   https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/praying-for-the-pope's-intentions-not-really/

  
It's not my habit to argue over semantics, so I'll just leave it at that.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: MyrnaM on November 03, 2017, 10:18:19 AM
It's not my habit to argue over semantics, so I'll just leave it at that.
Well yes, but when dealing with the Truth, words and their meanings are important.  This is the reason why Latin is the official language of the Church since it is a dead language and the words do not change meanings.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Gwaredd Thomas on November 03, 2017, 11:54:43 AM
This is the same SSPX that uses and/or defends the butchered 1962 Missal? Actually the Sedevacantists who use the pre-1955 Missal are the ones who are being more faithful to Quo Primum.
Like most of these types of "discussions", they will go on and on and go nowhere.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2017, 12:24:03 PM
But wait dogma says the above "pope" must be considered Pope. Stubborn's dogma that is.
It is really, truly amazing just how effectively dogmatic sedevacantism blinds it's adherents. Simply amazing. For their own good, the last thing sedes should ever read is Cum ex - I say this lest you be guilty of invoking Pope Paul IV in behalf of your errors. To do so is said to invoke not only the wrath of Almighty God, but also of the Blessed Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul.

Fr. Jenkins, who is a self professed sede in the video, sums up the whole communications break down issue when he said: "I don't even consider them (dogmatic sedes) to be traditional Catholics".  It is for this reason that Catholics and dogmatic sedes do not speak the same language.

Hopefully you will understand this - do not say the pope is not the pope because it is a dogma of the Church that those who say the pope is not the pope, anathematize them self.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: graceseeker on November 03, 2017, 12:57:49 PM
I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sexual morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!
my thoughts exactly
except that Jesus still abides at least in SOME Churches. You may have to look long and hard to find Him but he has not utterly abandoned us. The priests have largely abandoned him but... well, we know Jesus is not exactly revenge-minded...?
laugh
He loves us even when we desert him ... and we always do when we distract ourselves away from him ..sigh
anyway, where was I?
I forgot
Anyway, yeh, some Churches these days are not Catholic Churches and i say they are... ditch-worthy. I have ditched several.
But if you find a Church where at least the parishioners are not all heretics... well, the People are the Church in many ways...
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2017, 01:41:33 PM
.
God, taking away the Chair of Truth and His church, is all over the bible, not just 3 Kings 9:5-7!
^^^^Dogmatic sede.

I am with Fr. Jenkins on this, I also don't consider you to be Catholic at all.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2017, 03:32:20 PM
On the contrary...it is YOU who is being dogmatic. YOU keep bringing up dogma, which is in fact your false interpretation of dogma. I am the one saying that sedevacantism is the correct position to take in this stage of the apostasy. It is the Catholic position since it presumes DOLUS (not innocence) in a public heretic.

We have dogma in order to "bring it up", that's what it's there for - to bring it up in an effort to correct those who say the pope is not the pope, to let them know they will end up in hell if they keep saying it.

Pope Paul IV condemns YOUR ERRORS. You are the one who accepts the heretic, clown nose, blasphemous beanie brain Bergoglio as a true Catholic Pope, not Pope Paul IV nor myself.
You continue to bring up the same garbage Stubborn. Fr. Jenkins is a Sedevacantist. He would refute your illogical position. You are the one who keeps bringing up dogma. Just address the arguments or not.  

Pope Paul IV condemns the heretics in office, he's not condemning me grasshopper, have you ever actually read Cum ex? It doesn't look like you have as well you shouldn't. You should also watch the video - Fr. Jenkins is the one who said dogmatic sedes like yourself are not Catholic - and I agree with him so again, you demonstrate you don't know what you're even saying - but won't let that stop you.

Stubborn your hypocrisy is astounding. You just spent nearly your whole post condemning dogmatic sedevacantists, yet as I have stated numerous times, YOU are the one being dogmatic. Thanks for proving me right.

You call my quoting of the dogma that condemns you my hypocrisy, my dogma and my heresy. Whatever. 
Just do yourself a favor and stop saying the pope is not the pope, it's for your own good. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2017, 03:35:47 PM
.
Stubborn, remember that the Pharisees called Jesus a devil, so I don't consider one word that you gutturally, utter!  We already know, you are with heretics!  Its amazing though, that you reject the scriptures plain words of punishments from God.
.
If you have children, I pity your children, for their sake.
.
God said "Thou art peter and upon this rock I will build my Church..."

You say, "No God, you don't know what you're doing, I do, but you don't, but don't worry, I'll handle the situation, all I need to do is reject your law and all the teachings of the Church to do it."

And you pity me? HA! What an idiot!
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2017, 04:52:16 AM
I guess I can't really pity you because first, you're the best anti-Dimond Bro advertisement we have, next, you repeatedly anathematize your self for no reason at all, condemning those who refuse to do the same, all of your own free will you made yourself a deaf and blind fool.

How long were you a Protestant?

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 05, 2017, 10:21:04 AM
When you made these comments were you looking in your mirror?  You were!
.
"you're the best anti-Dimond Bro advertisement we have"
.
Really, explain that one!?
.
No, those comments are directed at you - you're the dogmatic sedevacantist here, you're the one who is another willing victim of the Dimond fools.

Tell me, when you read the below dogmas, what do you understand them to say? I wonder because it seems that to you, these dogmas are likened to the Tower of Babel, you seem to be prevented from understanding them at all.
 
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII

"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." - First Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 05, 2017, 12:38:25 PM
Do you know that a man can become a martyr in the Catholic Church for dying for any one of Her dogmas? Did you know that?

If you killed me (as it seems you'd like to lol), for stubbornly defending the eternal truth of those dogmas which I have been defending against your heretical Dimond errors, heretical Scripture misinterpretations and blatant rejection of those same dogmas, I would go straight to heaven a martyr for defending the Church's dogma after you killed me - do you realize that?

You OTOH, are defending absolutely nothing whatsoever - save your own opinion. If you died defending your opinion against defined dogma, what a terrible, eternal tragedy that would be for you. Do you realize that? 


Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: poche on November 05, 2017, 10:52:15 PM
"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council
Pope Pius IX word is good enough for me.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 05, 2017, 10:56:01 PM
Pope Pius IX word is good enough for me.
And? 

Rhetorical, for you'll just feign engagement to avoid same, which is yet another example of the wisdom of the children of this world. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 06, 2017, 12:26:08 AM
.
The deplorable Dimond brothers strike again!  What a mess they've built up with their deception.
.
Do you know that a man can become a martyr in the Catholic Church for dying for any one of Her dogmas? Did you know that? 

If you killed me (as it seems you'd like to lol), for stubbornly defending the eternal truth of those dogmas which I have been defending against your heretical Dimond errors, heretical Scripture misinterpretations and blatant rejection of those same dogmas, I would go straight to heaven a martyr for defending the Church's dogma after you killed me - do you realize that? 

You OTOH, are defending absolutely nothing whatsoever - save your own opinion. If you died defending your opinion against defined dogma, what a terrible, eternal tragedy that would be for you. Do you realize that? 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 06, 2017, 08:23:32 AM
I can imagine his irrelevant response now "I will remain the Pope's good subject, but God's first".
... after he gets whined at about the word "submit".
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 10:23:19 AM
I see you are attempting to be dogmatic again. Neither of these two dogmas refute sedevacantism, however.  In fact, this one specifically refutes you, since you don't submit yourself to the decrees of the Second Vatican Council as commanded by your "pope".

"[...and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.] I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils [and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized.]" (Tridentine Creed-Pope Pius IV)
I added parts you conveniently left out from the Creed. Note it says "true" obedience, not "blind" obedience. If you cannot discern what the difference, then you need to look it up and study it till you fully understand and comprehend what "true" obedience vs "blind" obedience is. Sedes are notorious for claiming the the error that the Church demands "blind" obedience to the pope when She demands "true" obedience. Were She to demand "blind" obedience, we would then be bound to blindly submit to the pope.

Note we are to PARTICULARLY profess the primacy of the pope - and you? What do you do? You profess he's not even pope, in that way you figure you've got the whole issue covered. Very sad.

The Creed specifically calls for us to profess and believe everything in it, not submit to anything. I think if you will spend time to learn the difference between profess and believe the true faith, and blind submission to the pope and his teachings, you will have lose what little reason you have for your sedevacantism.  



Quote
Notice, it's not just definitions and canons that we must submit to.

There is nothing in the Creed demanding we submit or blindly submit to the pope or his new teachings no matter how often you make that false claim. To even suggest such a thing is not even Catholic. Do you realize that?

 

Quote
Notice the bolded and underlined Stubborn. Sedes agree that the blessed Peter "SHOULD" have perpetual successors.  That doesn't mean that blessed Peter 'WILL" have perpetual successors. Sedes also agree that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter.

The lengths sedes will go to in order to save their worthless opinion is truly amazing. The mind twisting word play you sedes practice is phenomenal because yes, it most certainly does mean that per Divine Law, St. Peter should have perpetual successors because Our Lord said so, if it were as you are wont to interpret, then the sedes must agree that blessed Peter SHOULDN'T have perpetual successors because Our Lord did not say "would" have, He said "should" have perpetual successors. Your silly interpretation makes Our Lord question His own Law as it's being decreed, which wholly absurd as it is, does accurately agree with the sede thinking.


Quote
Unfortunately, for you, however, the Concilar Popes are NOT to be considered Roman Pontiffs due to their public heresy.
This is nothing more than your worthless opinion, which you elevate above defined dogma is all this is. Do you realize that?  

 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 10:25:16 AM
I can imagine his irrelevant response now "I will remain the Pope's good subject, but God's first".
Truth is always irrelevant to you when it gets between you and your sedevacantism.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 10:27:54 AM
I would like him to say something besides, "you can't say the Pope is not the Pope or you will anathematize yourself", followed by "stop being dogmatic", which is a "no argument" followed by hypocrisy.
I know, I know, you would like the dogma to be irrelevant, while your opinion is the only thing that is relevant. Thankfully it doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 11:04:40 AM
I believe this is where your confused. No one denies the dogma! The position is we are in an interregnum period. It is that simple.
It's only your opinion, that's all it is. You deny the dogma because you favor your opinion that we are in an interregnum.

That's how that works.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 11:28:26 AM
Heretics are not Catholics that is a dogma not an opinion.

It is not my opinion that Francis is a heretic. Francis chooses to be one!

You keep yourself aligned with Novus Ordo because of the influence of a priest that erred.
I was born and raised a trad and can count on a few fingers the number of times I went to a NO, and only made it to the end once in my life (NO funeral about 20 years ago) - I am not the one tainted with the effects of time spent exposed to the NO, but it is quite obvious the sedes here exhibit common NO traits in their sedeism.

You cannot say the pope is not the pope, that is dogma, that is Catholic, to deny the dogma in favor of your own opinion is one of the traits of NOism.

Whatever else he is, he is the pope - that is dogma. If you have any faith whatsoever in the dogma, you will be unable to be sedevacantist.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 11:39:11 AM
(http://img44.laughinggif.com/pic/HTTP2ltYWdlcy52aXJhbG5vdmEuY29tLzAwMC8xMjEvMjA3L2RvZy1jaGFzaW5nLW93bi10YWlsLmdpZgloglog.gif)
^^^^Sedes proclaiming Councils are always automatically infallible, then say the Council (V2) was not infallible because the pope was not the pope.

And the sedes proclaiming whatever all the bishops in union with the pope teach, whether all together as during a Council, or dispersed  throughout the word is always infallible - then say everything all the bishops in union with the pope taught at V2, and teach dispersed throughout the world today is heresy. What has become of their fidelity to their own belief? - they have zero faith in their own false belief.

Rather than accepting the fact that their idea of the doctrine of infallibility is completely wrong, they claim the pope is not the pope, the bishops are not bishops and they still look for the Church.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 11:43:59 AM
This is his biggest straw man argument. "You cannot say the pope is not the pope". The sede position does not claim the Pope is not the Pope.

So in a way, he's correct, it would not be Catholic to do this. The problem is that the sedevacante position does not say this. In this way any person not knowledgeable in the positions with a little Catholic knowledge, reading his posts, would say that this would be an incorrect position.

Stubborn has no business arguing against Sedevacantism because he either doesn't actually know the position or intentionally lies in order to deceive those looking for Truth.
Your OPINION is that the one who occupies the Chair, known throughout the entire world for the last 2000 years as "the pope", is not the pope. Your opinion is irrelevant, the dogma is relevant. Your opinion in the matter is at least as worthless as my opinion in the matter, one of the differences between us is I accept that as fact, you reject that as fact.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 06, 2017, 12:09:04 PM
I was born and raised a trad and can count on a few fingers the number of times I went to a NO, and only made it to the end once in my life (NO funeral about 20 years ago) - I am not the one tainted with the effects of time spent exposed to the NO, but it is quite obvious the sedes here exhibit common NO traits in their sedeism.

You cannot say the pope is not the pope, that is dogma, that is Catholic, to deny the dogma in favor of your own opinion is one of the traits of NOism.

Whatever else he is, he is the pope - that is dogma. If you have any faith whatsoever in the dogma, you will be unable to be sedevacantist.
.
The number one priority for sedes is their sedevacantism.
.
Everything they say, do and believe must conform to their Greatest Commandment -- the Pope is not the Pope.
.
Are they willing to die defending their great principle? Who will be the first Sedevacantist Martyr?
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 06, 2017, 12:27:15 PM
.
After 22 pages what has been accomplished so far?
.

I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sexual morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!
.
Curiously, Lepanto -- er, lepantoh, has made just this one post, starting this thread, and has not returned for 3 weeks. 
.
It appears the overt rancor and manifest discontent demonstrated by the sede members here convinced lepantoh he should avoid that crowd. If misery loves company, those who prefer peace and prayer find other digs. 
.
He is not looking for anger, misery, contentiousness, argument, insults, derision and ad hominems.
.
He's looking for environs resembling what his Catholic ancestors experienced and now he sees that's not to be found in sedevacantism.
.
You can hardly blame lepantoh for not coming back to this thread.
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 12:31:38 PM
1. Wrong. Who did you recognize as "pope" between J XXIII & Paul VI, or Paul VI & JPI, or JP I & JP II, or JP II & B XVI, etc...?
 
Straw man argumentation - there are no popes after one dies and the next is elected. The conciliar popes were all elected popes by the college of Cardinals same as they've been doing for the last 800 years or so.

2. You reject the fact that a heretic cannot be elected Pope.
The only fact I reject, is the fact that my opinion determines who is / is not the pope.

There you go. I responded to your comments. Now respond to some questions I have for you.

1.You admit that these last six guys who claimed to be Pope were heretics correct?
I certainly admit that in my opinion the last six popes were heretics - that and $1.00 will buy you any size coffee at McDonalds while supplies last.

