Author Topic: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"? (Read 2923 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #15 on:** May 09, 2017, 01:00:53 PM »

Quote from: Catholictrue on May 09, 2017, 11:25:45 AM

You didn’t say that they believe all such people are in “material heresy”. No, you said that they believe all such people are “heretics”. However, after you were called out for your false statement, now you are dishonestly pretending like you only meant that they believe all such people hold a heretical position but are not necessarily guilty.

I used the term heresy unqualified ... referring to objective heresy. You can then distinguish between formal vs. material heretics. In order to have been "misleading and inaccurate" I would have had to state that the Dimonds consider them all to be formal heretics. Sometimes a little bit of logic can help.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #16 on:** May 09, 2017, 02:36:53 PM »

Quote

The Dimonds and MHFM ... hold that those who obstinately accept the Vatican II antipopes (i.e. in the face of the evidence) are heretics.

Ok, here's a few questions that I have, that i've never gotten an answer to, from any Sede.
1. What does "accepting" a papacy mean? This needs to be defined VERY well, for it's open to a LOT of interpretation.
2. Does rejecting a papacy allow you to split the papacy between the spiritual and temporal powers? (i.e. spiritually, a heretical pope loses office, but he still holds the temporal office of governance, until removed by a council?...which is probably what is happening today).
3. Does the "rejecting" of a bad pope happen in the internal forum only (i.e. mental) or must it be public?
4. If public rejection is required, how often? By what means? Do I have to tell someone? Do I have to start a website? Take a blood oath?
5. What if I change my mind or waffle in the decision?  Must I go to confession? What would i confess?
6.  Does rejecting a V2 pope restrict me from attending any Trad masses?
     a. Assuming you believe that an 'una cuм' mass is wrong, then the answer is "yes, you can only go to masses where the priest does NOT pray in union with the pope".
     b. If you don't believe that the 'una cuм' prayer affects the morality of a mass, then the answer has to be "No, you can go to any valid tridentine mass".
7. Most importantly, where in canon law does it require any catholic to make a determination on the papacy, with moral consequences?
     a. Where in the catechism is anyone taught this requirement?
     b. HOW does one properly discern such things? Is there a theology manual somewhere? What rules govern this decision?

songbird · « **Reply #17 on:** May 09, 2017, 04:13:53 PM »

What if the tables were turned? The Papacy rejects Christ. Then what? Look at what happened in Europe. Bolshevik Communism forcefully takes over Catholic Churches, takes out the real priests, bishops and replaces them with Bolshevik communism which serves the state and gov't. It is a dog and pony show, right? The Pope at this time, Pope Pius XI said to the world, "Anyone who follows them (parishioners) (clergy who says yes, don't murder me) anyone who uses a pen to support B.C. is excommunicated.

Where are we now? Anyone/ who claims to be clergy who says the New Order Mess, is rejecting Christ, IS excommunicated! Also find definitions under Vatican I. Definition for pope. Who can not be nominated and such. In order to have Infallibility of Pope, it was necessary to define pope.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #18 on:** May 09, 2017, 05:31:51 PM »

Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

I can answer that.

It's an adjective originated by people infected with some Liberal mindframe, who are annoyed that sedevacantists are so certain and vocal about a serious conclusion, that it makes them feel like their being accused of being rotten for not accepting it. So, they sort of accuse the sedevacantists of being "dogmatic" because in their mind being such is rotten.

TKGS · « **Reply #19 on:** May 09, 2017, 07:11:03 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 09, 2017, 02:36:53 PM

Ok, here's a few questions that I have, that i've never gotten an answer to, from any Sede.
1. What does "accepting" a papacy mean? This needs to be defined VERY well, for it's open to a LOT of interpretation.

First, I will say that if you have never gotten answers to most of these questions from Sedevacantists, then you have closed your ears and eyes anytime you've heard or seen something that a sedevacantist says or writes.
Second, you ask for a specific definition, but I'm not even sure what you are asking. I don't want to answer your question until you define exactly what it is you are asking.
You put "accepting" in quotes, and you ask us about accepting the office of the papacy. What is it you are really asking here? There really is a difference between the papacy and a papal claimant, the office and the man. So, what is it, specifically, that you are asking here?
If, we can agree on common definitions and fully understand each other, perhaps we can go on to further questions.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 09, 2017, 09:47:19 PM »

Quote from: TKGS on May 09, 2017, 12:05:27 PM

The Church used different terminology. Essentially, saying someone is a "dogmatic something" is a neologism. You might say that someone who is divorced and remarried but thinks this is completely compatible with Catholic doctrine is a "dogmatic adulterer". Someone who believes that Lutheranism is the true faith is a "dogmatic Lutheran".

You only find a variety of opinions because there is no standard definition that one could look up in a Catholic Encyclopedia or even Webster's Dictionary. The term, on any given forum, means whatever the particular forum owner says it means. My understanding is that Ladislaus gave an accurate definition for CathInfo. If you go to another forum, it may have a slightly different meaning. If you wish to use it in casual conversation at home, you'll have to assign it precise meaning. Until a precise meaning becomes more generally accepted, this is the status of the term.

