Author Topic: sedevacantismend times? (Read 4996 times)

St Jude Thaddeus · « **on:** October 10, 2010, 02:03:17 PM »

The thread title should read "Sedevacantism=end times" but the = sign didn't come out.

To follow up on the discussion going on in the "Should Bp. Williamson Consecrate More Bishops?" thread, I would like to know if the sedevacantist thesis necessarily depends on the post-Vatican II era being the "end times."

I have to admit that I believe that the Conciliar Church or Novus Ordo church is a new church, different in almost all respects from the Catholic Church. It truly represents a conscious, purposeful break with Tradition. In the past, though, whenever a heretical bishop appeared, he was replaced with an orthodox one. There doesn't seem to be any possibility of that happening now.

Does our inability to appoint/elect a new hierarchy necessarily mean that we are in the Final Days? That only a direct intervention from the Almighty can rectify this situation?

trad123 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2010, 02:30:20 PM »

Quote

I would like to know if the sedevacantist thesis necessarily depends on the post-Vatican II era being the "end times."

I don't know what would necessitate our era being the end of times; I say no.

Some believe it is the end of times, and some don't. Whether it is or it isn't has no bearing, at least at the moment, on my ability to receive the sacraments every Sunday.

I was reading on the Bellarmine forums and I found this translation from Cristian, a poster on this forum.

Quote

Dom A. Grea, whose attachment to papal primacy is beyond all suspicion, writes that "thus in the 4th century St. Eusebius of Samosata traveled among the eastern churches devastated by the Arians and consecrated Catholic bishops without having any special jurisdiction"5 or, as the young Conciliar priest might put it, "without the required authorization." Other Catholic bishops, defenders of Catholic orthodoxy whom the Church today venerates on her altars, acted in the same way. "Without the required authorization" they conferred not only the power of orders, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, but also, when necessity demanded it, the power of jurisdiction over individual dioceses. Dom Grea calls this action "the extraordinary action of the episcopate," called by extraordinary circuмstances to "supply a remedy to the pressing need of the Catholic faithful," and he writes that in such cases the episcopate acts "with the tacit consent of its head made certain by the necessity."
5. Dom A. Grea, De I'Eglise et de sa divine constitution, Vol. I, p.218.

If such bishops acted thus then I don't see why traditional Catholic bishops today cannot appoint other bishops in Italy.

As I see things now I don't think a direct intervention from God is absolutely necessary to solve this crisis.

trad123 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 10, 2010, 02:45:11 PM »

http://cmri.org/96prog9.htm

Quote

This leads us to consider the precedent found in ecclesiastical history for the consecration of bishops during the time of interregnum (the vacancy of the Apostolic See).

The following is an excerpt from Il Nuovo Osservatore Cattolico by Dr. Stephano Filiberto, who has a doctorate in Ecclesiastical History:

“On November 29, 1268, Pope Clement IV died, and there began one of the longest periods of interregnum or vacancy of the papal office in the history of the Catholic Church. The cardinals at that time were to assemble in conclave in the city of Viterbo, but through the intrigues of Carlo d’Anglio, King of Naples, discord was sown among the members of the Sacred College and the prospect of any election grew more and more remote.

“After almost three years, the mayor of Viterbo enclosed the cardinals in a palace, allowing them only strict living rations, until a decision would be made which would give to the Church its visible Head. At last, on September 1, 1271, Pope Gregory X was elected to the Chair of Peter.

“During this long period of vacancy of the Apostolic See, vacancies also occurred in many dioceses throughout the world. In order that the priests and faithful might not be left without shepherds, bishops were elected and consecrated to fill the vacant sees. There were accomplished during this time twenty-one known elections and consecrations in various countries. The most important aspect of this historical precedent is that all of these consecrations of bishops were ratified by Pope Gregory X, who consequently affirmed the lawfulness of such consecrations.”

Here are a few examples of the bishops thus consecrated at the time of vacancy of the Apostolic See:

1. In Avranches, France, Radulfus de Thieville, consecrated November, 1269;
2. In Aleria, Corsica, Nicolaus Forteguerra, consecrated 1270;
3. In Antivari, Epiro (Northwestern Greece), Caspar Adam, O.P., consecrated 1270;
4. In Auxerre, France, Erardus de Lesinnes, consecrated January, 1271;
5. In Cagli, Italy, Jacobus, consecrated September 8, 1270;
6. In Le Mans, France, Geoffridus d’Asse, consecrated 1270;
7. In Cefalu, Sicily, Petrus Taurs, consecrated 1269;
8. In Cervia, Italy, Theodoricus Borgognoni, O.P., consecrated 1270.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #3 on:** October 10, 2010, 03:18:08 PM »

Little rusty on these signs but I thought I read somewhere that when ISRAEL returned to their land. This happened in the year 1948, they became a nation again, and this would be the generation that lives in the end times.

Can't recall the entire prophesy, maybe someone might correct me or enlighten us.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #4 on:** October 10, 2010, 03:34:42 PM »

Searching the internet but found this instead of my search:

http://www.conventhill.com/endtimes/ccc675.htm

Dawn · « **Reply #5 on:** October 10, 2010, 06:10:44 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Little rusty on these signs but I thought I read somewhere that when ISRAEL returned to their land. This happened in the year 1948, they became a nation again, and this would be the generation that lives in the end times.