2. Were they heretics before their election or did they just become heretics after claiming to be "pope"?
Couldn't say for sure, far as I'm concerned they've always been heretics - and popes after their elections.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 12:39:49 PM
.
The number one priority for sedes is their sedevacantism.
.
Everything they say, do and believe must conform to their Greatest Commandment -- the Pope is not the Pope.
.
Are they willing to die defending their great principle? Who will be the first Sedevacantist Martyr?
.
I know you are right Neil, I only keep posting the truth for lurking fence sitters who are confused yet seek the truth. You'd think after repeatedly seeing the sedes literally and vehemently reject dogma as heresy that would alleviate some of the confusion for the fence sitters, but oh well, it goes on.

Fr. Wathen nailed it when he sedevacantism should be recognized more as a syndrome than a theological thesis. He said the sedes are people who cannot think straight because they are anemic spirits. This gets proven here nearly every time one of the sede's post. It truly is their greatest commandment.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 01:01:13 PM
Catholics don't believe and not DO. Our works demonstrate our belief.
You believe it to be a type of dogma that no matter what comes out of a Council that we are bound to blindly submit to, and no matter what the pope says, is infallible, this is of course false - yet you claim this to be your belief - but yourself do not DO, this demonstrates you do not believe your own wrong idea of what we are bound to believe and do and profess.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 01:06:42 PM
What does this mean to you. Notice I did not post #1 of this bull, only #6. Don't appeal to #1 as it is irrelevant. I want you to address #6.
Pay special attention to the last part where it say "without need for any further declaration". I would like to know what you think this part of the Bull (#6) means. I don't care at all right now, about anything else you may have to add, but what you think this means and whether you need to accept it.
# 1 is relevant only in the fact that it is in #1 that the pope directly addresses us the lay people, and instructs us what we are to do about an heretical pope, other than that, it is irrelevant to your agenda.

Beyond that, #6 is addressed strictly to: "Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors." IOW, it was and is irrelevant to those who at that time were none of the above.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 03:11:39 PM
Just as I suspected. I knew you would dodge this question and offer up some excuse so that you didn't have to face the truth. Your years in the SSPX have brainwashed you to not seek the Truth. You are comfortable in your ways, as long as the externals are there, the faith doesn't matter to you.

On top of all that, you flat out lie in your response above. The Pope does not differentiate between who he is talking too in either part. You again offer an assertion without proof. In fact, the people you say he is addressing it to are the people he is talking about in #3, not in #6. Not only is this not to whom it is addressed, it's not even the correct part. I am talking about #6. This all proves my point that you don't even care enough to learn the facts. You only spew what you have learned from your false teachers.
You choose to read Cum ex to teach that which it neither teaches nor supports - sedevacantism. And #1 and #6 were addressed to those I already said.

I seek correction here if that be the case, otherwise, the point you wish to make is the same point all sedes attempt to use Cum ex for, namely, that pope Paul IV decreed that heretics' elections/ordinations/consecrations and etc. to be ipso facto null, void  and the loss of office is so without need for any further declaration from the Church, the office is void/lost/null - period, and this decree is to be always and forever valid and in effect. Did I get that about right? I think so.

What Cum ex does not do, is grant anyone permission to conclude, decide or opine the crime of heresy against the pope, then based on nothing more than this, say that he lost or never held his office, just as if, literally everyone has some hitherto unknown God given authority to decide such a thing, or worse yet, that no Church authority whatsoever is even necessary to decide such a thing. To even think such a thing is wholly anarchistic. To even think the Church would teach such a thing is not even Catholic thinking.

Your opinion that he is a heretic is exactly that and nothing, absolutely nothing more. The dogma of the Church does not permit anyone to say he is not the pope, because though you believe it a dogma, in reality it is only your opinion. You had best accept this simple fact whilst you live.   

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 03:14:35 PM
This is absolutely correct, as I've pointed out before on this particular thread.  His argument regarding this dogma is completely irrelevant.  He uses it to his own demise, however, as we've already pointed out that he subjects himself, knowingly and willingly, to a heretic.
 
Ah yes, the fifth column...  

Truly astonishing that he believes a heretic is the principle and center of the unity of the Church.  
You are as bad a willed sede as I've seen here. I explained it to you in words little Catholic children understand, do you know where your church is yet? Have you found it yet?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 03:19:25 PM
Absolutely, and the architect of this worldly idea had the temerity to define who and who isn't a sensible Catholic.
How long were you a NOer? How is it that you don't submit to the Council - they're all automatically infallible don'tcha know? Between all councils being automatically infallible and all bishops even dispersed throughout the world being infallible, why do you not submit today like when you were in the NO? 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 06, 2017, 03:20:45 PM
.
Sedevacantists consistently make a very dismal image for themselves. 
.
I have a routine stop I make on a main street in town. During the week the place is vacant but on Sunday afternoon there is a Protestant religious service held in the storefront space, visible from the street. They leave the doors open. A pedestrian on the sidewalk outside is overwhelmed with the amplified shouting of a man standing in the front of the room, who shouts his Bible verses and rhetoric in Spanish. It sounds like he's really mad about something. After a while, everyone stands up, and they strike up the band. The music and singing is terrible, monotonous and unedifying. Then everyone sits down. Their standing up and sitting down reminds me of sedevacantists at Mass. 
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 06, 2017, 03:22:22 PM
Little children understand Santa coming down chimneys, and tooth fairies, and "a bug crawls off the daddy, and into the mommy's belly-button, and then the baby bug makes the baby out of food...", and...
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 06, 2017, 03:28:02 PM
.
Sedevacantists consistently make a very dismal image for themselves.
.
I have a routine stop I make on a main street in town. During the week the place is vacant but on Sunday afternoon there is a Protestant religious service held in the storefront space, visible from the street. They leave the doors open. A pedestrian on the sidewalk outside is overwhelmed with the amplified shouting of a man standing in the front of the room, who shouts his Bible verses and rhetoric in Spanish. It sounds like he's really mad about something. After a while, everyone stands up, and they strike up the band. The music and singing is terrible, monotonous and unedifying. Then everyone sits down. Their standing up and sitting down reminds me of sedevacantists at Mass.
.
You remind me of a just, reasonable person; kind of like this dude I read who treats of satellites...

I wish that you would treat of the faith, and its study, even half as carefully and ardently as you categorically abuse Sedvacantists.

You are either turning your brain, or your character, off.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 03:37:46 PM
Little children understand Santa coming down chimneys, and tooth fairies, and "a bug crawls off the daddy, and into the mommy's belly-button, and then the baby bug makes the baby out of food...", and...
And another dogmatic sede with nothing Catholic to say pops in.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 03:45:45 PM
.
Sedevacantists consistently make a very dismal image for themselves.
Unlike other trads who have managed to purge the NO from themselves, seems obvious the sedes still suffer from their years of exposure. Like NOers, they learned to say one thing (all councils infallible, all bishops infallible, being subject to the pope is being subject to God, etc.) but do the contrary, then blame it all on the pope.

The poor souls are a confused lot.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 06, 2017, 03:46:27 PM
And another dogmatic sede with nothing Catholic to say pops in.
... and another lying, PoS, womanish, heretic with nothing Catholic, or even rational, to say chimes in...
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 03:50:42 PM
Never was really, maybe 30 days.

Was an altar boy in the early 70's then fell away from the Church and lived a riotous life until 2000, and for some reason God called me back to work. A perfect example of His mercy.
Deo Gratias for that!

But then where do you come up with the NO teaching that the pope and all councils and all bishops dispersed... etc. are automatically infallible?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 03:51:53 PM
You've explained it quite well, man...

1.) Bergoglio is the head of the Catholic Church and simultaneously the head of a false church (what you call the conciliar church)

2.) Bergoglio is a heretic

3.) Bergoglio is the principle and center of the unity of the church = a heretic is the principle and center of the unity of the church (this is heresy, by the way)

4.) You are Bergoglios good subject = you are the good subject of a heretic


That's it in a nutshell, man.  
:facepalm:
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 03:52:46 PM
... and another lying, PoS, womanish, heretic with nothing Catholic, or even rational, to say chimes in...
Now see, no one will have any trouble understanding you when you lie like that!
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 06, 2017, 03:54:46 PM
Now see, no one will have any trouble understanding you when you lie like that!
Note well, the tacit admission even while it persists in being a lying, PoS heretic.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 04:15:35 PM
Note well, the tacit admission even while it persists in being a lying, PoS heretic.
LOL
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 06, 2017, 04:34:33 PM
My apologies, I shouldn't have laughed but dang, it's funny already. Do you realize you say nothing of substance at all and for what seems for like the last month, all you have done is insult me and call me a heretic? You never substantiate anything, all you do is blurt out things ridiculous.    

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 06, 2017, 04:42:25 PM
... all you do is blurt out things ridiculous.    
It blurts, ridiculously...

We could assume that it is "waxing Victorian", but this is contraindicated by its other log-poundings.

"LOL" = epitaph.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 07, 2017, 10:37:51 AM
STUBBORN SAYS: (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif)

 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/i-am-considering-sedevacantism/338/?action=reporttm;msg=577542)
Stubborn,

I want to see you deny anything he just said there.
Why? Be honest, would it do any good to say it / explain it / prove it again that it is only my opinion that he and the conciliar popes have been/were/are heretics? Would it do any good for your souls to explain again that my opinion, like your opinion, like everyone's opinion does not mean a thing as regards the popes' status? Yes or no? No, of course it won't do any good.

You sedes keep changing my words by replacing pope with heretic, then say that's what I am saying, then challenge me to deny it? It's beyond despicable already.


Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 07, 2017, 11:28:31 AM
Your response is irrelevant. Bellator has changed the subject to your opinion alone. Men's opinions and beliefs are the basis for heresies right?
When their opinions and beliefs are contrary to the Church's teachings, as are the sedevacantists, when they elevate their opinions and beliefs above Church teachings and  defined dogma, when they deny defined dogma and Church teachings for the sake of promoting the scandal of their own opinions and beliefs, then yes, men's opinions are the basis for dogmatic sedevacantism, which is heresy.  


Quote
You in fact believe that your "pope" is the head of the True Church and a false Church. Your opinion is that he is a heretic and that a heretic is the principle and unity of the Catholic Church and also that you are subject to a heretic. Truly, as you said, these are your opinions, and as it happens these opinions are heresies. This is inexcusable for a Catholic and in fact makes one a non-Catholic.

You in fact reject Divine Law for the sake of your opinion, the pope is the pope - whatever else he may or may not be, the man is the pope by Divine Law. Whatever my opinion in the matter is regarding his heresies is wholly irrelevant and cannot, does not, will never determine the status of the pope. Only the sedes have that authority, the rest of us don't even want it.

There, I said it again for the millionth time. Do you understand now? How about now? Now? Not yet?

Well, keep thinking about it, at some point and with the grace of God you should come to understand.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 07, 2017, 11:45:31 AM
None of this matters because we are talking about your opinions and yours alone. You believe those things right?
Well, we've diagnosed one of your problems - you don't read what I write, if you read what I just wrote, you wouldn't ask such a  question, I just wrote: "...my opinion, like your opinion, like everyone's opinion does not mean a thing as regards the popes' status."

Then you say we are talking about my opinion and mine alone. :facepalm:
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 07, 2017, 12:16:24 PM
Hmm. So you are admitting that these heretical opinions are your opinions? That you hold to heresy?
No, I am not the one who holds to heresy, by definition, the dogmatic sedevacantists hold to heresy. How often do you need to have the same thing repeated anyway?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 07, 2017, 12:18:09 PM
He won't admit it, mate...but it's clear as day that his opinions are heretical, or near to heresy at a minimum.  Any person of good will can look over his (Stubborn's) comments in this thread, and see that my summary of his opinions/beliefs is spot on.
You who bask in heresy believe truth to be heresy, same o same o.

How long were you in the NO?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on November 07, 2017, 12:26:47 PM
#NotMyPope
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 07, 2017, 12:47:28 PM
.
Sedevacantists believe they can hold a Church Council on an Internet forum.
.
Democracy in action!  Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!  (Where have I heard that before?)
.
They say Vatican II was the French Revolution in the Church, but sedes would displace it with the sedevacantist revolution.
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 07, 2017, 12:48:04 PM
Stubborn, you believe that Bergoglio is a heretic.  You believe that a heretic can be the principle and center of the unity of the Catholic Faith!  That is blatant heresy, man!

I believed in the false religion of Vatican II for the first 20 years of my life...  For the last 22 years, and by the grace of God, my 11 (soon to be 12) children have all been raised in the True Catholic Faith and have never stepped foot in any of the anti-Christ, false churches of the Vatican II religion.  Blessed be God!  
Well you have yet to purge yourself of the 20 years of NO thinking and indoctrination if you believe that your opinion determines the validity of the pope. I guarantee there is no teaching of the Church that teaches such error.

Now AES like other dogmatic sedes, repeatedly misquotes papal and other teachings that say heretics are out of the Church, he then makes the leap that since the pope is a heretic, he is out of the Church and is therefore not the pope. Mind you, there is no teaching of the Church which teaches this, certainly no pope would be so stupid as to teach such stupidity lest he find himself opined right out of the Church by his subjects - because that is exactly what would happen.

There is not a single sin the pope is incapable of committing, including the sin of heresy. If he is out of the Church, then a future pope is the only one qualified to make that determination and if that ever happens, he will let the rest of us know - until then, the man elected is the pope, by Divine Law, successor or St. Peter no matter how terribly bad that fact irks the dogmatic sedes.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 07, 2017, 12:49:34 PM
Your formula. The pope is a heretic + you should submit to a heretic + you should condemn those who do not submit to a heretic = heresy.

Which part do you disagree with and why?
Like I said, you do not read what I write.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 07, 2017, 01:05:41 PM
Stubborn, you believe that Bergoglio is a heretic.  You believe that a heretic can be the principle and center of the unity of the Catholic Faith!  That is blatant heresy, man!

I believed in the false religion of Vatican II for the first 20 years of my life...  For the last 22 years, and by the grace of God, my 11 (soon to be 12) children have all been raised in the True Catholic Faith and have never stepped foot in any of the anti-Christ, false churches of the Vatican II religion.  Blessed be God!  
.
FYI -- it's a mistake which exposes you as being either a foreigner or uneducated when you use "stepped foot in" as above.
.
Quote
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/31/step-foot/
.
step foot

When you want to say that you refuse to enter some location, the traditional expression is not “step foot,” but “set foot”: “I refuse to set foot in my brother-in-law’s house while he lets his vicious pit bull run around inside.”

