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

Author Topic: If I were not a Sedevacantist  (Read 2263 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MyrnaM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6273
  • Reputation: +3629/-347
  • Gender: Female
    • Myforever.blog/blog
If I were not a Sedevacantist
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2016, 03:53:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Very predictable nonsense.

    What else can be expected from a man who believes that "Feeneyites" are outside the Church?

    (while at the same time maintaining that non-Catholics can be saved by last minute BOD, just as much as the "conciliar anti-Popes")

    Cekadian sede logic  :rolleyes:


    According to your pope Cantarella everyone is saved, so take care of your own house.  

    Here is another link, enjoy!
    http://traditioninaction.org/movies/028_Bowie.htm
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11422
    • Reputation: +6384/-1119
    • Gender: Female
    If I were not a Sedevacantist
    « Reply #16 on: January 14, 2016, 04:12:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Oh come off it - that video is the stupidest sede video I can remember ever seeing.


    I have to agree here though.  It's an incredibly weak video simply assuming all the principles of dogmatic sedevacantism ... so it doesn't prove anything but is completely circular.


    Some will be surprised to hear me say that I too think this is a weak video.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    If I were not a Sedevacantist
    « Reply #17 on: January 14, 2016, 04:30:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From the blog Catholic Truth: http://catholictruthblog.com/2016/01/14/whos-afraid-of-sedevacantism/

    Who’s Afraid of Sedevacantism? A response to Father Cekada.

    Quote

    ...Rather than Traditionalists fearing Sedevacantism, it seems that those holding the opinion rather fear the complexity of the crisis God has willed to permit His Church undergo. Rather than the arduous work of sifting through the confusion that has been coming out of the Vatican and chanceries for decades and applying certain Catholic principles to make proper distinctions between legitimate commands and those that lack authority, the opinion of Sedevacantism proposes an alluring simple black and white solution that avoids this difficult work of discernment. Like Conciliar Catholics who unthinkingly accept everything coming out of the Vatican press office, Sedevacantists take an analogous approach of accepting nothing. In different ways both avoid the more arduous path. Traditionalists who hold fast to the principle of discernment have nothing to fear. If Jorge Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ, they will render obedience when required, if he legitimately commands what is in harmony with higher law, and they will withhold obedience when he exceeds his authority. They will therefore not be led into erroneous actions.

    If we learn from the Church someday that he was not a legitimate pope, then we still have nothing to fear. We will have only obeyed commands that are consistent with Divine and Natural Law and we will have made merely an error in factual judgment. We acknowledged a Man who has been accepted as the pope by Catholics throughout the world. We know from the Great Schism that merely being wrong about this factual issue in the context of confusing times does not separate one from the Church of Rome. Canonized saints were incorrect in their assessment of who in fact was the legitimate pope. Thus, we have nothing to fear if someday the Church adjudicates that one or more of the Men of the post Conciliar era were not legitimate popes. We will have held fast to the truths of the Faith and refused any command contrary to Divine or Natural Law and shown ourselves willing to submit to the legitimate authority.

    Yet, as we shall see, the longer the crisis in the Church continues the less plausible is the opinion that each and every Man since 1958 has been an antipope (even if perhaps one or the other might have been). Rather, it is those holding the Sedevacantist opinion who should fear the state of affairs they hold to be true. If it were true that no pope has reigned since John XXIII, there are no valid Cardinals, and there is no Roman clergy (by definition if there is no bishop to validly and legitimately ordain and incardinate them into the Roman church), then the Church in her essential nature would have defected. There would be no method for continuing the Roman Church or the election of a new pope. The Sedevacantist opinion was more plausible in the early 1970s when there were pre-Conciliar Cardinals who could restore the papacy (or at least a Roman clergy to elect a pope according to prior practice). The longer the crisis continues the less plausible becomes the Sedevacantist opinion that none of the popes since 1958 have held office because the methods consistent with the Church’s Constitution for a valid papal election become impossible to achieve.




    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3629/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    If I were not a Sedevacantist
    « Reply #18 on: January 14, 2016, 04:30:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I thought the video says exactly what it would be like to NOT accept the sedevacantist position, maybe it was just too simple for some.  Reminds me of when I was in High School and the nuns were telling us students about Fatima and the Peace Plan from Heaven, Our Lady brought us, (Daily rosary, daily duty, Penance ...) the nuns told us it was too simple for the "enlightened" ones, the leaders of the world to understand.  Thus we have what we have today, everything except peace.  