In any event, don't look to the Church for a definition because the Church never gave one.

I'm definitely confused. First you said the Church used different terminology, then you said the term is a novelty. What terminology did the Church use previously? Where can a Catholic read about it ??

TKGS · « **Reply #21 on:** May 10, 2017, 06:29:10 AM »

Quote from: saintbosco13 on May 09, 2017, 09:47:19 PM

I'm definitely confused. First you said the Church used different terminology, then you said the term is a novelty. What terminology did the Church use previously? Where can a Catholic read about it ??

The Church used the terms: heresy, schism, apostasy, and sin. When it used the term, dogmatic, it was in reference to dogma. Using dogmatic to refer to evils is a novelty. You can read about these terms in any good pre-Vatican 2 catechism.

cassini · « **Reply #22 on:** May 10, 2017, 11:20:07 AM »

Quote from: saintbosco13 on May 09, 2017, 11:52:53 AM

I've seen a few opinions posted so far, but I'm looking for something from the Church - something from a General Council, encyclical, catechism or book with imprimatur possibly? Where does the Church warn the faithful being "dogmatic" or something similar?

I suspect today's sedevacantism, that is, presuming a pope who utters heretical statements all the time, is a theological conclusion, similar to Limbo. However, such a conclusion can lead to big problems in our understanding of the Catholic Church. As I understand it, much as I would like to be able to judge him an anti-pope, that is reserved in the Church to another pope or a council.
Then again I read recently of some calling sedevacantism itself a heresy. Another said it is probably an error, 'but an error is not the same as a heresy.' If Sedevacantists were heretics, what would we have to maker of St Vincent Ferrer, probably the greatest saint of the fifteenth century, and a man who spent most of his life backing the anti-pope Clement VII who lived at Avignon in France. while Catherine of Sienna supported Pope Urban VI in Rome. Would the Church have canonised St Vincent Ferrer in 1455 if his sedevacantism towards Urban VI was considered heresy or anti-Catholic.
Finally, I think if I opened a list for 'emotional sedevacantists' today I could not keep up with the applicants.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #23 on:** May 10, 2017, 12:48:27 PM »

Let's consider two different scenarios:

1. A Catholic named John informs his Catholic friend Tom that he would be ipso facto excommunicated should he join the local Freemason Lodge. Should Tom consider this a hostile statement and refer to John as a "dogmatic so-and-so"? Of course not - Tom would simply go and confirm what the Church has taught on the matter. Once Tom sees that the Church did indeed teach this, he would be thankful to John for pointing it out. Now if John later sees his friend Tom's name on the Freemason member list in town and sees Tom attending regular meetings at the local Lodge, John can believe with certainty that his friend Tom has been ipso facto excommunicated because that's what the Church teaches.

2. A Catholic named John informs his Catholic friend Tom that a pope would be ipso facto no longer a pope or a Catholic should he manifestly teach heresy. Should Tom consider this a hostile statement and refer to John as a "dogmatic so-and-so"? Of course not - Tom would simply go and confirm what the Church has taught on the matter. Once Tom sees that the Church has taught this repeatedly, he would be thankful to John for pointing it out. Now if John or Tom later sees the man calling himself the pope teaching manifest heresy, they can both believe with absolute confidence that the man is no longer Pope or Catholic because that's what the Church teaches.

In both scenarios above, the Church teaches the excommunication and loss of office occur ipso facto, which means by the very fact, automatically, without sentence of law. So where in the above scenarios is John to be considered "dogmatic", heretical, or a danger to the Church?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #24 on:** May 10, 2017, 12:57:02 PM »

"ipso facto" excommunicants receive the spiritual punishment immediately, but the temporal punishment must still come from the church, along with a hearing, trial, etc, per Canon law. Distinguish, distinguish, DISTINGUISH!

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #25 on:** May 10, 2017, 01:20:31 PM »

Quote

Pax Vobis said:
What does "accepting" a papacy mean? This needs to be defined VERY well, for it's open to a LOT of interpretation.

TKGS said:
...What is it you are really asking here? There really is a difference between the papacy and a papal claimant, the office and the man. So, what is it, specifically, that you are asking here? If, we can agree on common definitions and fully understand each other, perhaps we can go on to further questions.

What I'm asking is the following:
1) How does the pope lose his office in a FORMAL manner? Where does the Church explain (in concrete, "operating procedure" style) what to do with a heretic pope?
A. She does not. We have opinions from theologians and declarations from popes explaining that a bad pope would excommunicate himself SPIRITUALLY, but we have no ACTUAL, PHYSICAL guidelines to deal with such a situation.

2) Where in canon law (or other church docuмent) am I required, under pain of sin or heresy, to make a determination on the pope's utterances, actions, etc?
A. There is no requirement. I am not trained, nor am I authorized, especially as a simple layman, to determine formal heresy, especially when it relates to the pope.

