Taken from this thread: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Are-Sedevacantists-Catholic

Just for starters, Sedevacantists *want*, or will to be Catholic.

Quote

I know plenty of Old Catholics who want or will to be Catholic. They just follow a different path because Rome apostatized after the heretical Vatican I Council.

I know even more Eastern Orthodox Christians who claim to be the One, True, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church. They will and want to be Catholic. They just take a different path because Rome apostatized in 1054 after the papist heresy. The papist heretics even changed the Nicene Creed!!

I know plenty of "Novus Ordo Catholics" who want and will to be Catholic. They pray the family rosary everyday (no luminous mysteries). They go to parishes with no altar girls and no communion in the hand. They observe the traditional fast days. They receive communion kneeling and on the tongue. The ones in Nigeria even crawl on their knees up the isle! They have parish priests wearing cassocks and birettas, and have "Ratzingerian" Masses (Latin, ad orientum, Gregorian chant, etc.). They just take a different path because they believe Rome cannot apostatize.


Serious part of the thread:

What makes a Catholic, "Catholic"?

If it's the claim to orthodoxy while being outside the visible structure of the Roman Church (e.g. Orthodox and Old Catholics) because the Roman Church fell into apostasy, then aren't sedevacantists in the same boat as the Orthodox or the Old Catholics?

You are right that sedevacantists look like those other groups. The only difference is that this time, Rome did lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist.

You are right that sedevacantists look like those other groups. The only difference is that this time, Rome did lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist.

As they say, "There's a first time for everything."

Just like survivalism -- when you or I start making preparations for the coming collapse, people might say, "What are you doing? People have been wrong about the end of the world for years!"

And I would respond, "Yes, they were wrong. Only this time, it unfortunately IS the end of the world as we know it."

Just because the Old Catholics got it wrong after Vatican I doesn't mean that we didn't get it right after Vatican II.

Similarity, things seeming to echo, or even being superficially similar, means nothing.

If I had a single alcoholic drink, it would be similar to one of the drinks consumed by a drunkard at the bar. Nevermind the fact that for me it's only one drink, I'm not keeping bad company, I won't be getting drunk, I'm not spending my last dollar on alcohol, etc.

Old "Catholics" are not Catholic. Off the top of my head, they ordain women as "priests"; and they reject the papacy - meaning the Seat of Peter as revealed to us in Matt 16: 16-19, NOT the Dope who currently sits in it, at least materially.  Sedes reject Frank as pope, but Sedes are truly Catholic because they still accept the papacy - whether it is occupied or not occupied.

This is simply ridiculous.

Informed Catholics know better.  The very idea is intellectually offensive, and can only be put forth if one is actually ignorant to what they're trying to argue against.

Old Catholics, Orthodox Schismatics and whatever other non-Catholic sects one wishes to bring up are non-Catholic because of a particular heresy and/or schism.

What specific heresy does sedevacantism express?  Which de fide teaching(s) do(es) it doubt or deny?

You are right that sedevacantists look like those other groups. The only difference is that this time, Rome did lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist.

Isn't that what Martin Luther taught?

Sedevacantists are faithful Catholics who refused to go along with the Vatican II revolutions or were born after and, by the grace of God, remained true to the Faith of Our Fathers!
Sedevacantism is nothing more than loyalty to the Catholic Church from 33 ad to 1959.   Was there something wrong with that Catholicism?  Why did Pope John XXIII lend the keys to the haters of the Catholic Church?  Why did Paul VI think the Faith of Our Fathers was something we all needed to be cut free from?

Eastern Orthodox are faithful Catholics who refused to go along with the Toledo I revolutions or were born after and, by the grace of God, remained true to the Faith of Our Fathers!

Eastern Orthodoxy is nothing more than loyalty to the Catholic Church from 33 ad to 1054 ad.   Was there something wrong with that Catholicism?  Why did Pope Leo III lend the keys to the haters of the Catholic Church?  Why did Benedict XIII think the Creed of Our Nicene Fathers was something we all needed to be cut free from?

You are right that sedevacantists look like those other groups. The only difference is that this time, Rome did lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist.

As they say, "There's a first time for everything."
Just like survivalism -- when you or I start making preparations for the coming collapse, people might say, "What are you doing? People have been wrong about the end of the world for years!"
And I would respond, "Yes, they were wrong. Only this time, it unfortunately IS the end of the world as we know it."
[/quote]


The history of mankind is filled with natural disasters and economic collapses, but the complete apostasy of the Catholic Church? Unless you're a protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic, etc. it never happened.

The visible church becoming invisible like the protestants claim? If the SSPX have 100,000 laymen in total and there are 1 billion Catholics in the world, that means they're only .01% of the entire Church (correct my math if it's wrong). The sedevacantists groups are even smaller, the CMRI has roughly 30 priests compared to the roughly 600 priests of the SSPX. Sedevacantists might be .001% at best, that's microscopic. Where's the visibility of the church in that?

And if I recall correctly, the Old Catholics joined the Anglican Communion. If you know of an SV who did that, give me a holler.

I think the Polish National Church is independent.

This is simply ridiculous.
Informed Catholics know better.  The very idea is intellectually offensive, and can only be put forth if one is actually ignorant to what they're trying to argue against.
Old Catholics, Orthodox Schismatics and whatever other non-Catholic sects one wishes to bring up are non-Catholic because of a particular heresy and/or schism.
What specific heresy does sedevacantism express?  Which de fide teaching(s) do(es) it doubt or deny?

Like Protestant and Eastern Schismatics, the Sedevacantists are divided and it's hard to pinpoint one thing they have in common. I'm not making these arguments, but one could argue things like Baptism of Desire, a heretical interpretation of Religious Liberty, heretical interpretation of Papal Infallibility, heretical interpretation of Vatican II in general, and so forth. Also there are problems with disobedience to a valid pope (Pius XII) by not using a validly promulgated missal.

-Not having separated one's self via heresy, apostasy or schism

If the pope is the pope then sedevacantists are schismatic. If the pope isn't the pope, and the new rites are invalid, the entire visible Church defected and we're as invisible as a protestant sect. Most people don't even know about the existence of the SSPX, let alone sedevacantists. If that's the case than the Eastern Orthodox have a much better claim at visibility than the invisible Catholic Church.

Quote from: Matto

You are right that sedevacantists look like those other groups. The only difference is that this time, Rome did lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist.

Isn't that what Martin Luther taught?

I'm not sure about Luther but I'm pretty sure Tyndale did.