Categorized Common Error (https://brians.wsu.edu/category/common-error/)
.
Quote
http://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/missed_step.php
.
Missed Step  Using “set foot in” is a step in the right direction
.
Everyone has language pet peeves: those little things people say that aren’t quite right, and that we can’t help but correct. For reader Mark Freeman, it’s the phrase “step foot in,” as in “I wouldn’t step foot in (or into) his messy apartment.” He says: “This is a misuse for ‘set foot in.’ ‘Set’ is transitive, ‘step’ not, which is why we don’t say, ‘I stepped my foot onto his scrawny neck.’”

The “proper” use of the phrase is indeed “set foot in.” “Set” in this case is a transitive verb, meaning it needs an object to act upon—the foot. (While Mr. Freeman is right that “step” is not transitive here, it can be. But that would be another step.) You’re not just “stepping in”; you are deliberately contemplating the consequences of going into your friend’s messy apartment.

Here’s another way to look at it: When you walk, you step. Each time you step, you set your foot down. When you walk into a place, you step into it; you set foot into it. “Step” is pure action; “set” implies deliberation. Makes perfect logical sense.

Logic, however, means nothing to English speakers. We like nothing more than to mangle, er, modify, time-honored phrases. Thus “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” gets shortened to “the proof is in the pudding,” which makes no sense unless it’s a brandy pudding, and it’s eighty proof.


.


Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 07, 2017, 01:48:44 PM
You can't refute his points so this is what you resort to. This only shows you have nothing left. Glad you nipped this in the butt before it went to far. I could care less about his proper us of "sayings". Irregardless, for all intensive purposes we get what he's trying to convey. Thanks Neil, you are a suppository of information.

I'm hoping to get this post in before someone else posts, so my statue of limitations doesn't come up.
.
You're missing the point, as usual.
.
When you say "step foot in" something, you are exposing your ignorance and you are disqualifying yourself as a simpleton or worse, unqualified for any serious discussion. Perhaps you're under the delusion that we would like to converse with a scarecrow. I am not attacking anything, I'm just pointing out that the speaker who misuses the language does harm to himself and to his position. But as usual, you're not reading what I write, are you? No, you're just going on with the same-old, same-old.
.
Are you dense?
.
Oh, right, you're not reading this. Instead, you dish out contempt for the courtesy of constructive criticism. You don't want to learn, but that's at least consistent with your contempt for Catholic truth because you prefer your heretical sedevacantism instead.
.
BTW you've made several more gaffes, above, only further damaging your own credibility -- nipped this in the butt -- could care less -- irregardless -- for all intensive purposes -- suppository of information -- statue of limitations -- why should anyone believe anything you have to say when you can't even use English properly? Your contempt for proper English goes hand-in-hand with your contempt for Catholic Tradition.
.
You do yourself damage and I guess you like it that way so you are your own worst enemy.  Congratulations.
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 07, 2017, 01:58:44 PM
Quote
proper us of "sayings"
.
Maybe you'd have as much fun using ebonics.
.
Go for it!
.
Quote
I could care less about his proper us of "sayings". 
.
Really?  How much less could you care?  A little less or a whole lot less?  Maybe you could care an enormous amount less. In other words, you care quite a bit already, so your care could be greatly reduced. It's nice to know that you care so much about "sayings" but you have a very odd way of demonstrating your care. Like you take pleasure in contradicting yourself or something.
.
Congratulations for your achievement in being your own worst enemy.
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 07, 2017, 02:10:53 PM
The only thing he's exposing himself to by misusing a saying, is pretentious snobs like yourself who have no argument and are only concerned with nitpicking the inconsequential.
.LOL. I'm Dense? Do you find it strange that I made so many malapropisms in the same paragraph on accident? This only proves my point that you have no argument and concentrate on trivial matters.
.
Speaking of nitpicking the inconsequential.  How many times in this thread has Stubborn given you the principles upon which the whole discussion is centered and you blatantly have refused to recognize it as such. You ignore what he writes and go back to the same erroneous foundation of SAND. Then the winds come and blow you away, and you return to build up the same hopeless nonsense again.
.
Yes, you are dense. In every sense of the word. Perhaps if you would stick to malapropisms in words the way you stick to them in thought you'd be more consistent. Try typing backwards for starters, you'd be making as much sense.
.
Let's see -- pretentious snobs -- what an appropriate characterization for sedevacantism!  Thank you!!
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Meg on November 07, 2017, 02:15:41 PM
There is not a single sin the pope is incapable of committing, including the sin of heresy. If he is out of the Church, then a future pope is the only one qualified to make that determination and if that ever happens, he will let the rest of us know - until then, the man elected is the pope, by Divine Law, successor or St. Peter no matter how terribly bad that fact irks the dogmatic sedes.

Well said. The sedevacantists seem to believe that a true Pope is somehow prevented from committing sin. But I don't recall an official Church teaching which says that a Pope cannot sin. 

Indeed, a future Pope is the only one who is qualified to make an official determination of the validity of any Pope. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Meg on November 07, 2017, 02:31:55 PM
Right...  Folks like Neil and Stubborn would have us believe that we must be subject to a heretic (Stubborn's opinion, and probably Neil's as well).  

I refuse to be the good subject of a heretic, and I refuse to believe that a heretic is the principle and center of the unity of the Catholic Faith.  

Is there anyone, priest or bishop, to whom you are subject to?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Meg on November 07, 2017, 02:44:17 PM
I am subject to Almighty God, and the teachings of His Catholic Church.  

Father Walthen (though I don't agree with everything he said) once said that sedevacantism is really a form of anarchism. The root meaning of the term "anarchy" is that a person does not believe in having any authority over them. That pretty sums up sedevacantists.

I doubt that even a devout traditional Pope, if elected, would be enough to convince them (or you) to subject themselves to the authority of said Pope. Sedevacantists would find some reason not to follow even a good Pope.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Meg on November 07, 2017, 02:52:23 PM
Father Wathen said a lot of good things, and he said a lot of bad things as well.

So you don't recognize Almighty God as an Authority?

Of course I accept God as an authority. But then, so do Protestants. What is the main difference between you and them? 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Meg on November 07, 2017, 03:24:14 PM
In a previous post you said that "sedevacantists" do not believe in having any authority over them...  That's a flat out lie.  

When you asked me who I am subject to, I explained that I was subject to Almighty God and the teachings of His Church.  

So where do you get the - "sedevacantists" do not believe in having any authority over them garbage?  

Starting to get the idea that you don't really know what you're talking about, Meg...

What I meant (and I think you know this) is that sedevacantists don't believe in having a human authority over them. Duh.

You can believe that I don't know what I'm talking about if you want. I don't mind that. But I'll keep pestering you about the authority thing. You needn't respond to my questions if you think they're dumb or stupid or irrelevant.

I'll rephrase my question: Do you have any earthly authority over you, as in, say, a human authority? Priest or bishop? Anyone at all?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Meg on November 07, 2017, 04:03:14 PM
I don't think you're stupid, Meg...but I don't think you understand the principles of the sede vacante position.  (Most people don't, and most of the Catholics who hold the sede vacante position on CI don't do a very good job presenting it, with the exception of maybe a handful.)  That being said, I'm sure that it can look like anarchy at times here on the forum, but the principles of the sede vacante position are based on basic Catholic teaching.  

But I digress...

I work for a traditional Catholic company and I am fairly high up the food chain, but I answer to the President of the company, so I recognize his authority.

I recognize the authority of sworn law enforcement personnel and duly elected judges.  

I served 8 years on active duty in the United States Marine Corps and recognize the authority of military Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers.    

Priest or bishop?  I recognize the authority of all validly ordained priests and validly consecrated bishops.  

See, Catholics who hold the sede vacante position recognize all types of earthly authority...
      

Do you have any religious authority over you at all? I'm not speaking of your Catholic boss at your workplace, or law enforcement. How about a confessor who has authority over you?


Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 07, 2017, 08:28:14 PM
Father Walthen (though I don't agree with everything he said) once said that sedevacantism is really a form of anarchism. The root meaning of the term "anarchy" is that a person does not believe in having any authority over them. That pretty sums up sedevacantists.

I doubt that even a devout traditional Pope, if elected, would be enough to convince them (or you) to subject themselves to the authority of said Pope. Sedevacantists would find some reason not to follow even a good Pope.  
.
It seems to me there would be some sedes who would find reasons to reject even a good pope in the future, but there would be some sedes who would accept him.  It's not really fair to presume they'll all react in the same way.
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 07, 2017, 08:40:32 PM
Apparently you haven't been reading this. Stubborn's whole "it's just my opinion" blah, blah, blah is moronic. It is just the opinion of every heretic that leads to their heresy. Stubborn claims that we must be subject to a heretic and by your defense of him, you do too.

How about you glossing over the fact that you're too stupid to understand that I was having fun with you with that paragraph? Seems like you're much more than dense with NO ability to refute the argument.
.
Anyone looking for what a pretentious snob has to say can look no further. Thank you so much for your demonstration.
.
Your argument refutes itself. You don't need my help. You're doing just fine all by yourself.  Carry on.
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 07, 2017, 10:29:54 PM
I'm starting to see some basis for Flatarian protests contra Neil, regardless of the Euclidean characteristics of Terrarium Firma.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 08, 2017, 04:07:46 AM
Stubborn's Principles:

The dogmatic sedes make themselves impervious to truth no matter how many times they are taught it. All they have in their head is the following: 1) "the pope is not the pope, 2) the dogma does not apply, 3) it is their opinion that does apply" - not necessarily in that order. They even admit it over and over.

Simple.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 08, 2017, 04:38:24 AM
.
It seems to me there would be some sedes who would find reasons to reject even a good pope in the future, but there would be some sedes who would accept him.  It's not really fair to presume they'll all react in the same way.
.
Actually Neil, by definition, the dogmatic sedes of the world can never accept any pope, not even a good pope.

I can say this because I have questioned them in the past on this very subject -  and the one or two that actually answered (sedes are notorious for ignoring questions) testified that no matter what, the newly elected pope would need to be scrutinized by them before having any chance whatsoever of being accepted as pope by them. As they explained it, there is no other choice, this is the way of all the sedes because it must be the way of all sedes. So based on that, it is safe to presume they'll all react in the same way which means by that very fact, they will never have a pope.

Consider to begin with, all the cardinals are heretics, therefore they have no cardinals to elect a pope. All the conciliar bishops are heretics so they're out. All the conciliar priests are heretics so they're out. They will spend who knows how long to agree on which trad bishops are worthy of electing a pope so that avenue is out. Who will elect a pope? Who will assign a pope? It won't be God, He already did that during His first coming, the next time He comes will be as Judge, so He's out.

So how will the sedes get a pope they can all agree is a true pope doggone it? The answer is, it will never happen for the sedes, never - for the reasons stated above. But the matter will keep them wholly occupied and concerned with, that's all that really matters to them anyway.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 08, 2017, 04:40:05 AM
Right, it's the questions; that must be it.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 08, 2017, 04:00:16 PM
Yeah, you're still stuck in your sede/prot world - misinterpret Scripture away!

You should avoid those Dimond Fools pep rallies from now on.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 08, 2017, 04:05:41 PM
Yeah, you're still stuck in your sede/prot world - misinterpret Scripture away!

You should avoid those Dimond Fools pep rallies from now on.
Look here ass, I'm the only Catholic from a long line of Masons and Protestants, excepting one Native convert, and I take mucho heat for it, I know far better than you what a "Prot world" is, and what it means to NOT fit in is as a SEDE, so why don't you do us all, most of all you, a favor and shut your trash talking mouth before speaking.

Lying sack of crap heretic.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 08, 2017, 04:15:11 PM
Now see there, you can be understood when you really, really want to be. And I'm sure no one has any doubt, you certainly  know far better what a prot world is - you're one of the promoters of it, along with Freedom and the other dogmatic sedes. But I think you're a distant second to Freedom in that respect. At least he attempts to post something of substance albeit like a prot, you otoh are as useless as an earlobe in that respect.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 08, 2017, 04:28:50 PM
Are all your ancestors and relatives, masons and prots too? Sure sounds like it. Sounds like they're all pulling for you too - don't let them pull you down!
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 08, 2017, 05:08:27 PM
Just because you have the self granted authority to depose popes, do you really think that you, a prot, can condemn Catholics too?

You haven't called us statue worshipers yet, may as well get that off your chest too.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 08, 2017, 05:22:43 PM
Seem more the "Mirror, mirror" sorts...

"How do I love me? Let me count the ways..."
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on November 10, 2017, 06:10:44 PM
.
Stupid, I mean Stubborn, is going to be one of the loudest reprobates screaming and crying; but Lord!, Lord!, I have prophesied in your Name …
.
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
.
Freedom, I have underestimated you. If I had known you possessed the power to not only depose popes, but to condemn people to hell, I would not have spoken against sedevacantism the way I have in this thread. 
Forgive me and have mercy on my soul.  :pray:
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 11, 2017, 04:23:09 AM
Freedom, I have underestimated you. If I had known you possessed the power to not only depose popes, but to condemn people to hell, I would not have spoken against sedevacantism the way I have in this thread.
Forgive me and have mercy on my soul.  :pray:
:laugh1:
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on November 11, 2017, 01:26:50 PM
.
You missed your calling, you should have been a stand up comedian.
.
You deny the ability to recognize heresy.  You, like all the others, like you, need help going to the bathroom.
.
Colossians 2:8  [8] Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ: …
.

You missed your calling, you should have been a stand up comedian.
You really think so? I always thought there was something funny about my life.
.
You deny the ability to recognize heresy.  You, like all the others, like you, need help going to the bathroom.
So what if I don't always flush? At least I keep all my crap inside the toilet...
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: DZ PLEASE on November 11, 2017, 04:33:22 PM
Don't we all?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Nooseph Polten on November 11, 2017, 06:21:48 PM
.
You live in a toilet?
.
Only in a metaphorical sense. However, it would explain a lot if you literally lived in a toilet. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Gwaredd Thomas on November 20, 2017, 05:12:00 PM
It all starts at the dogma. Go from there and your confused conclusion above should clear right up. All we need to do is remain the popes' good subject (but God's first), or no human creature will never make it to heaven.
Hm, I just popped in here to see what was going on because it looked interesting. WHEW! Looks like I came into the middle of a donnybrook, what?

"All we need to do is remain the popes' good subject (but God's first)..."

Interesting play on the words of St. Thomas More but rather unconvincing given your previous statements IMHOP. But then what do I know; I'm just a simple [minded?] Catholic trying to keep THE Faith.

But this whole business is too deep for me; I'm 'outta 'ere.  👋

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 03:50:26 AM
Which previous statements are you referring to?

You left out a very important part of my quote, namely, the actual teaching of the dogma - - "...or no human creature will ever make it to heaven." It is for this reason we are bound to be subject to the pope. It is Divine Law that whatever else the pope may be, he is the pope.