3) In the grand scheme of my own personal salvation, in what SPECIFIC ways does the heretical or saintly actions of a pope affect me?
A. They do not. The pope is a shepherd. He can be good or bad. He can save his soul or perish in hell for all eternity, just like me. He's not a walking oracle and his main job is to uphold the faith, run the earthly govt of the Church and remind us of Christ's truths which we learned in the catechism. But he doesn't have to do any of this! And if he doesn't, I still have to save my soul regardless.

4) So, based on the above, why does it matter and why is it necessary for me to be a sedevacantist?
A. It isn't. And aside from theological enjoyment or recreational study, it doesn't matter. What matters is that I follow the commandments, fulfill my daily duty and love God so I can save my soul. Neither you or I can save the Church. Neither you or I can change anything about what goes on in rome, except through prayer. Whether he is or isn't pope - who cares? The doctrines of the Church are what they are. They won't and can never change. Doctrine is what matters.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #26 on:** May 10, 2017, 02:15:58 PM »

When I say "temporal punishment" I'm referring to loss of office, banishment from diocese, etc. None of this happens automatically. The Church has to actively, physically remove a person from office, or ban them to a monastery for life. This all happens through the courts and canon law.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #27 on:** May 10, 2017, 02:18:03 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 10, 2017, 12:57:02 PM

"ipso facto" excommunicants receive the spiritual punishment immediately, but the temporal punishment must still come from the church, along with a hearing, trial, etc, per Canon law. Distinguish, distinguish, DISTINGUISH!

Here is the definition of ipso facto from "A Catholic Dictionary":

"(Latin, by that very fact). A phrase used when expressing that a certain consequence automatically follows a certain action or set of circuмstances; e.g. a priest who with full knowledge of the crime and its penalty directly violates the seal of confession incurs excommunication ipso facto, by that very fact, automatically, without sentence of law."

This definition shows that the action takes place before anything is declared from the Church. The Church Fathers from the First Vatican Council confirmed this:

"The question was also raised (at the First Vatican Council) by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy." Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago

Arvinger · « **Reply #28 on:** May 10, 2017, 02:31:45 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13 on May 10, 2017, 02:18:03 PM

Here is the definition of ipso facto from "A Catholic Dictionary":

"(Latin, by that very fact). A phrase used when expressing that a certain consequence automatically follows a certain action or set of circuмstances; e.g. a priest who with full knowledge of the crime and its penalty directly violates the seal of confession incurs excommunication ipso facto, by that very fact, automatically, without sentence of law."

This definition shows that the action takes place before anything is declared from the Church. The Church Fathers from the First Vatican Council confirmed this:

"The question was also raised (at the First Vatican Council) by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy." Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago

But how would you know with certainty that a specific priest actually excommunicated himself? You would need infallible knowledge that the seal of confession was actually broken. In such a situation it is one thing for the ipso facto excommunication to happen, and the other for us to know about it with certainty. Same situation with V2 Popes - they may have excommunicated themselves and thus are/were not Popes, but we can't know it with certainty because we don't have certainty whether they are indeed formal or merely material heretics. As much as I'm personally convinced that Francis, Benedict et al. are formal heretics, I can't have certainty about that without Church declaration, since it is merely my fallible private judgment.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 10, 2017, 02:49:54 PM »

Quote from: Arvinger on May 10, 2017, 02:31:45 PM

But how would you know with certainty that a specific priest actually excommunicated himself? You would need infallible knowledge that the seal of confession was actually broken. In such a situation it is one thing for the ipso facto excommunication to happen, and the other for us to know about it with certainty. Same situation with V2 Popes - they may have excommunicated themselves and thus are/were not Popes, but we can't know it with certainty because we don't have certainty whether they are indeed formal or merely material heretics. As much as I'm personally convinced that Francis, Benedict et al. are formal heretics, I can't have certainty about that without Church declaration, since it is merely my fallible private judgment.

If we look at the homepage of FrancisQuotes.com, it lists quotes from Pope Francis (with direct links to the Vatican websites) promoting the following:

Promoting Atheism
Doubting the Blessed Trinity
Condemning capital punishment when the Church has approved of it
Approving of cohabitation/concubinage
Speaking positively of communism
Approving of contraception
Condemning conversion/proselytizing
Approving of ecuмenism
Approving of pagans worshiping their false gods
Saying that those in the Islam false religion will be saved
Saying that those in the Jєωιѕн religion will be saved
Questioning the omnipotence of God
Approving of prayer in common when the Church has repeatedly condemned it
Commemorating the Protestant Reformation
Denying that sins are forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession
Saying that the majority of sacramental marriages are null
Approving of same-sex marriage
Approving of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity
Approving of sex education
Approving of ѕυιcιdє

Everyone reading this knows that the above list are basically all heresies, but all we need is ONE to be heresy. Material heresy is the outcome of ignorance, and no true Pope can claim ignorance on the above topics.

Author Topic: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"? (Read 2923 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

Pax Vobis

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

songbird

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

BumphreyHogart

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

TKGS

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

saintbosco13

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

TKGS

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

cassini

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

saintbosco13

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

Pax Vobis

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

Pax Vobis

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

Pax Vobis

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

saintbosco13

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

Arvinger

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

saintbosco13

Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?