    What we see here on this forum and all over the world is nothing but confusion regarding the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church and that is a CONSEQUENCE OF HAVING NO POPE.    
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    If I were not a Sedevacantist
    « Reply #19 on: January 14, 2016, 04:40:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: MyrnaM
    I thought the video says exactly what it would be like to NOT accept the sedevacantist position, maybe it was just too simple for some.  Reminds me of when I was in High School and the nuns were telling us students about Fatima and the Peace Plan from Heaven, Our Lady brought us, (Daily rosary, daily duty, Penance ...) the nuns told us it was too simple for the "enlightened" ones, the leaders of the world to understand.  Thus we have what we have today, everything except peace.  


    Father Cekada recently released a video entitled “Why Traditionalists Fear Sedevacantism” as a response to the oncoming book by R&R Salza and Siscoe. Rather than demonstrating that Traditionalists fear Sedevacantism, Father Cekada’s remarks suggest that he fears Traditionalists critiques of Sedevacantism. He focuses in ad hominems and oversimplifications, instead of sound theological arguments, as the posted article explains, and this poor - quality, highly emotional video confirms.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Desmond

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 623
    • Reputation: +13/-28
    • Gender: Male
    If I were not a Sedevacantist
    « Reply #20 on: January 14, 2016, 04:45:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella


    Quote

    ...Rather than Traditionalists fearing Sedevacantism, it seems that those holding the opinion rather fear the complexity of the crisis God has willed to permit His Church undergo. Rather than the arduous work of sifting through the confusion that has been coming out of the Vatican and chanceries for decades and applying certain Catholic principles to make proper distinctions between legitimate commands and those that lack authority, the opinion of Sedevacantism proposes an alluring simple black and white solution that avoids this difficult work of discernment. Like Conciliar Catholics who unthinkingly accept everything coming out of the Vatican press office, Sedevacantists take an analogous approach of accepting nothing. In different ways both avoid the more arduous path. Traditionalists who hold fast to the principle of discernment have nothing to fear. If Jorge Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ, they will render obedience when required, if he legitimately commands what is in harmony with higher law, and they will withhold obedience when he exceeds his authority. They will therefore not be led into erroneous actions.

    If we learn from the Church someday that he was not a legitimate pope, then we still have nothing to fear. We will have only obeyed commands that are consistent with Divine and Natural Law and we will have made merely an error in factual judgment. We acknowledged a Man who has been accepted as the pope by Catholics throughout the world. We know from the Great Schism that merely being wrong about this factual issue in the context of confusing times does not separate one from the Church of Rome. Canonized saints were incorrect in their assessment of who in fact was the legitimate pope. Thus, we have nothing to fear if someday the Church adjudicates that one or more of the Men of the post Conciliar era were not legitimate popes. We will have held fast to the truths of the Faith and refused any command contrary to Divine or Natural Law and shown ourselves willing to submit to the legitimate authority.

    Yet, as we shall see, the longer the crisis in the Church continues the less plausible is the opinion that each and every Man since 1958 has been an antipope (even if perhaps one or the other might have been). Rather, it is those holding the Sedevacantist opinion who should fear the state of affairs they hold to be true. If it were true that no pope has reigned since John XXIII, there are no valid Cardinals, and there is no Roman clergy (by definition if there is no bishop to validly and legitimately ordain and incardinate them into the Roman church), then the Church in her essential nature would have defected. There would be no method for continuing the Roman Church or the election of a new pope. The Sedevacantist opinion was more plausible in the early 1970s when there were pre-Conciliar Cardinals who could restore the papacy (or at least a Roman clergy to elect a pope according to prior practice). The longer the crisis continues the less plausible becomes the Sedevacantist opinion that none of the popes since 1958 have held office because the methods consistent with the Church’s Constitution for a valid papal election become impossible to achieve.






    While I do not know Cekada and probably disagree with him on most things,
    I have to say this is complete nonsense through and through.

    Offline McCork

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 626
    • Reputation: +10/-31
    • Gender: Male
    If I were not a Sedevacantist
    « Reply #21 on: January 16, 2016, 05:08:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The OP isn't actually convincing, because it doesn't really support WHY one should believe those statements made. But without the support, the statements can be true nevertheless.

    Here is the support for this. A quote by Pope St. Pius X in 1912:

    “When one loves the pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation.  When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public docuмents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext – easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey - that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope.  Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope.”
     
    St Pius X, to the priests of the Apostolic Union, 18th November 1912,  AAS 1912, p. 695.