Author Topic: I am considering sedevacantism (Read 23471 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #375 on:** November 21, 2017, 06:14:12 PM »

Quote from: GJC on November 21, 2017, 06:01:57 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?

sean1846 · « **Reply #376 on:** November 21, 2017, 07:53:45 PM »

Quote from: 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 sɛҳuąƖ 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

Stubborn · « **Reply #377 on:** November 22, 2017, 03:29:10 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 05:51:56 PM

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #378 on:** November 22, 2017, 04:27:49 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 21, 2017, 06:08:33 PM

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".

Stubborn · « **Reply #379 on:** November 22, 2017, 08:29:01 AM »

Quote from: GJC on November 22, 2017, 07:03:46 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 docuмent? 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #380 on:** November 22, 2017, 09:00:08 AM »

Quote from: sean1846 on November 21, 2017, 07:53:45 PM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #381 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #382 on:** November 22, 2017, 09:10:50 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on November 22, 2017, 04:27:49 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #383 on:** November 22, 2017, 09:51:08 AM »

Quote from: tornpage on November 22, 2017, 09:22:51 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.

Jaynek · « **Reply #384 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)?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #385 on:** November 22, 2017, 10:08:04 AM »

Quote from: 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)?

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.

Jaynek · « **Reply #386 on:** November 22, 2017, 10:11:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 10:08:04 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?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #387 on:** November 22, 2017, 10:24:41 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on November 22, 2017, 10:11:35 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).

Jaynek · « **Reply #388 on:** November 22, 2017, 10:39:29 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 22, 2017, 10:24:41 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?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #389 on:** November 22, 2017, 10:46:05 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on November 22, 2017, 10:39:29 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.

Author Topic: I am considering sedevacantism (Read 23471 times)

2Vermont

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

sean1846

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Stubborn

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Stubborn

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Stubborn

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Jaynek

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Jaynek

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Jaynek

Re: I am considering sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: I am considering sedevacantism