One of the many things that the sedevacantists wrongly believe, or more accurately, *say* they believe when they really do not believe at all, is that "being subject to the pope is being subject to God". But as all can plainly see, they have no faith whatsoever in that erroneous belief themselves, for if they did, they would embrace the NO and blindly, immediately submit to the pope. That is what those who have faith in a belief do.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on November 21, 2017, 04:01:46 AM
"First and foremost, the Church cannot enjoin us to do evil. Yet for centuries, she has enjoined us in many magisterial teachings to make a blanket prayer for the intentions of the Holy Father in order to obtain a plenary indulgence. It follows that making such a blanket prayer cannot be a material contribution to evil on our part.
Second, when you pray generically for the intentions of the Holy Father, we know that four specific, objective intentions are prayed for every time. From the Raccolta, a collection of indulgences that used to be published by the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences:
Quote
23. The Pope’s intention always includes the following objects:
i. The progress of the Faith and triumph of the Church.
ii. Peace and union among Christian Princes and Rulers.
iii. The conversion of sinners.
iv. The uprooting of heresy."
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 08:27:56 AM
Poster An Even Seven is a dogmatic sedevacantist, so in this instance and since no one else, certainly no other sede made any attempt to correct him, I use him as a sede authority, from this (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/that-the-novus-ordo-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible/msg563134/#msg563134) post: AES: ...Being subject to the Pope IS being subject to God.

If in fact sedes actually believe this, then they would be subject to the pope, otherwise, not being subject to the pope, they are not being subject to God, which is to say that if the pope is not the pope, then God is not God.





Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 09:24:02 AM
I can't seem to get my head wrapped around this debate your having with AES.

What does seem clear to me is the fact that though there may be many things that the "interregnist" may have to make an account for on judgment day, it won't be this:

But he answering them, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. [14] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=15&l=14-#x) Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.

I think it is fair to say that the overwhelming majority of those believe that Francis is not a Catholic, a heretic...so he (Francis) hath not been planted and shall be rooted up, so saith the Truth Himself. This is the man reason I cannot reconcile the position your hold. This position brings this warning into play unnecessarily.

Remember in order to resist, one must be part OF. So to say that your position does not align itself with blind leaders would not make any sense, because who would you be resisting then?
It does not matter one iota that the overwhelming majority believe that Francis is a heretic and not a Catholic. This opinion that the overwhelming majority hold is worthless and means absolutely nothing. Sedevacantists will never accept this indisputable fact, which helps explain why they feel the need to be sedes at all, to reject the pope as pope, and if being subject to the pope is being subject to God, then rejecting the pope as pope is rejecting God as God. So saith AES, representative of all dogmatic sedevacantists everywhere.


It is Divine Law that the pope is the pope - whatever else the sedes think he may or may not be, one thing we know by virtue of Divine Law, ("And I say to thee: Thou are Peter.....") is that he is the pope and we must be subject to him or no salvation for us.  Whoever has faith in the dogma understands this plainly, those who have no faith whatsoever in the dogma reject the pope as pope.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 09:51:39 AM
Hey man, I'm just paraphrasing the words of Pope Leo XIII, who was quoting St. Jerome, who was speaking to Pope Damasus.
If being subject to the pope is being subject to God, then rejecting the pope as pope is rejecting God as God. There is no way around this.



Quote
This one quote proves my point that to be subject and obedient to the Pope means you are subject to Christ. St. Jerome says that he acknowledges no other leader but Christ and because of this he bound to the Pope and more specifically the Chair of Peter. It is this office which we are bound to, not any old guy falsely claiming he's the Pope. It also proves you wrong because you say that the Church does not have a Unity of Faith. You say that the Pope is the Head of the True faith and a false faith. You also say that where Peter is, there is an anti-Church.
It only condemns sedevacantism because one thing we are certain of, is that the sedes scattereth because they not only do not  gathereth with the pope, in an effort to circumvent this duty, they claim he is not the pope at all.

Pope Leo wrote of St. Jerome: 
“I, acknowledging no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with Your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth.”

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 10:01:34 AM
Answer the question before accusing people of faithlessness.

How do you avoid: But he answering them, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. [14] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=15&l=14-#x) Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.

?
This has nothing to do with sedevacantism because the sedes do not believe the pope is blind, they believe he is purposely assisting souls to hell. And they could be right about that, but he is still the pope and we are still bound to be subject to him or no heaven for us.

Being the popes' subject is not blindly submitting to his wishes as if he were God, we are all God's subjects first, next we are the popes' subjects and we have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful. Has any of the conciliar pope commanded us to do anything?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 10:41:15 AM
Blind= faithless   "For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind.

Does it matter whether a command is given? You wouldn't obey it anyway, so the question is irrelevant.

Could you answer the question? How do you avoid the fact that you follow blind leaders? You are resisting because they are blind (faithless) right? Commands have nothing to do with it.
Of course it matters whether a command is given, as the popes' subject, I would obey if it didn't offend God, so it is relevant.
Presumably it is irrelevant to all sedevacantists, but that can only be because the irrelevancy is part of sedevacantism.

I do not follow blind leaders, how do you avoid the fact that you follow blind leaders? Surely you did not invent sedevacantism on your own, you allowed yourself to be lead to believe in it by a blind (faithless) leader(s). Who is this blind (faithless) leader(s) whom you follow anyway?  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 11:30:55 AM
Listen, if you are trying to sell something you are doing a lousy job. I told you my issue with holding the resistance position.

If you are not following blind/faithless leaders then tell me who, what and why you are resisting?

I could never support this position until I get clarity, and your certainly not doing a good job explaining what appears to be a contradiction.
I have explained it, I do not follow any leader - again, who is your blind/faithless leader? Who was it that led you into sedevacantism?

I am not trying to sell anything, I am repeating the Catholic position which is altogether foreign to sedevacantism which is why sedes cannot understand anything I am saying.

Our Lord made St. Peter the first pope and those elected as pope after him are St. Peter's successors - period. Because Christ Himself instituted it as such, that is Divine Law, that is Catholic and will remain Catholic without any regard whatsoever to the the sanctity or evilness of the popes.

That is my position because that is the only Catholic position there is. I do not follow the pope, I am his subject, but God's first. If he ever commands anything binding and not sinful, I will obey him because he is the pope. I do not foresee that ever happening, but I cannot see into the future so it could - but for the last 57 years that I've been alive, it hasn't.

All we need to do is take care to adhere to this Catholic truth: "It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation." - Fr. Feeney

To attempt to circumvent this requirement is impossible - and it is impossible no matter what excuse is used, what proviso is added or how positive sedes are that he is not the pope.



Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 11:40:06 AM
Rejecting a heretic as Pope is being faithful to God. Accepting a heretic as Pope, as you do, is rejecting God and the Unity of Faith.

You cannot get around this one. You reject the Unity of Faith because you believe the Pope can have two faiths and be the leader of a true and false Church simultaneously.
You're the one who said being subject to the pope is being subject to God.

There is no possible way out of it. If you think the pope is God or a God, then rejecting the pope is rejecting God. Rejecting the pope as a heretic is rejecting God as a heretic.

I do not reject the unity of faith, I wholly echo St. Jerome's words which YOU POSTED: 
“I, acknowledging no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with Your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth.”

You do not echo the words above, you are among the scattered because you reject this teaching, preferring your own wrong and non-Catholic opinion instead.

See what I mean now?

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 11:45:33 AM
This right here shows his ignorance of what this Dogma means (subjection to the Roman Pontiff). He has no idea what the difference is between being subject to the Pope and being obedient to him.
Spoken like a true dogmatic sede - in circles.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 11:51:34 AM
I have made it crystal clear many times.. there is no such thing as "SEDEVANCANTISM". That is a made up moniker, that though you didn't invent, you nonetheless place on people. I have stated I believe we are in an interregnum now. End of the story.

Now this question you keep avoiding: If you are not following blind/faithless leaders then tell me 1) who, 2) what and 3) why you are resisting?
Wrong, we are not in an interregnum and there is a man made doctrine - it is called "sedevacantism" and is practiced by few. 

I have answered your questions every post, AGAIN - I strive to resist offending God (2) the "what"), which means I resist all NOers (1) the "who") who want me to accept the NO (3) the "why").
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 12:04:01 PM
Quote
You're the one who said being subject to the pope is being subject to God.

AES: First, one is made subject to the Pope through Baptism ignoramus. Second, the Pope can't be a heretic because a heretic isn't Catholic. Third, you are subject to a heretic by your own admission, you are a heretic. Fourth, to be in the same church as Francis is the same as being in communion with any protestant, muslim, etc... leader out there.

FYI, you are in no position, i.e., you have no authority to decide the status of the pope based on your knowledge of his sins. Do you understand that yet reject that fact outright?

There is no possible way out of it. If you think the pope is God or a God, then rejecting the pope is rejecting God. Rejecting the pope as a heretic is rejecting God as a heretic.

AES: I know that as a son of the devil you can't help but lie so let me reiterate that the Pope is not God. The Pope derives his power of universal pastor from God and God puts him in the Chair. Therefore, to be disobedient to the Pope is to disobey God. You deny everything the Church has taught in regards to the Primacy of and obedience owed to the Chair of Peter.

To be subject to the pope is the dogma, but not if it means offending God - do you understand at all?


I do not reject the unity of faith, I wholly echo St. Jerome's words which YOU POSTED:  
“I, acknowledging no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with Your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth.”

You do not echo the words above, you are among the scattered because you reject this teaching, preferring your own wrong and non-Catholic opinion instead.

AES: Did you miss the part that says "that is, with the chair of Peter"? I am in communion with every valid Pope and their teachings since the Church started. If a heretic seems to be elected, it is null and void. This does not mean one stops being in communion or fellowship with the Chair of Peter. Nor should it mean that you are now in communion with a heretic just because he looks like a pope. Your ignorance of Church Teaching is truly an abominable sight. You can't even see the words that are there because of you spiritual blindness.

No, I did not miss the part about the Chair - did you miss the part about "and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth." Do you propose that "you" to be a Chair now?

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 12:25:53 PM
I feel that we're in a state of doubt and confusion.

I believe that there's a strong positive doubt about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants ... a doubt sufficient to justify our categorical withdrawal of submission to their Magisterium.  Refusal of submission is not schismatic when it's founded on grave positive doubts regarding the legitimacy of a pope (about his election or his person).  Since I do not have certainty of faith regarding their legitimacy, I cannot accept even their dogmatic definitions with the certainty of faith.  That's the meaning of the maxim:  papa dubius papa nullus ... a doubtful pope is no pope (at least in the practical order).

Yet I will not go sedevacantist because that would be to usurp an authority that's not given to me but to the Church alone ... to ultimately determine the legitimacy of any given pope.  So I suspend my judgment while entertaining grave doubts.  This really does solve all the legitimate objections to both R&R and SVism.  I do not NEED to solve this problem, nor am I competent to do so.  I must merely have justification in conscience for my refusal of submission to their Magisterium.  This position brings me great peace of soul.  R&R is in a lot of ways completely non-Catholic.  Sedevacantism, on the other hand, does not recognize that papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact and must be established with the certainty of faith by the Church, and not by any individual going off half-cocked and hurling accusations of heresy from the hip.

I have called this position, tongue-in-cheek, sededoubtism.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 12:31:13 PM
What about this dogma, given to us by Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) in 1302?
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

If you choose sedevacantism which you are considering, since you cannot be subject to one you do not believe exists, how, per the above dogma, will you be able to get to heaven?

This is a completely false argument.  I get to heaven the same way that someone who happened to die during any other papal interregnum would get to heaven.  Even if the See isn't currently occupied, one maintains a state of submission to the Roman Pontiff.  Similarly, if anyone died during the Great Schism while a subject of one of the Antipopes, he too could be saved.  Why?  Because the submission required is normally both formal and material, but in the case of a vacant See (interregnum) or material error regarding the identity of the true pope (Great Schism), the formal submission remains even if the material submission is broken.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 12:32:04 PM
While it is true Francis is out of his Catholic mind, it is also ridiculous to pretend he isn't Pope.

No, it is by no means ridiculous.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 12:36:20 PM
including Pius XII 

So you reject Pius XII too, eh?  Despite the fact that he was peacefully accepted by the Universal Church without ANY dissent during his reign?  It's this kind of thing that opened my eyes up to the folly of straight sedevacantism.  I knew a guy who rejected Pius IX.  I knew others who rejected Pius XI and even St. Pius X.  Where does this stop?  What principles does SVism have that would prevent someone from embracing nonsense like this?  None.  Any uneducated lay man or lay woman could start deposing popes any time he or she imagines that the Pope's Magisterium has broken with Tradition.

You do know that a theologian alive during the reign of Pius XII said that it would be heresy to reject the legitimacy of Pius XII ... because papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact.

So, do you believe in the Assumption with the certainty of faith?  If Pius XII was not legitimate, then you cannot believe that dogma with the certainty of faith.  Consequently, you would be a heretic on that count alone.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 21, 2017, 12:41:23 PM
I feel that we're in a state of doubt and confusion.

I believe that there's a strong positive doubt about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants ... a doubt sufficient to justify our categorical withdrawal of submission to their Magisterium.  Refusal of submission is not schismatic when it's founded on grave positive doubts regarding the legitimacy of a pope (about his election or his person).  Since I do not have certainty of faith regarding their legitimacy, I cannot accept even their dogmatic definitions with the certainty of faith.  That's the meaning of the maxim:  papa dubius papa nullus ... a doubtful pope is no pope (at least in the practical order).

Yet I will not go sedevacantist because that would be to usurp an authority that's not given to me but to the Church alone ... to ultimately determine the legitimacy of any given pope.  So I suspend my judgment while entertaining grave doubts.  This really does solve all the legitimate objections to both R&R and SVism.  I do not NEED to solve this problem, nor am I competent to do so.  I must merely have justification in conscience for my refusal of submission to their Magisterium.  This position brings me great peace of soul.  R&R is in a lot of ways completely non-Catholic.  Sedevacantism, on the other hand, does not recognize that papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact and must be established with the certainty of faith by the Church, and not by any individual going off half-cocked and hurling accusations of heresy from the hip.

I have called this position, tongue-in-cheek, sededoubtism.
Is there an existing thread exploring this idea?  Preferably one in which people aren't being antagonistic toward each other?   I am interested in learning more and seeing the arguments for and against it.

If there isn't such a thread, would you mind starting one, Ladislaus?  Or, we could let nature take its course and let this thread morph into it. :)
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 12:51:28 PM
How do you know that?
Reality. The same way we all know that. They've been dying and being elected same as always.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 01:10:23 PM
This is a completely false argument.  I get to heaven the same way that someone who happened to die during any other papal interregnum would get to heaven.  Even if the See isn't currently occupied, one maintains a state of submission to the Roman Pontiff.  Similarly, if anyone died during the Great Schism while a subject of one of the Antipopes, he too could be saved.  Why?  Because the submission required is normally both formal and material, but in the case of a vacant See (interregnum) or material error regarding the identity of the true pope (Great Schism), the formal submission remains even if the material submission is broken.
Why do people bring in the GWS as a reference I do not know. We have one pope, not two, three or more, only one. There is no comparison between today and the GWS. Today, there is no confusion as to who the pope is, the confusion that reigns within some peoples heads these days, is who isn't the pope. 

