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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?  (Read 2924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arvinger

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 585
  • Reputation: +296/-95
  • Gender: Male
Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2017, 03:07:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: saintbosco13 on May 10, 2017, 02:49:54 PM
    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.
    As much as I agree, there are two problems:
    1) It is still merely your private judgment, which is fallible - one only needs to see how many defenders of Francis attempt to interpret his words, including some of the above statements, in a way that is acceptable or at least non-heretical. Not only could you be wrong, but also your private determination (or anyone's private determination) is not binding for anyone, and you cannot claim that the vacancy of the Holy See is a dogmatic fact adherence to which is required to be a Catholic.
    2) On a theoretical level it is possible that someone might be aware of these basic teachings of the Church, but yet say something heretical in regard to them and not realize the contradiction. An example here would be Archbishop Lefebvre who effecively denied EENS by claiming that people ignorant of Christ can be saved "in false religions, but not by these religions". Apparently he did not realize the obvious contradiction and was certainly not a formal heretic. Now, I'm not suggesting that such is the case in Francis, I am personally convinced that he is a formal heretic. But theoretically that is a possibility, and we can know for sure only through Church's declaration.
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12036
    • Reputation: +7579/-2279
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
    « Reply #31 on: May 10, 2017, 04:50:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Exactly!  As the church is a visible organization, there must be some visible, human process concerning an excommunication, so that all will be certain.  Hence, we have canon law.  

    Also, if Martin Luther got a trial/hearing, then why shouldn't a pope?  How would this work?  I don't know.  But the Church has to act or else the result is speculative chaos.  
    Logged

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +226/-662
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
    « Reply #32 on: May 10, 2017, 05:58:22 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • The OP first asked what the origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism" are. It was just TKGS and I who addressed that correctly.

    Then the OP asked if there is anything from approved Catholic sources forbidding us to be "dogmatic". Everyone seems to have gone off on tangents with merely their opinions about sedevacantism, and not the descriptor "dogmatic".

    A dogma is a solemnly taught doctrine. So, nobody professes that sedevacantism is a dogma, obviously.

    However, a dogmatic fact is a fact that has a direct bearing on a dogma. For example, if an archaeologist ever claims to have found a bone of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we have the duty to say it is a dogmatic fact that it is not. We don't have to wait for the Church to decide that.

    The Church says it is our duty to be dogmatic and to proclaim with certainty what we know to be a danger to dogma. Read the second-to-last chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin", it's all there, and praised by the Holy Office. It condemns the idea that we should wait for Rome to decide. Very easy to google on-line.

    Someone mentioned about most sedevacantists being emotional. Is there something wrong with being emotional? No, there isn't, unless that emotion makes no good sense along with it. The greatest of preachers of old appealed to emotion, and it was good when accompanied by good sense and good doctrine.

    How about the good sense of someone without a lot of learning but with a strong faith? Is that just pure emotion? No. If a 60 year-old grandmother says that these men promoting Vatican II cannot be true popes, because true popes cannot be behind such erosion, that is not emotion, that is a strong virtue of divine Faith. That woman can only pray for those with weak faith who think that a pope can be head of the true Church and head of a false Church...as the SSPX had expressed. I have yet to see the Resistance condemn such nonsense.
    Logged

    Offline saintbosco13

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 647
    • Reputation: +201/-311
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
    « Reply #33 on: May 10, 2017, 06:30:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 10, 2017, 04:50:50 PM
    Exactly!  As the church is a visible organization, there must be some visible, human process concerning an excommunication, so that all will be certain.  Hence, we have canon law.  

    Also, if Martin Luther got a trial/hearing, then why shouldn't a pope?  How would this work?  I don't know.  But the Church has to act or else the result is speculative chaos.  

    Yes, the Pope should get a hearing, but Church teaching says that hearing is simply a declaration of fact - he is already not Pope before the hearing ever occurs. For example:
     
    "A pope can only be deposed for heresy, expressed or implied, and then only by a general council. It is not strictly deposition, but a declaration of fact, since by his heresy he has already ceased to be head of the Church..." A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Pope, Deposition of a

    If you read up on the history of heresies, those promoting heresy are avoided as heretics well before they are ever brought to condemnation in General Council.