To say adherence to the dogma is a false argument, is to say our eternal God the Holy Ghost, in the year 1302, did not foresee today's crisis when He perfectly worded the dogma. So do not say it is a false argument. It is at least as pertinent today as it always was. That is dogma.

The sedes make the dogma irrelevant as this suits their opinion to do so, they claim it does not apply to this crisis, because in this case, the pope is a heretic so he is not the pope so the dogma cannot apply. As if the Holy Ghost forgot to add that little exception in there. Yes some of these same sedes will argue correctly that the dogma regarding the sacrament of baptism applies always, even for infants.

The sedes have allowed themselves to be led into a church without a pope, more importantly, a church that has no chance of ever having a pope. Their fake interregnum is, by design, forever. 
  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 21, 2017, 01:17:04 PM
Why do people bring in the GWS as a reference I do not know. We have one pope, not two, three or more, only one. There is no comparison between today and the GWS. Today, there is no confusion as to who the pope is, the confusion that reigns within some peoples heads these days, is who isn't the pope.  
I find it confusing.  How can I understand that the person who seems to be the pope does things that are the opposite of what a pope should do?  How can he be the pope?  How can he not be the pope?  

I don't see a simple answer to this.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 01:31:43 PM
To say adherence to the dogma is a false argument, is to say our eternal God the Holy Ghost, in the year 1302, did not foresee today's crisis when He perfectly worded the dogma. So do not say it is a false argument. It is at least as pertinent today as it always was. That is dogma.

It's not about the dogma itself.  I'm not questioning the dogma, merely your application of said dogma.  Explain, then, how someone who happens to die during a papal interregnum could be saved.  This happens a lot.  Are they just out of luck?  I had a daughter born during the interregnum between JP2 and B16; I'm sure a lot of Catholics died during that period as well.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 01:34:29 PM
Is there an existing thread exploring this idea?  Preferably one in which people aren't being antagonistic toward each other?   I am interested in learning more and seeing the arguments for and against it.

If there isn't such a thread, would you mind starting one, Ladislaus?  Or, we could let nature take its course and let this thread morph into it. :)

I don't think that there's ever been a dedicated thread on this notion.  It usually rears its head on the SV vs. R&R threads.  I basically find legitimate arguments on BOTH sides, and I find many of the criticisms of each side against the other to be legitimate as well.  I had been a sedevacantist for a few years (about 25 years ago now) ... but backed away due to the problems I saw with SVism.  Yet R&R has its own problems.  So I ended up here.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 01:37:07 PM
Whatever Church you belong to, that believes that Heretics are Catholic and can be Popes, is not Catholic.

Well, there's actually an entire school of thought (the papa haereticus ab Ecclesia deponendus school) among Catholic theologians, led by Cajetan, that believes exactly that, that even a heretical Pope remains pope until such a time as he would be deposed (ministerially) by the Church.  It's not an entirely improbable position.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 01:38:57 PM
I find it confusing.  How can I understand that the person who seems to be the pope does things that are the opposite of what a pope should do?  How can he be the pope?  How can he not be the pope?  

I don't see a simple answer to this.

I'm more concerned about what the Popes TEACH than about what they do.  They can DO things that would render them suspect of heresy, but the problem concerns the duty of Catholics to submit to their Magisterium.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 01:40:49 PM
I've actually enjoyed the last couple of papal interregna due to the peace that it brings among Traditional Catholics.  At least for a little while, I would think, we're all sedevacantists.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 01:41:35 PM
This is where we disagree. I can't go to sleep at night believing that God sent a false Vicar to His Church. Vicar=representative.

I have wrestled many times with Ladislaus's position of sededoubtism, but I only end up with a possibility vs certainty that God sent a false Vicar.

Don't believe that God would ever deceive...

Lets face in order to have a deception, there would have to be a line a false popes? Right?
Most, if not all the confusion, accusations, opinions etc. regarding the popes' status stems from a false idea of papal infallibility, then mix in a whole lot of papolatry - as AES exemplified with his "being subject to the pope is being subject to God". This is not Catholic, this is pure papolatry and is prevalent in varying degrees in probably all sedes.

God did not send a false Vicar, the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and he was elected, perhaps sent by God, certainly God permitted it. The faithless population got what they wanted, perhaps what they deserve. But either way, our salvation does not depend on his sanctity - recall in 1917 the Fatima Children saw souls falling into hell like snow flakes in a terrible blizzard - that was when a "true" pope was in the chair.     
 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 01:43:34 PM
Whatever Church you belong to, that believes that Heretics are Catholic and can be Popes, is not Catholic.
I belong to the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. You belong to the church without popes, is it any wonder we cannot agree?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 01:45:32 PM
Most, if not all the confusion, accusations, opinions etc. regarding the popes' status stems from a false idea of papal infallibility, then mix in a whole lot of papolatry - as AES exemplified with his "being subject to the pope is being subject to God". This is not Catholic, this is pure papolatry and is prevalent in varying degrees in probably all sedes.

I disagree.  I believe that your view of infallibility is way too loose.  But please answer my previous question.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 01:45:59 PM
It's not about the dogma itself.  I'm not questioning the dogma, merely your application of said dogma.  Explain, then, how someone who happens to die during a papal interregnum could be saved.  This happens a lot.  Are they just out of luck?  I had a daughter born during the interregnum between JP2 and B16; I'm sure a lot of Catholics died during that period as well.
to Stubborn
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 01:53:16 PM
I find it confusing.  How can I understand that the person who seems to be the pope does things that are the opposite of what a pope should do?  How can he be the pope?  How can he not be the pope?  

I don't see a simple answer to this.
He was elected as the successor of St. Peter same as the other popes for the last 1000 years. This is reality, it is an historical fact. We know there are only two ways that he can lose his office - die or retire.

He does things opposite of what popes should do, that does not mean he is not the pope, all it means to us is that none of us want to be him when he faces God at his particular judgement.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 01:58:02 PM
It's not about the dogma itself.  I'm not questioning the dogma, merely your application of said dogma.  Explain, then, how someone who happens to die during a papal interregnum could be saved.  This happens a lot.  Are they just out of luck?  I had a daughter born during the interregnum between JP2 and B16; I'm sure a lot of Catholics died during that period as well.
I do not understand, what similarities are there between sedevacantism, where popes are living, and a papal interregnum where the pope is dead awaiting election of the next pope?

A papal interregnum is only in the heads of sedevacantists no matter how strongly the want to believe it. IOW, their belief in an interregnum has no bearing on the life or death of the reigning pope.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 02:03:41 PM
I do not understand, what similarities are there between sedevacantism, where popes are living, and a papal interregnum where the pope is dead awaiting election of the next pope?

That's not my question.  Stop trying to side-step it.  HOW is someone who dies in a normal papal interregnum saved?  How are they subject to the Pope if there is no pope?

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 02:10:15 PM
For the record papal infallibility plays no role in my judgment.

Does the representative/vicar of Christ profess the faith, his primary and principle role?

And with a clear conscience and no doubts believe : he does not.


You seem confused here: God did not send a false Vicar , the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and he was elected, perhaps sent by God, certainly God permitted it.

You seem unsure whether God did or did not send a false Vicar. Remember always answer with yea yea, or nay nay
I meant what I said - -God did not send a *false* vicar, he is the Vicar, not a false Vicar. Perhaps God sent this Vicar - who can say with certainty? We can say He certainly permitted it because the vicar is right there, but we cannot say with certainty he was specifically sent by God.
And no, far as I can see, he professes anything but the true faith.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 21, 2017, 02:11:59 PM
I don't think that there's ever been a dedicated thread on this notion.  It usually rears its head on the SV vs. R&R threads.  I basically find legitimate arguments on BOTH sides, and I find many of the criticisms of each side against the other to be legitimate as well.  I had been a sedevacantist for a few years (about 25 years ago now) ... but backed away due to the problems I saw with SVism.  Yet R&R has its own problems.  So I ended up here.
I am intrigued by what you said because I see problems with both too.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 02:17:20 PM
That's not my question.  Stop trying to side-step it.  HOW is someone who dies in a normal papal interregnum saved?  How are they subject to the Pope if there is no pope?
They are saved by not being in mortal sin at the time of their death and their perseverance in the faith during an actual interregnum. If they were Catholic, then they were subject to the pope whilst the pope lived, because it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

It is not complicated.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 02:22:48 PM
They are saved by not being in mortal sin at the time of their death and their perseverance in the faith during an actual interregnum. If they were Catholic, then they were subject to the pope whilst the pope lived, because it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

It is not complicated.

So you're saying that at some point during there lives they were subject to a pope.  How about a baby who's born, is baptized, then dies ... all within a papal interregnum then?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 21, 2017, 02:25:08 PM
He was elected as the successor of St. Peter same as the other popes for the last 1000 years. This is reality, it is an historical fact. We know there are only two ways that he can lose his office - die or retire.

He does things opposite of what popes should do, that does not mean he is not the pope, all it means to us is that none of us want to be him when he faces God at his particular judgement.
I don't want to argue with you, Stubborn, because I am grateful for your past kindness, but I am not satisfied with your position.  You seem to think the answer is simple and obvious and only those who are stupid or bad-willed miss it.  I don't find it simple.  I find it so complicated that I get a headache when I try to think about it.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 02:29:35 PM
I don't want to argue with you, Stubborn, because I am grateful for your past kindness, but I am not satisfied with your position.  You seem to think the answer is simple and obvious and only those who are stupid or bad-willed miss it.  I don't find it simple.  I find it so complicated that I get a headache when I try to think about it.

While he can't articulate his position, what he's trying to say is that if a man is elected Pope and universally accepted as such by the Church, then he's the pope.  There is something to be said for that argument.  Problem is that Stubborn can't lay it out logically so he gets people frustrated.  Some theologians have said that peaceful and universal acceptance of a man as pope by the Church is the infallible proof that a man is indeed the pope.  There's a poster here named Nishant who used to make a very strong case for the position.  What can be disputed is whether these men are indeed universally accepted by the actual Catholic Church.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 02:32:25 PM
That sounds like St Augustine rhetoric. Good question.

Problem is that I know the answer, that the subjection required is primarily a formal subjection and not a material one.  That's why one can be saved in an interregnum or in a case where you guessed wrong on which pope you happen to be materially subject to.  Logically, if one can be saved in an interregnum by virtue of formal subjection, one can also be saved in a sedevacante situations by the same formal subjection.  Stubborn's argument that one cannot be saved as a sedevacantist is not a valid argument.  St. Vincent Ferrer sided with an Antipope.  Was he outside the Church at that time?  If he had died, would he have gone to hell?  Answer:  certainly not.  Why?:  because of formal subjection.

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 02:39:34 PM
So you're saying that at some point during there lives they were subject to a pope.  How about a baby who's born, is baptized, then dies ... all within a papal interregnum then?
C'mon. The baby didn't receive Holy Communion either - will that be your next silly query?

Being as the the Church is assured via the parents and God Parents' profession of faith at the baptism that the infant wants to be in the Church, as such, being a member includes being subject to the pope before the pope died.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 02:48:42 PM
I am intrigued by what you said because I see problems with both too.

Yes, I've struggled with this for years.  Anyone who's honest in seeking the truth (and not just grinding an ax or going off emotion) has to see the real problems with both.  But I finally came to the conclusion that I did NOT have to solve it.  I do, however, need to come up with a Catholic position on the matter.  I cannot embrace non-Catholic principles to justify being a Traditional Catholic.  I see only two such viable positions:  1) subjecting myself to the Vatican II popes (and not just by way of lip service as Stubborn does, but in reality) or 2) sededoubtism (which I came up with).

This is similar to the position taken by Resistance Priest Fr. Francois Chazal ... and following the thinking in large part of the theologian John of St. Thomas.

Maybe I can start a thread about it sometime.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 21, 2017, 02:55:12 PM
Yes, I've struggled with this for years.  Anyone who's honest in seeking the truth (and not just grinding an ax or going off emotion) has to see the real problems with both.  But I finally came to the conclusion that I did NOT have to solve it.  I do, however, need to come up with a Catholic position on the matter.  I cannot embrace non-Catholic principles to justify being a Traditional Catholic.  I see only two such viable positions:  1) subjecting myself to the Vatican II popes (and not just by way of lip service as Stubborn does, but in reality) or 2) sededoubtism (which I came up with).

This is similar to the position taken by Resistance Priest Fr. Francois Chazal ... and following the thinking in large part of the theologian John of St. Thomas.

Maybe I can start a thread about it sometime.
I hope you do.  I am imagining how it will be - a thoughtful thread in which everyone calmly presents their ideas with no personal animosity whatsoever.

It could happen.  Really. It could.   :)
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 02:55:51 PM
I am intrigued by what you said because I see problems with both too.

And so did Bishop Guerard des Laurier, a theological heavyweight himself, professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, who helped Pius XII draft the dogma of the Assumption and later co-authored the Ottaviani Intervention; he made some distinctions and came up with what became known as sedeprivationism.  IMO that's not a bad approach, FAR superior straight SVism (resolving the ecclesiavacante problem) but still does formally reduce to SVism and has a few of the same problems I found with SVism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel-Louis_Gu%C3%A9rard_des_Lauriers
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 02:56:42 PM
I hope you do.  I am imagining how it will be - a thoughtful thread in which everyone calmly presents their ideas with no personal animosity whatsoever.

It could happen.  Really. It could.   :)

With this particular issue?   :laugh1:  

It invariably gets heated.  Because I'm in between, as on the BoD issue, I usually generate animosity from both sides.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 02:58:35 PM
C'mon. The baby didn't receive Holy Communion either - will that be your next silly query?

Being as the the Church is assured via the parents and God Parents' profession of faith at the baptism that the infant wants to be in the Church, as such, being a member includes being subject to the pope before the pope died.

So then the intention to be subject to a PAST pope suffices for salvation?  [PS -- I'm not questioning the vicarious intention through the godparents.]
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 21, 2017, 02:59:05 PM
With this particular issue?   :laugh1:  

It invariably gets heated.  Because I'm in between, as on the BoD issue, I usually generate animosity from both sides.
Would it make you feel better if I said it was your personality and not the issue that causes this?   :P
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 03:00:36 PM
Would it make you feel better if I said it was your personality and not the issue that causes this?   :P

Undoubtedly, but in this case, it's actually both.  As you know well, I can rub people the wrong way.  But even when I'm being calm about it, people get really emotional about this issue.

Of course, I would have you note that my reputation currently stands as +6142/-868 ... a ratio of about 7.07 to 1, whereas yours is only 6.6 to 1  :P   
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 03:01:19 PM
I don't want to argue with you, Stubborn, because I am grateful for your past kindness, but I am not satisfied with your position.  You seem to think the answer is simple and obvious and only those who are stupid or bad-willed miss it.  I don't find it simple.  I find it so complicated that I get a headache when I try to think about it.
The crazy thing is, it is so totally simple that once it hits you, it's almost like that feeling you have after having lost your glasses, you find them sitting right on your nose the whole time - it is really almost that simple.
Those who are bad willed, are those who constantly take papal teachings (of all things) and try to use them to vindicate their sedevacantism - after having been repeatedly corrected and asked to cease doing that. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 03:05:13 PM
So then the intention to be subject to a PAST pope suffices for salvation?  [PS -- I'm not questioning the vicarious intention through the godparents.]
I would say yes, but only as long as the past pope(s) was never rejected as pope(s).
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 21, 2017, 03:05:39 PM
Undoubtedly, but in this case, it's actually both.  As you know well, I can rub people the wrong way.  But even when I'm being calm about it, people get really emotional about this issue.

Of course, I would have you note that my reputation currently stands as +6142/-868 ...  :P
:laugh1:
But seriously, it is an issue that people ought to have strong feelings about.  The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 03:08:15 PM
The crazy thing is, it is so totally simple that once it hits you, it's almost like that feeling you have after having lost your glasses, you find them sitting right on your nose the whole time - it is really almost that simple.
Those who are bad willed, are those who constantly take papal teachings (of all things) and try to use them to vindicate their sedevacantism - after having been repeatedly corrected and asked to cease doing that.

my turn  :facepalm:
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 03:09:08 PM
:laugh1:
But seriously, it is an issue that people ought to have strong feelings about.  The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

LOL, I added that your ratio is only 6.6 to 1 (editing the post after your response).
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 03:13:16 PM
:laugh1:
But seriously, it is an issue that people ought to have strong feelings about.  The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

Archbishop Lefebvre:
Quote
Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

 “…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

I read Archbishop Lefebvre as a sededoubtist --
http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 21, 2017, 03:13:43 PM
LOL, I added that your ratio is only 6.6 to 1 (editing the post after you responded).
I guess I need to start campaigning for votes.   :soapbox:
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 03:14:02 PM
my turn  :facepalm:
I tried to explain it to you before, but, well, you have your sededoubtism.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 03:20:30 PM
I guess I need to start campaigning for votes.   :soapbox:

That's OK.  If I feel the need to stay ahead of you in that competition, I can just downvote all your posts.  I have more votes overall, so my downvotes will affect your ratio more than mine.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 03:21:17 PM
I tried to explain it to you before, but, well, you have your sededoubtism.

Stubborn, you don't really explain or argue ... you mostly just emote.

Please read the +Lefebvre quotes in the links provide.  He's not as sure as you are about your position.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 03:36:14 PM
Stubborn, you don't really explain or argue ... you mostly just emote.

Please read the +Lefebvre quotes in the links provide.  He's not as sure as you are about your position.
Yes, it's emote to you, but I do not need to read about +ABL - above everything else, it was he who was instrumental in the loss of my confusion in the whole sede matter.

When one comes to the realization that for many decades before V2, certain "well respected" 19th and 20th century theologians taught papal impeccability / blind obedience / and basically, papolatry, and that many of those "liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church", as +ABL says, it is no wonder so many are confused about the pope - they've been taught wrong.
 
It was +ABL (http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Interview_With_Archbishop_Lefebvre.htm) - who should know, said:


Because the seminaries of today are not teaching anything about the making of a priest; they teach liberal psychology, sociology, humanism, modernism and many other sciences and semi sciences that are either contrary to Catholic doctrine or have nothing whatever to do with church teachings or with what a priest should know. As for Catholic teachings, they are hardly being taught in today's seminaries.


These ideas have penetrated into the seminaries and throughout the church.
And today the church wakes up finding itself in a liberal straitjacket.


Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun.

He was only infallible in very specific matters of faith and morals. At that time, many enemies of the church did all they could to ridicule this dogma and propagate misconceptions. For example, the enemies of the church often said to the unknowing and naive that if the pope said a dog was a cat, it was the duty of Catholics blindly to accept this position without any question.

Of course this was an absurd interpretation and the Catholics knew that. This time the same enemies of the church, now that it serves their purpose, are working very hard to have whatever the pope says accepted, without question, as infallible, almost as if his words were uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ himself.

This impression, although widely promoted, is nevertheless utterly false.

Infallibility is extremely limited, only bearing on very specific cases which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed.
It is not possible to say that whenever the pope speaks he is infallible. The fact is that the pope is a liberal, that all this liberal trend has taken place at the Council of Vatican II, and created a direction for the destruction of the church - a destruction which one expects to happen any day.

After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the church, there are attempts to suppress my seminaries. And it is for this reason that I am asked to stop ordaining priests.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 21, 2017, 03:37:06 PM
Archbishop Lefebvre:
I read Archbishop Lefebvre as a sededoubtist --
http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/
This was interesting.  I liked the opening:
Quote
So far as we know, Archbishop Lefebvre never formed a definite judgment that John-Paul II was not a true pope. So if we divide the ecclesiastical spectrum into two categories, those for whom the see is legally vacant and those for whom it is legally occupied, Archbishop Lefebvre will be in the non-sedevacantist camp.
But such divisions are not always helpful.
Thinking of it as a continuum rather than a dichotomy seems to be a productive approach.  

And that quote you cited:
Quote
"…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…
really articulates my feelings.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 03:44:09 PM
Yes, it's emote to you, but I do not need to read about +ABL - above everything else, it was he who was instrumental in the loss of my confusion in the whole sede matter.

When one comes to the realization that for many decades before V2, certain "well respected" 19th and 20th century theologians taught papal impeccability / blind obedience / and basically, papolatry, and that many of those "liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church", as +ABL says, it is no wonder so many are confused about the pope - they've been taught wrong.

While indeed many of the dogmatic sedevacantists exaggerate the scope of infallibility, you're minimizing it.  So only a handful of solemn statements are infallible and the overall Magisterium can go so badly off the rails that we must sever communion with and submission to the Pope in order to remain Catholic?  That's no longer even a question of simple infallibility ... but the overall defectibility of the Church.  R&R posits that the Magisterium has defected.  When the Magisterium becomes so corrupted that it's leading people into heresy, it's defected.  At that point the Church has defected in her mission.  So, indeed, many SVs truly hold to a form of papolatry, but R&R would have the Church's Magisterium defect.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 03:46:11 PM
I tried to explain it to you before, but, well, you have your sededoubtism.

You're starting to sound like the Dimonds.  Once you've presented your "clear argument," only a bad-willed person can reject it.  How about if I find your argument flawed?  Indeed, you've mansplained this to me several times already, and yet I find it almost less convincing with each attempt.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 03:48:36 PM
This was interesting.  I liked the opening:Thinking of it as a continuum rather than a dichotomy seems to be a productive approach.  

Yes, all to often we create this radical divide ... between one side and then its polar opposite, whereas in point of fact there can be nuanced positions between them.  I find that both sides have valid points and, at the same time, serious failings, so I myself have ended up in between with a nuanced position.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 04:00:30 PM
You're starting to sound like the Dimonds.  Once you've presented your "clear argument," only a bad-willed person can reject it.  How about if I find your argument flawed?  Indeed, you've mansplained this to me several times already, and yet I find it almost less convincing with each attempt.
That's due to your sededoubtism, which itself is because you were among those who were taught wrong. All one really need to do is accept historical and current reality - it's pretty much as simple as that.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 04:03:01 PM
That's due to your sededoubtism, which itself is because you were among those who were taught wrong. All one really need to do is accept historical and current reality - it's pretty much as simple as that.

No, it's NOT that simple.  For you it's just:  Looks like a pope; must be pope.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 04:09:05 PM
While indeed many of the dogmatic sedevacantists exaggerate the scope of infallibility, you're minimizing it.  So only a handful of solemn statements are infallible and the overall Magisterium can go so badly off the rails that we must sever communion with and submission to the Pope in order to remain Catholic?  That's no longer even a question of simple infallibility ... but the overall defectibility of the Church.  R&R posits that the Magisterium has defected.  When the Magisterium becomes so corrupted that it's leading people into heresy, it's defected.  At that point the Church has defected in her mission.  So, indeed, many SVs truly hold to a form of papolatry, but R&R would have the Church's Magisterium defect.
I do not minimize anything, I repeat the definition and applications of infallibility from V1. I neither subtract nor add anything to it - for you, that equates to me minimizing infallibility.

Your whole understanding of what the Magisterium even is, is terribly flawed - but apparently it is what you were wrongly taught, which is why you believe it. Again, the Magisterium can never defect, the pope and hierarchy are not the magisterium, they are the pope and hierarchy.

Perhaps some day you will come to understand and accept that fact in it's simplicity.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 21, 2017, 04:10:11 PM
No, it's NOT that simple.  For you it's just:  Looks like a pope; must be pope.
Nope, it is that simple. Elected as pope, is the pope. Same as always - very, very simple.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on November 21, 2017, 05:44:50 PM
Hm, I just popped in here to see what was going on because it looked interesting. WHEW! Looks like I came into the middle of a donnybrook, what?

"All we need to do is remain the popes' good subject (but God's first)..."

Interesting play on the words of St. Thomas More but rather unconvincing given your previous statements IMHOP. But then what do I know; I'm just a simple [minded?] Catholic trying to keep THE Faith.

But this whole business is too deep for me; I'm 'outta 'ere.  👋
Sure....now look at what you've done!  ;)
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 05:51:56 PM
Nope, it is that simple. Elected as pope, is the pope. Same as always - very, very simple.
You can't even properly articulate your own position.  Election + universal acceptance.  What if the election were canonically invalid?  Acceptance by whom?  What if the Church, 90% Arian at one point, had elected and accepted an Arian pope?  You psychologically need to make everything simple ... even when it's not.  That is part of the sedevacantist allure as well.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 06:08:33 PM
Your whole understanding of what the Magisterium even is, is terribly flawed - but apparently it is what you were wrongly taught, which is why you believe it. Again, the Magisterium can never defect, the pope and hierarchy are not the magisterium, they are the pope and hierarchy.

Perhaps some day you will come to understand and accept that fact in it's simplicity.

Your view of the Magisterium isn't even remotely Catholic.  Maybe someday YOU will come to accept that.  I've splained this to you many times already.  Pope and hiererarchy exercise Magisterium.  Magisterium is not some static body of truth.  Stubborn decides what's in it and what isn't ... so-called Magisterium-sifting where Stubborn's private judgment becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth.  So such-and-such teaching of V2 goes against past teaching.  How do you know the past teaching wasn't flawed and rightly corrected by V2?  In your theological framework, you don't.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on November 21, 2017, 06:14:12 PM
Precisely, and Nishant (when he was around) could never refute this.
 
 
Anyone know whatever happened with Nishant?  Is he on other boards under a new moniker?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: sean1846 on November 21, 2017, 07:53:45 PM
I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sexual morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!
Vatican II started a new religion, a false church. All the claimants from John XXIII to Francis were antipopes. Are you aware that a heretic cannot be the pope? Rest assured, rejecting Francis is not fleeing from the Church. Rejecting Francis is essential in remaining in communion with the true church. 
It's a crisis, the worst crisis in the history of the church, but you know that sedevacantism is the answer to this problem. You know that Francis is not the pope, abandon the opinions of others and study the principles and you will reach the right conclusion. I would like to recommend this article to you. 
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Sincerely,
Sean
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 22, 2017, 03:29:10 AM
You can't even properly articulate your own position.  Election + universal acceptance.  What if the election were canonically invalid?  Acceptance by whom?  What if the Church, 90% Arian at one point, had elected and accepted an Arian pope?  You psychologically need to make everything simple ... even when it's not.  That is part of the sedevacantist allure as well.
What if the election wasn't canonically invalid? And try to remember that all indications point to the election not being  canonically invalid. How do we articulate that? I don't need to make everything psychologically simple - it is simple when you accept reality and nix the wild speculations.

See, one of the many problems with sedes and their sympathizers is there has got to be conspiracy theories, the wilder the better. Without conspiracy theories, there would be no sedesim - that's how essential they are to sedevacantism. Theories, opinions and speculations become reality, while reality is ignored and/or rejected.

Reality is, we accept the pope as pope because he was elected same as always. Because his authority on earth is supreme, none on earth can depose him. God said we must be subject to him or we cannot go to heaven.

That is reality - argue it in vain all you like, theorize innumerable conspiratorial speculations all the way to the cosmos if you like, but it will never change simple reality.     
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 22, 2017, 04:27:49 AM
Your view of the Magisterium isn't even remotely Catholic.  Maybe someday YOU will come to accept that.  I've splained this to you many times already.  Pope and hiererarchy exercise Magisterium.  Magisterium is not some static body of truth.  Stubborn decides what's in it and what isn't ... so-called Magisterium-sifting where Stubborn's private judgment becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth.  So such-and-such teaching of V2 goes against past teaching.  How do you know the past teaching wasn't flawed and rightly corrected by V2?  In your theological framework, you don't.
Your admittedly novel idea, "Sededoubtism", proves that even you do not believe your own idea of what the magisterium even is, that and your question demonstrate that you are as confused as most as to what the Magisterium even is.

To answer your question, we know the past teaching wasn't flawed and rightly corrected by V2, precisely because of the Church's Magisterium, which is to say, the Church's teachings, which, unlike the hierarchy, is always infallible and being the faith itself, can only always remain true, never defect. It is through the Church's Magisterium that we know right from wrong, that we know V2 and the NO and all that goes with it is terribly wrong.

For 2000 years prior to V2, the Church taught all those things which we are bound to believe, i.e. "all those things are contained in Scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed" as taught at V1. It does not matter the method, because we are bound to believe them "whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."

You will not find anywhere within the magisterium where we were taught; "to believe all those things only until the year 1965, then reject them all for the new doctrines that will come out at that time".

Yet, though I cannot say for certain, you seem to think that this is what the magisterium is capable of doing or has done, which is absolutely impossible because it is the Magisterium, which is truth itself, and it is the truth that binds us, not 'the method'.

It is 'the method' that people have been led to believe they are bound to, which explains not only sedevacantism, but also why nearly the entire world "believed all those things only until the year 1965, then rejected them all for the new doctrines".
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 22, 2017, 08:29:01 AM
Stubborn, this was never answered yesterday.

Since you have a very high regard for the late Fr. Wathen, we know that he considered (and made the judgment) that Karol Wojtyla was a heretic, atheist, destroyer of the faith, etc...and was the head of a false church or fifth column which resided inside the Catholic Church, while being the head of the Catholic Church too.