    Logged

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6882
    • Reputation: +3852/-406
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
    « Reply #34 on: May 10, 2017, 06:41:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I understand the belief that if a Pope becomes a heretic he loses the papacy. But what happens then? Don't the theologians say that if that happens the cardinals would get together and declare him an antipope and elect another Pope or perhaps the Bishops would hold a council and do this? But what do the theologians say should happen if the Pope becomes a heretic and all of the Cardinals and Bishops accept him as Pope and do nothing about it? Did they even consider this? Wouldn't they all say such a scenario is impossible because it is prevented by the Church's indefectibility so it is not even worth considering? And if some theologians did consider this, what did they say should be done? Did they say well the Pope would not be the Pope formally but would be the Pope materially and we just have to wait for him to convert? Did they say do nothing about the papacy until God himself (or Saints Peter and Paul) comes down from heaven and appoints a new Pope? Did they say Do nothing but sit and wait for the end of the world? Did they say have some laymen get orders from the Old Catholics and start their own Church against the former hierarchy? What did they say would happen in this case? What happens when antipopes are reigning for over a decade before anyone notices and does anything? Wouldn't they say that would be impossible?
    Logged
    R.I.P.
    Please pray for the repose of my soul.

    Offline saintbosco13

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 647
    • Reputation: +201/-311
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
    « Reply #35 on: May 10, 2017, 06:44:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Arvinger on May 10, 2017, 03:07:11 PM
    As much as I agree, there are two problems:
    1) It is still merely your private judgment, which is fallible - one only needs to see how many defenders of Francis attempt to interpret his words, including some of the above statements, in a way that is acceptable or at least non-heretical. Not only could you be wrong, but also your private determination (or anyone's private determination) is not binding for anyone, and you cannot claim that the vacancy of the Holy See is a dogmatic fact adherence to which is required to be a Catholic.
    2) On a theoretical level it is possible that someone might be aware of these basic teachings of the Church, but yet say something heretical in regard to them and not realize the contradiction. An example here would be Archbishop Lefebvre who effecively denied EENS by claiming that people ignorant of Christ can be saved "in false religions, but not by these religions". Apparently he did not realize the obvious contradiction and was certainly not a formal heretic. Now, I'm not suggesting that such is the case in Francis, I am personally convinced that he is a formal heretic. But theoretically that is a possibility, and we can know for sure only through Church's declaration.
     
    Sedevacantists don't force or bind anyone, nor do they make any official declarations. They simply point out that the Church teaches manifestly heretical popes lose their authority ipso facto (plenty of quotes exist), and that there are numerous manifestly heretical statements from Francis on the Vatican websites. This is undeniable. Sedevacantists simply point out these facts just like they would confidently point out 2x2=4. There is no such thing as being "dogmatic" in this regard. If people don't want to believe these two facts, that is up to them.
     
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12036
    • Reputation: +7579/-2279
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
    « Reply #36 on: May 10, 2017, 06:56:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    Sedevacantists don't force or bind anyone, nor do they make any official declarations. 
    Many do make 'official' declarations, 1) by declaring non-sedevacantists heretical and 2) by declaring that 'una cuм' masses are sinful.  

    There's is no consistent definition of sedevacantism, nor is there a consistent application of how sedevacantism works. 
    Logged

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5844
    • Reputation: +4691/-490
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
    « Reply #37 on: May 10, 2017, 08:46:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 10, 2017, 06:56:05 PM
    Many do make 'official' declarations, 1) by declaring non-sedevacantists heretical and 2) by declaring that 'una cuм' masses are sinful.  

    There's is no consistent definition of sedevacantism, nor is there a consistent application of how sedevacantism works.
    You are factually wrong on this point.  There is one--and only one--definition of sedevacantism.  

    Sedevacantism is the belief that Jorge Bergoglio is not the pope.  Any other issue is not sedevacantism.  There are multiple opinions on a variety of matters--but none of those opinions is sedevacantism.  This is the ONE fact that anti-sedevacantists just can't seem to grasp.  I don't know how often I've been told on this forum what I believe because I'm a sedevacantist.  But these questions of who is or is not a heretic, whether "una cuм" Masses are sinful, and a whole host of other questions are not based on sedevacantism but of individuals attempting to apply Catholic doctrine to a variety of issues.  Clearly, in my opinion, some people have not come to the correct conclusions on some issues.  But those issues (whether I agree with any particular conclusion or not) is not sedevacantism.  All of these controversies merely add to the evidence that there is no unifying pope at present to resolve these issues.

    Try to understand:  Sedevacantism is only the rejection of the claims to the papacy by the Conciliar claimants.  No claim by anyone about any other issue is part of what sedevacantism is.
    Logged

    Offline saintbosco13

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 647
    • Reputation: +201/-311
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
    « Reply #38 on: May 10, 2017, 10:59:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 10, 2017, 06:56:05 PM
    Many do make 'official' declarations, 1) by declaring non-sedevacantists heretical and 2) by declaring that 'una cuм' masses are sinful.  