How was Fr. Wathen not a supporter of Lumen Gentium? Responsible for advancing this false document? Maybe he was confused?
He definitely thought heretics remained Catholic, which directly contradicts Pope Leo XIII  and St. Augustine....
I have quoted Fr. Wathen saying: "We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable, that’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy."

What is heretical or wrong, or in what way is the above quote from Fr. Wathen not Catholic?

Fr. Wathen believed the wording of certain teachings that said "heretics are not members of the Church" were largely misunderstood. He believed heretics who were baptized remained Catholic by virtue of their baptism, and since they remain Catholics, their sin can be forgiven in the sacrament of Penance - an avenue for forgiveness unavailable to non-Catholics.

This below quote is only a partial quote from Who Shall Ascend?, if this explanation does not suffice, let me know and I will post the whole sub-chapter, which is about 8 pages. (Page 631-638 for those who have the book)  

"Despite the fact that one often sees language which suggests it, one can never cease to be a Catholic: "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," is just as surely true as "once a priest, always a priest," even for all eternity. The mark of the Sacrament of Baptism is just as ineradicable as that of Holy Orders. One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The excommunicated Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven. The Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin. The excommunicated Catholic is in a more serious moral depression than the Catholic who is in the state of sin only. But neither is in the woeful condition of those who are outside the Church. Again, this is one of the reasons why the Catholic should "rejoice always," (Phil. 4:4)., for no matter how terrible his sins, by the "power of the keys," he can be freed of them."



Quote
How is a fifth column inside the Catholic Church any different then saying "subsistit in"?

What makes the Novus Ordo (a false church) any different then a Lutheran church?

I ask these questions because they are unanswered in my mind, and cannot think of a logical reason to find harmony with this position you are taking.

Again I will resort to saying that "the fifth column" is reality, and as reality, it is indisputable. The only dispute ever offered by sedevacantists leaves us without any Church at all - which most assuredly is not reality.

The Novus Ordo false church is different in that it keeps the name Catholic to fool whomever it may, while being humanistic, heretical and Masonic.  

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 09:00:08 AM
Are you aware that a heretic cannot be the pope?

Are you aware that this is merely one opinion ... that SVs have wrongly elevated to the status of dogma?  Some theologians hold that a heretic would indeed remain pope until ministerially deposed, or, rather, declared deposed, by the Church.  Others hold that he would remain pope materially but not formally until materially rejected by the Church.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 09:06:41 AM
It's pointless to argue against Stubborn.  His forum name was well chosen.  He won't listen to reason or argument but simply keeps reiterating the opinions to which he has become emotionally attached.  He's also emotionally attached to Father Wathen ... even though his theory that no one can ever lose membership in the Church through heresy has been absolutely debunked and destroyed.  Stubborn nevertheless clings to it because of his emotional attachment to Father Wathen ... whom he considers more infallible than the Magisterium.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 09:10:50 AM
To answer your question, we know the past teaching wasn't flawed and rightly corrected by V2, precisely because of the Church's Magisterium, which is to say, the Church's teachings, which, unlike the hierarchy, is always infallible and being the faith itself, can only always remain true, never defect. It is through the Church's Magisterium that we know right from wrong, that we know V2 and the NO and all that goes with it is terribly wrong.

So the teaching that came first must be infallible, while a later teaching which contradicts it is not.  That's a very novel Stubbornian theology.  So when the first teaching came out it was infallible, but the subsequent teaching wasn't necessarily infallible.  Got it.  Actually, what this really reduces to is that Stubborn's intellect is infallible.  If Stubborn decides that Vatican II teaching is incompatible with previous teaching, then Stubborn must be correct.  You see, it's Stubborn who ultimately decides what's in the Magisterium and what isn't.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 09:51:08 AM
Having said that, I think the opinion that a pope would remain pope if a heretic is wrong. That indeed would be papolatry - ironically for Stubborn. Because then a man would be elevated above divine dogma, above truth itself.

Well, it's all intertwined with the thorny question of when heresy has been sufficiently discerned.

Scenario 1:

Sedevacantist:  "JP2, you're a heretic."
JP2: "No I'm not.  My position is consistent with Tradition when you apply the proper hermeneutic." [not yet a heretic]
Church:  "We've studied your position and consider it heretical." [not yet a heretic]
JP2: "I disagree." [not yet a heretic]
Church:  "We definitively declare that your position is heretical.  You must retract it." [not yet a heretic]
JP2:  "I retract it." [not a heretic]
OR
JP2:  "I stand by it." [heretic] -- IPSO FACTO DEPOSED ... as per the Bellarmine position.
OR
Church:  "We declare that JP2 is a heretic and it outside the Church; we no longer recognize him as pope." -- DEPOSED DECLARATIVELY BY CHURCH ... as per Cajetan & John of St. Thomas

Scenario 2:
JP2:  "I know that the Church teaches [a dogma].  But I don't believe it anyway." -- IPSO FACTO DEPOSED ... as per the Bellarmine position
[but how often does THIS happen]

Scenario 3:
JP2:  "I don't believe in Catholicism anymore.  I've decided to become a Buddhist." -- IPSO FACTO DEPOSED ... as per the Bellarmine position
[again very unlikely]

Scenario 4:
Joe Catholic:  "JP2 is a heretic." [no longer Pope ... according to many SVs]

Scenario 5:
JP2 says something heretical. [still the Pope]
JP2 says:  "oops, I simply mis-spoke ... stumbled over my words." [still the pope]

In Scenario 1, by far the most common, at some point the Church must discern the heresy and discern that the Pope is guilty of heresy.

Unfortunately, most SVs think that it works like Scenario 4.  That's why you have some SVs declaring Pius XII and even Pius IX non-popes.

Also, look at Scenario 5.  Obviously if someone says a materially heretical thing, he doesn't instantly get deposed.  It could have been a mere stumble over the words.  Take it another step.  The words were deliberate, but JP2 in his confusion had an incorrect understanding of the terms involved and didn't intend heresy.  Take it to the next step.  JP2 understood the terms involved but really thought that his proposition was orthodox.  Then someone [the Church] needs to call him on it.  If he retracts immediately, then it's obvious that there was never any pertinacity there.  So at what point, when someone insists that his propositions are orthodox, does the actual HERESY become "manifest"?  I submit that it's only when the Church calls him on it and he refuses to recant ANYWAY that the pertinacity of his belief becomes manifest.  It's not merely when the objectively heretical proposition was uttered.  And this manifestation doesn't happen without the Church's DISCERNMENT.

So this question is FAR from as simple as most sedevacantists make it out to be, according to the old oversimplified syllogism:

MAJOR 1:  Heretics are not members of the Church.
MAJOR 2:  Non-Members of the Church cannot be Popes.
MINOR:  JP2 uttered a heresy.
CONCLUSION:  JP2 is not pope.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 22, 2017, 09:52:23 AM
Do any of the teachings from Vatican II onward actually require assent and /or obedience (assuming there have been valid popes)?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 10:08:04 AM
Do any of the teachings from Vatican II onward actually require assent and /or obedience (assuming there have been valid popes)?

Yes, I'm pretty sure that they do.  JP2 et al. in fact explicitly called this principle out to the SSPX when dealing with them ... and the protocols that Rome was pushing for the SSPX have always involved the stipulation that the SSPX must agree to give their assent to the V2 Magisterium.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 22, 2017, 10:11:35 AM
Yes, I'm pretty sure that they do.  JP2 et al. in fact explicitly called this principle out to the SSPX when dealing with them ... and the protocols that Rome was pushing for the SSPX have always involved the stipulation that the SSPX must agree to give their assent to the V2 Magisterium.
What would this mean in practice?  And what about the "assent when interpretted in light of tradition" position?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 10:24:41 AM
What would this mean in practice?  And what about the "assent when interpretted in light of tradition" position?

If I recall, when +Lefebvre stated to John Paul II that the SSPX would accept Vatican II when interpreted in the light of Tradition, JP2 reportedly responded with something along the lines of:  "Well, yes, of course."  To Archbishop Lefebvre this meant rejecting parts of Vatican II that were not consistent with Tradition, while JP2 assumed that Vatican II must be considered consistent with Tradition and interpreted accordingly (as opposed to applying interpretations that are not consistent with Tradition).
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 22, 2017, 10:39:29 AM



If I recall, when +Lefebvre stated to John Paul II that the SSPX would accept Vatican II when interpreted in the light of Tradition, JP2 reportedly responded with something along the lines of:  "Well, yes, of course."  To Archbishop Lefebvre this meant rejecting parts of Vatican II that were not consistent with Tradition, while JP2 assumed that Vatican II must be considered consistent with Tradition and interpreted accordingly (as opposed to applying interpretations that are not consistent with Tradition).
Let's say person A accepts V2 interpretted in the light of tradition as Archbishop Lefebvre meant it and person B as JP2 meant it.  What differences would there be in their beliefs and practices?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 10:46:05 AM

Let's say person A accepts V2 interpretted in the light of tradition as Archbishop Lefebvre meant it and person B as JP2 meant it.  What differences would there be in their beliefs and practices?

Person A would reject religious liberty, while Person B would jump through theological hoops to make it sound more like religious tolerance.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 22, 2017, 11:42:45 AM
Person A would reject religious liberty, while Person B would jump through theological hoops to make it sound more like religious tolerance.
Is that the only difference or an example of one of the differences?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 12:16:06 PM
Is that the only difference or an example of one of the differences?

Just an example.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 12:21:30 PM
However, when the idea that a person who rejects Christ can be simultaneously in a state of grace is advanced, we end up with both parties advancing religious liberty. Unfortunately.

Yes, religious liberty derives from this new subjective Pelagian soteriology as well.

How?

If my I am saved due to good will and sincerity, then my sincere adherence to false doctrine can also be salvific.  But I have a right to work towards the salvation of my soul.  So I have a right to adhere to my false doctrines, since it's by way of sincere adherence to them that I am saved.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 22, 2017, 02:57:49 PM
Just an example.
I hope you can expand on this some time when it is convenient.  I am trying to understand the implications of the distinction you made so more examples would be helpful.  

A reminder about my question:


Let's say person A accepts V2 interpretted in the light of tradition as Archbishop Lefebvre meant it and person B as JP2 meant it.  What differences would there be in their beliefs and practices?

Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Clemens Maria on November 22, 2017, 03:28:46 PM
Well, it's all intertwined with the thorny question of when heresy has been sufficiently discerned.

Also, look at Scenario 5.  Obviously if someone says a materially heretical thing, he doesn't instantly get deposed.  It could have been a mere stumble over the words.  Take it another step.  The words were deliberate, but JP2 in his confusion had an incorrect understanding of the terms involved and didn't intend heresy.  Take it to the next step.  JP2 understood the terms involved but really thought that his proposition was orthodox.  Then someone [the Church] needs to call him on it.  If he retracts immediately, then it's obvious that there was never any pertinacity there.  So at what point, when someone insists that his propositions are orthodox, does the actual HERESY become "manifest"?  I submit that it's only when the Church calls him on it and he refuses to recant ANYWAY that the pertinacity of his belief becomes manifest.  It's not merely when the objectively heretical proposition was uttered.  And this manifestation doesn't happen without the Church's DISCERNMENT.

So this question is FAR from as simple as most sedevacantists make it out to be, according to the old oversimplified syllogism:

MAJOR 1:  Heretics are not members of the Church.
MAJOR 2:  Non-Members of the Church cannot be Popes.
MINOR:  JP2 uttered a heresy.
CONCLUSION:  JP2 is not pope.
Can we agree that after 59+ years of modernist insanity swamping the Church that we are not talking about Scenario 5?  Is there anyone that actually believes that this mess was caused by a mere stumbling over words?  Why does this forum exist if it was just a misquote or a inadvertent slip of the tongue?  We can also agree that Scenario 1 never happened.  Very few people believe that Scenario 4 is valid so we can ignore that as insignificant.  So we are talking about Scenario 2 and 3.  Can we prove that happened.  Yes, we can and many have.  These modernists have made known that they know what the Church teaches but they believe they have the power and authority to change that teaching.  So the question is, do they?  Is the modernist Conciliar hierarchy the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?  Every R&R, SV, SP, and home-alone Catholic would answer, no!  The R&R says we recognize but we resist.  That means that in practice they reject the notion that the Conciliar hierarchy is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  And the rest of the traditionalists are self-explanatory.  So who/where is the hierarchy of the Church?  It is the Catholic clergy who refuse to attach themselves to the Conciliar sect.  And while they have not formally/authoritatively declared anyone to be a heretic, they have nevertheless separated from the heretics.  So informally the Church has spoken.  The Conciliarists are heretics.  The only thing to do now is to declare it formally.  We are still waiting for that formal declaration but meanwhile we don't have anything to do with the heretics.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 22, 2017, 03:36:50 PM
It's pointless to argue against Stubborn.  His forum name was well chosen.  He won't listen to reason or argument but simply keeps reiterating the opinions to which he has become emotionally attached.  He's also emotionally attached to Father Wathen ... even though his theory that no one can ever lose membership in the Church through heresy has been absolutely debunked and destroyed.  Stubborn nevertheless clings to it because of his emotional attachment to Father Wathen ... whom he considers more infallible than the Magisterium.
You and your mind reading is ridiculous already oh great one.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 22, 2017, 03:37:17 PM
So the teaching that came first must be infallible, while a later teaching which contradicts it is not.  That's a very novel Stubbornian theology.  So when the first teaching came out it was infallible, but the subsequent teaching wasn't necessarily infallible.  Got it.  Actually, what this really reduces to is that Stubborn's intellect is infallible.  If Stubborn decides that Vatican II teaching is incompatible with previous teaching, then Stubborn must be correct.  You see, it's Stubborn who ultimately decides what's in the Magisterium and what isn't.
You did not read what I wrote. Typical.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 22, 2017, 03:41:19 PM
The whole subject gets my head into a tailspin.

Stubborn:

A heretic is alien to the Church and outside her communion unless he's the pope.
One must be subject to the pope even when he's a heretic.


Now, again: papolatry indeed.

Think I finally got it right.  :laugh1:
It is apparent that you don't know what a heretic is, except you are sure that whatever it is, the pope is one. Same o same o. 
So no, you still haven't got it right.

Being a dogmatic sede, it is impossible for you to think like a Catholic. The whole idea is foreign to you - that much is obvious. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 22, 2017, 03:52:16 PM
I hope you can expand on this some time when it is convenient.  I am trying to understand the implications of the distinction you made so more examples would be helpful.  

A reminder about my question:
.
Another example that comes to mind is from Lumen gentium 8, where it says the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
.
They could have avoided all the confusion by using "is" instead of "subsists in". But never mnd the confusion, they say, this is not confusion, it's makig the text "clearer." So you see, for Modernists, when they muddy the waters they are clearing them up.
.
If you listen to its defenders, they claim that Vat.II didn't change Church teaching with this. They have lots of explanations for why this is the case. Lumen gentium ("LG") was written in 1964, and here in 2007 (43 years later) Zenit has an article that makes it "news" to explain what had happened 43 years prior (these controversies just don't go away):
.
.
.
VATICAN CITY, JULY 10, 2007 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org%20/)).- The Second Vatican Council didn’t change Catholic doctrine on the Church, but rather deepened and developed it, says the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
.
In a document released today the congregation clarifies, in the form of five questions and answers, the understanding of what Vatican II meant by the term “subsists in” with regard to the nature of the Catholic Church.
.
Cardinal William Joseph Levada and Archbishop Angelo Amato, prefect and secretary of the congregation, respectively, signed the brief text June 29, the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul.
.
It is titled “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” and was approved by Benedict XVI.
.
The responses affirm that the “Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change” Catholic doctrine on the Church, but rather “it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.”
.
Quoting Pope Paul VI, the document explains that “what Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach.”
.
It continues: “‘In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation.'”
.
Word choice
.
The text explains the meaning of the term “subsists in,” which is used to describe the nature of the Catholic Church in “Lumen Gentium,” a document of Vatican II. The document states: “The Church of Christ … subsists in the Catholic Church.”
.
The doctrinal congregation explains in the clarification: “Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one Church and instituted it as a ‘visible and spiritual community,’ that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.
.
“This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.”
.
The responses say that “it is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.”
.
The document further explains why the expression “subsists in” was adopted, instead of simply the word “is.”
.
“The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church,” the document affirmed.
.
It continues: “Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside her structure, but which ‘as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel toward Catholic unity.'”
.
.
.
There is another thread here on CI where I read recently that this "elements of sanctification and truth" refer to vestiges of the True Faith, but they choose "elements" instead of "vestiges" because the more accurate term (vestiges) correctly identifies them as dead and therefore lifeless organs that have been stolen from the body of the Church, and once separated they have no life on their own. In order to avoid that clear image, Newchurch deceptively replaces it with "elements," saying they compel toward Catholic unity, when they actually do nothing of the sort, since dead organs do not function.
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Stubborn on November 22, 2017, 04:02:36 PM
The matter in not about the reality, we agree here.

Any false religion is of the devil, we both would agree on this. So, the question is this:  If the Novus Ordo is inside the Catholic Church, what prevents the Jewish synagogues, or Church of Latter day saints being inside also. They are false religions too.
I can only say that it takes time. After +50 years of the loss of faith, perhaps that is one of their goals to bring in the Jews and all false religions in, to "come out" so to speak. It would be one of the fruits of false ecumenism the crooks have been working on for the last 50+ years - and even decades prior to that. 
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 22, 2017, 04:44:03 PM
.
Another example that comes to mind is from Lumen gentium 8, where it says the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
.
They could have avoided all the confusion by using "is" instead of "subsists in". But never mnd the confusion, they say, this is not confusion, it's makig the text "clearer." So you see, for Modernists, when they muddy the waters they are clearing them up.

[...]
There is another thread here on CI where I read recently that this "elements of sanctification and truth" refer to vestiges of the True Faith, but they choose "elements" instead of "vestiges" because the more accurate term (vestiges) correctly identifies them as dead and therefore lifeless organs that have been stolen from the body of the Church, and once separated they have no life on their own. In order to avoid that clear image, Newchurch deceptively replaces it with "elements," saying they compel toward Catholic unity, when they actually do nothing of the sort, since dead organs do not function.
.
Thank you.  Don't both ways of understanding "interpret in light of tradition" get the same result?  One takes "subsists in" as if it meant "is" and one takes "elements" as if it meant "vestiges".
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 22, 2017, 05:15:49 PM
Thank you.  Don't both ways of understanding "interpret in light of tradition" get the same result?  One takes "subsists in" as if it meant "is" and one takes "elements" as if it meant "vestiges".
.
Those are two examples on the same topic. In both cases the traditional doctrine is supported.
.
Removing "subsists in" and replacing it with "is" would make the text more in line with tradition.
Also, in the explanation, using "vestiges" instead of "elements" would make it more traditional.
.
The liberals choose "subsists in" for the document and "elements" to explain it, as if that makes it in accord with tradition, when in fact, they're sneaking in a word that doesn't belong (elements in place of vestiges).
.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: JPaul on November 22, 2017, 05:21:23 PM
If you believe the modernists that they did not intend change Catholic doctrine, you have missed the the last boat off of the island.

They did not intend to follow canonical procedure to change it, they simply stopped teaching the old and started to teach the new.  And prior teaching was now subject to the new "deeper" understanding. (heretical).

The council cannot be "read in the light of Tradition", because is was not written to conform but to overturn Traditional doctrine, and it is a false proposition to say that it can.  Its authors and the concilar popes have admitted to this.
You do not make a document Traditional by reading into it what you want it to say when it was intended to say another thing.To think that you can and make everything alright is an error.

The conciliar church is a heresy because it is built upon ecumenism which is a grave heresy, in that it denies that the Church of God is present in the world. It instead proposes that the Church broken and in pieces and will only be whole and present when thew parts of the Truth which are contained in the various Christian sect and the other religions unite to bring it together.

Lumen Gentium is not ambiguous it is heretical on its face, and in its words and intent.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: JPaul on November 22, 2017, 05:28:19 PM
.
Those are two examples on the same topic. In both cases the traditional doctrine is supported.
.
Removing "subsists in" and replacing it with "is" would make the text more in line with tradition.
Also, in the explanation, using "vestiges" instead of "elements" would make it more traditional.
.
The liberals choose "subsists in" for the document and "elements" to explain it, as if that makes it in accord with tradition, when in fact, they're sneaking in a word that doesn't belong (elements in place of vestiges).
.
It was not the words that they were sneaking in, the unsuitable words were used to sneak in heterodox ideas, False ideas as a subtext to the seemingly awkward words on the page.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 05:46:47 PM
Can we agree that after 59+ years of modernist insanity swamping the Church that we are not talking about Scenario 5?  Is there anyone that actually believes that this mess was caused by a mere stumbling over words?
Of course.  :laugh1:  

I only threw that out there as an illustration in principle of the complexity of this issue ... the need to understand when HERESY becomes MANIFEST.  I say something heretical in public ... is that MANIFEST HERESY of the kind that would cause deposition?

In any case, I see us as having been in the midst of Scenario 1 fwith JP2 and B16.  With Francis Bergoglio, however, I could see someone making a case for #2.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 22, 2017, 05:53:28 PM
.
Those are two examples on the same topic. In both cases the traditional doctrine is supported.
.
Removing "subsists in" and replacing it with "is" would make the text more in line with tradition.
Also, in the explanation, using "vestiges" instead of "elements" would make it more traditional.
.
The liberals choose "subsists in" for the document and "elements" to explain it, as if that makes it in accord with tradition, when in fact, they're sneaking in a word that doesn't belong (elements in place of vestiges).
.
I think I understand that.  I am trying to get my head around the distinction that Ladislaus was making between two different ways of understanding what the expression "interpret in light of tradition" means.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Jaynek on November 22, 2017, 05:55:28 PM
If you believe the modernists that they did not intend change Catholic doctrine, you have missed the the last boat off of the island.
Even I can tell that.  
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 22, 2017, 05:56:14 PM
If you believe the modernists that they did not intend [to] change Catholic doctrine, you have missed the the last boat off of the island.

They did not intend to follow canonical procedure to change it, they simply stopped teaching the old and started to teach the new.  And prior teaching was now subject to the new "deeper" understanding. (heretical).

The council cannot be "read in the light of Tradition", because is was not written to conform but to overturn Traditional doctrine, and it is a false proposition to say that it can.  Its authors and the conciliar popes have admitted to this.

You do not make a document Traditional by reading into it what you want it to say when it was intended to say another thing. To think that you can and make everything all right is an error.

The conciliar church is a heresy because it is built upon ecumenism which is a grave heresy, in that it denies that the Church of God is present in the world. It instead proposes that the Church [is] broken and in pieces and will only be whole and present when the parts of the Truth which are contained in the various Christian [sects] and the other religions unite to bring it together.

Lumen Gentium is not ambiguous it is heretical on its face, and in its words and intent.
.
Certainly LG was written with the intent to deceive -- and their scheme of deception included imprecise language that would hide their real objective. One way of attempting to make the best of it (which is really a waste of time, but anyway...) is to accuse this "seemingly awkward text" of being ambiguous, and then endeavoring to clear it up by using more traditional vocabulary. 
.
That's a nice intention, but it amounts to making a silk purse of a sow's ear. The authors deliberately chose awkward vocabulary in order to deceive, and in order to drag novelties into the Church right in the open for all to see. 
.
It seems to me that the only way of overcoming its defects and error is to trash the whole thing, not to attempt to fix it.
.
It was not the words that they were sneaking in, the unsuitable words were used to sneak in heterodox ideas, False ideas as a subtext to the seemingly awkward words on the page.
.
quote author=JPaul link=topic=46893.msg580451#msg580451 date=1511393299



Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 07:13:28 PM
.
Those are two examples on the same topic. In both cases the traditional doctrine is supported.
.
Removing "subsists in" and replacing it with "is" would make the text more in line with tradition.
Also, in the explanation, using "vestiges" instead of "elements" would make it more traditional.
.
The liberals choose "subsists in" for the document and "elements" to explain it, as if that makes it in accord with tradition, when in fact, they're sneaking in a word that doesn't belong (elements in place of vestiges).
.

Ah, but "subsists" makes perfect sense if you believe, as most Traditional Catholics do, that non-Catholics and infidels can indeed be within the Church.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 07:15:33 PM
The council cannot be "read in the light of Tradition", because is was not written to conform but to overturn Traditional doctrine, and it is a false proposition to say that it can. 

Ha, I can read EVERY SINGLE WORD of Vatican II as completely Traditional if I hold the BoDer ecclesiology that most Traditional Catholics have.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: JPaul on November 22, 2017, 07:43:11 PM
.
Certainly LG was written with the intent to deceive -- and their scheme of deception included imprecise language that would hide their real objective. One way of attempting to make the best of it (which is really a waste of time, but anyway...) is to accuse this "seemingly awkward text" of being ambiguous, and then endeavoring to clear it up by using more traditional vocabulary.
.
That's a nice intention, but it amounts to making a silk purse of a sow's ear. The authors deliberately chose awkward vocabulary in order to deceive, and in order to drag novelties into the Church right in the open for all to see.
.
It seems to me that the only way of overcoming its defects and error is to trash the whole thing, not to attempt to fix it.
..
quote author=JPaul link=topic=46893.msg580451#msg580451 date=1511393299
That is precisely the point, it cannot be fixed.  The only sound thing to do is to reject the council in toto. To accept that it is a legitimate council of the Church and then pick and choose line by line what you will reject is schismatic.
It would need to be rewritten and codified in clear Traditional language which means the whole of it is unnecessary and void. The council is a manifesto against the Catholic Religion and essentially a declaration of war against Christ's Doctrine.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: JPaul on November 22, 2017, 07:46:38 PM
Ha, I can read EVERY SINGLE WORD of Vatican II as completely Traditional if I hold the BoDer ecclesiology that most Traditional Catholics have.
Yes, it has triumphed over Traditional ecclesiology and the Catholic world swept away with salvation outside of the Church and the sacraments.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 08:02:10 PM
I hope you can expand on this some time when it is convenient.  I am trying to understand the implications of the distinction you made so more examples would be helpful.  

A reminder about my question:

I'll try.  I can't think of more examples off the top of my head.  Religious Liberty is the big one that most Traditional Catholics use.  There's Ecumenism but that's more a practical thing ... except with regard to the underlying ecclesiology.  Now, MOST of it revolves around ecclesiology.  And IMO V2 ecclesiology is perfectly Traditional if you hold the same ecclesiology that most Traditional Catholics still hold and which was quite prevalent even right before Vatican II.  That's the whole Father Feeney question; Father Feeney saw it well before it manifested itself in V2.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Clemens Maria on November 22, 2017, 10:28:01 PM
Well, if P6 hadn't replaced the sacraments with pseudo-sacraments there would be no traditional Catholic movement.  The only guy to publicly resist V2 prior to 1968 was Francis Shuckhardt who formed a traditional religious congregation and publicly declared his belief that the Holy See was vacant.  It was only after they started messing with the sacraments that a significant movement began.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Clemens Maria on November 22, 2017, 10:32:11 PM
Ironically, almost all of Fr. Feeney's followers accept the validity of the new pseudo-sacraments.  If I'm not mistaken only the West Coast branch reject the new sacraments.  What's the point of insisting on a strict interpretation of EENS if "for many" is equivalent to "for all"?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Cantarella on November 22, 2017, 10:37:23 PM
Ironically, almost all of Fr. Feeney's followers accept the validity of the new pseudo-sacraments.  If I'm not mistaken only the West Coast branch reject the new sacraments.  
There are a few of us who no longer do. This in regards to Confirmation, Eucharist, Extreme Unction, & Orders.

West Coast here  :)
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 23, 2017, 09:28:01 AM
Well, if P6 hadn't replaced the sacraments with pseudo-sacraments there would be no traditional Catholic movement.  The only guy to publicly resist V2 prior to 1968 was Francis Shuckhardt who formed a traditional religious congregation and publicly declared his belief that the Holy See was vacant.  It was only after they started messing with the sacraments that a significant movement began.

You're right of course.  Because that's where the average person experiences the Faith ... in the Mass and Sacraments.  Otherwise obscure theological issues such as "ecclesiology" would not have registered with the average layman.  People see clown Masses and immediately react.  I myself would probably never have become a Traditional Catholic were it not for the liturgical aberrations in my NO parish.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Ladislaus on November 23, 2017, 09:30:27 AM
Ironically, almost all of Fr. Feeney's followers accept the validity of the new pseudo-sacraments.  If I'm not mistaken only the West Coast branch reject the new sacraments.  What's the point of insisting on a strict interpretation of EENS if "for many" is equivalent to "for all"?

I don't.  I consider a couple of them to be doubtful ... most signficantly the episcopal consecration.  As for the Mass, I think that now that the English speaking world has gone back to "for many" ... I think that the Mass could very well be valid, if offered by a valid priest ... especially when using "Anaphora" I, which is almost identical to the Tridentine Canon.  But now that you have a whole generation of priests ordained by bishops who were consecrated in the new rite, everything is a toss up.
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: Alcuin on December 04, 2017, 03:52:28 AM
I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sexual morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!

So, did you come to any conclusions after reading all the responses?
Title: Re: I am considering sedevacantism
Post by: 2Vermont on December 04, 2017, 04:26:49 AM
So, did you come to any conclusions after reading all the responses?
Conclusions?   This was his one and only post on the site and he hasn't been online since the day after he posted it.