    There's is no consistent definition of sedevacantism, nor is there a consistent application of how sedevacantism works.
     
    TKGS is correct in what he just posted in reply to your message here. Sede vacante means "vacant seat" and anyone using the term sedevacantism as of this moment simply means Francis cannot possibly be a true Pope since he has taught heresy. The term means nothing else.

    Actually the correct term for the current situation is "sede impedita" but the term "sede vacante" has become the norm because it is very similar. You can read about the differences in the Catholic Encyclopedia at this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01143a.htm
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
    « Reply #39 on: May 11, 2017, 04:03:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: saintbosco13 on May 10, 2017, 02:49:54 PM

    Quote
    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.
     
    The problem is that by saying that "we can't know it with certainty because we don't have certainty whether they are indeed formal or merely material heretics" and by constantly fighting the sedes we are neutralized, we lose our savor.

    All those errors listed apply to Paul VI, JPII, B-16 and now Francis, and yet the majority of Trads continue to use the same excuses for letting the Vatican II popes off the hook. They know these are heresies and that the Vatican II popes are not Catholic, but they have been scared into not saying it. Does no one learn from their mistakes? Francis is heresy in the raw, there is nothing there to fool anyone like Paul VI, JPII, B-16, yet no one changes their position of silence?

    The Vatican II popes are not to be followed, they have committed heresies by the truckload.

    "When the shepherd changes into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. Normally, without doubt, doctrine descends from the bishops to the faithful, and those who are subjects, in the order of the faith, are not to judge their superiors. But in the treasure of revelation there are some essential points which every Christian, by the very fact of his title as Christian, is bound to know and defend" (The Liturgical Year, Vol. IV, Dom Guéranger; Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria).

    I do not like groups, I do not follow groups or personalities, I follow truth. I do not get my own sense of identity from being numbered among any groupings, I follow truth where ever it goes. Sedevacantes, Sedeplenist....... whatever, I know nothing about nor do I care to know, they are explanations for things I do not need to know, I only need to know heresy, and with a list even bigger that the one above in the last 50 years or so (P6, JPII, B16, F1), I don't need to know all the other chaff.

    Anyone asks me, I tell them the VatII popes are not even Catholic.
    Logged

    Offline saintbosco13

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 647
    • Reputation: +201/-311
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
    « Reply #40 on: May 11, 2017, 12:27:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    •  
    So at this point in this thread, here's what I've gathered:
     
    1. Referring to someone as "dogmatic" in any sense is a novelty.
    2. I have only seen this accusation appear in SSPX-related forums. Nowhere else.
    3. The administrators of SSPX forums each have varying definitions of someone who is "dogmatic" - proof that it is a novelty.
    4. I have yet to see a single example from anywhere in the history of the Church showing such a "danger" as someone being "dogmatic" or "too confident" in their belief of a Catholic teaching.

    If you believe I'm wrong on any of the above, feel free to show your proof. But in general, the more I look into it, the more absurd this accusation gets. If I tell someone I believe 2x2=4, they have the choice to believe me or not believe me. If they don't want to believe me, I will still let them know that I believe they are wrong. That does not make me a "dogmatic mathematician", and there is nothing hostile about me confirming what I believe. The invention of this "dogmatic sedevacantist" accusation is fairly obvious; it is an attempt to silence someone when a person is losing an argument. Attempting to silence the opposition in an argument is not a sign of truth.

     
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
    « Reply #41 on: May 11, 2017, 12:39:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: saintbosco13 on May 11, 2017, 12:27:40 PM

    So at this point in this thread, here's what I've gathered:
     
    1. Referring to someone as "dogmatic" in any sense is a novelty.
    2. I have only seen this accusation appear in SSPX-related forums. Nowhere else.
    3. The administrators of SSPX forums each have varying definitions of someone who is "dogmatic" - proof that it is a novelty.
    4. I have yet to see a single example from anywhere in the history of the Church showing such a "danger" as someone being "dogmatic" or "too confident" in their belief of a Catholic teaching.

    If you believe I'm wrong on any of the above, feel free to show your proof. But in general, the more I look into it, the more absurd this accusation gets. If I tell someone I believe 2x2=4, they have the choice to believe me or not believe me. If they don't want to believe me, I will still let them know that I believe they are wrong. That does not make me a "dogmatic mathematician", and there is nothing hostile about me confirming what I believe. The invention of this "dogmatic sedevacantist" accusation is fairly obvious; it is an attempt to silence someone when a person is losing an argument. Attempting to silence the opposition in an argument is not a sign of truth.

     
    All true, exactly the same happens here on CI with the label Feeneyite, there's even a forum that uses it as a title.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3]
    « previous next »