Can't recall the entire prophesy, maybe someone might correct me or enlighten us.

Of course you do realize that this land does not belong to the Jєωs.
Here is what Pope St. Pius X had to say on the matter:
Cardinal Del Val then undertook to ask Pope Pius to give Herzl an audience, and this happened on January 25, 1904, when Herzl asked him to endorse the Zionist plan for the establishment of a Jєωιѕн state in Palestine.

Note: Pope Pius X (1835-1914) was universally revered, and he was beautified ( made a saint) in 1951.

In his Diaries, Herzl related the following of his meeting with Pope Pius X on January 25, 1904:

“He (the Pope) is an honest, rough-hewn village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican.
I briefly laid my request before him. But annoyed perhaps by my refusal to kiss his hand, he answered in a stern categorical manner: “ We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jєωs from going to Jerusalem-but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jєωs have not recognized our lord, thereof we cannot recognize the Jєωιѕн people…
At the outset I tried to be reconciliatory. I said my little piece about extraterritoriality …It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jєωιѕн hands.
“And its present status, Holy Father?”
“I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jєωιѕн wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.”
I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jєωs, and wish to put aside all religious issues.
“Yes, but we, but I as head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jєωs will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared-in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them.
“The Jєωιѕн faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jєωs who should have been the fist to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.”
But I said, “Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jєωs.”
His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:
“Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abbandanto (abandoned) even by his disciples. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jєωs therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.”
“But Holy Father, the Jєωs are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need land for these harried people.”
“Must it be Gerusalemme (Jerusalem)?”
“We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine-for only the secular land.”
“We cannot be in favor of it.”
“Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jєωs?”
“Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jєωs. I have always been in friendly relations with Jєωs. Only the other evening two Jєωs came to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jєωs. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner-on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.”……
The audience lasted about twenty- five minutes

Dawn · « **Reply #6 on:** October 10, 2010, 06:24:00 PM »

I did look up that last link, but since it is from the false Catechism of the false Pontiff John Paul 2 I left.
I would suggest the following:
End of the Present World, The
By author: Fr. Charles Arminjon

This book was a favorite of St. Therese of Liseux and it gives great detail and discussion on the end times and what will lead up to this.

The only thing the Jєωs are entitled to is our prayers for their conversion and also prayers for those who suffer due to these anti-Christs and their never ending trouble making and that I am sure we both agree on Myrna.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #7 on:** October 10, 2010, 08:07:29 PM »

We are pretty much already in the "end times". Of course, I don't mean we're less than 10 years away from the end of the world. We're supposed to have 30 years I think (maybe more), of peace after the three days of darkness. We're in sort of the beginning stages of the end times. We will also get a one year notice of when the threedays of darkness are coming. From what I have heard and read, we will one day be shown our souls and will have one year to correct our sins (and therefore one year before the complete chastizement). The Consecration of Russia to The Immaculate Heart of Mary would be what triggers it, then we are shown our souls, then the three days of darkness come. Of course, even if Russia is not Consecrated the days of darkness will come anyway if the world gets bad enough. That's my take on it. Oh, and welcome back Dawn!

Blessed Sunday to all! God Bless.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #8 on:** October 10, 2010, 08:10:36 PM »

Quote from: trad123

Quote
I would like to know if the sedevacantist thesis necessarily depends on the post-Vatican II era being the "end times."

I don't know what would necessitate our era being the end of times; I say no.

Some believe it is the end of times, and some don't. Whether it is or it isn't has no bearing, at least at the moment, on my ability to receive the sacraments every Sunday.

I was reading on the Bellarmine forums and I found this translation from Cristian, a poster on this forum.

Quote
Dom A. Grea, whose attachment to papal primacy is beyond all suspicion, writes that "thus in the 4th century St. Eusebius of Samosata traveled among the eastern churches devastated by the Arians and consecrated Catholic bishops without having any special jurisdiction"5 or, as the young Conciliar priest might put it, "without the required authorization." Other Catholic bishops, defenders of Catholic orthodoxy whom the Church today venerates on her altars, acted in the same way. "Without the required authorization" they conferred not only the power of orders, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, but also, when necessity demanded it, the power of jurisdiction over individual dioceses. Dom Grea calls this action "the extraordinary action of the episcopate," called by extraordinary circuмstances to "supply a remedy to the pressing need of the Catholic faithful," and he writes that in such cases the episcopate acts "with the tacit consent of its head made certain by the necessity."
5. Dom A. Grea, De I'Eglise et de sa divine constitution, Vol. I, p.218.

If such bishops acted thus then I don't see why traditional Catholic bishops today cannot appoint other bishops in Italy.

As I see things now I don't think a direct intervention from God is absolutely necessary to solve this crisis.

I dis-agree with that last sentence. If Satan is ruling the world then it will take a direct intervention from God to cleanse the world and solve the crisis. A crisis this bad can't correct itself if even the Pope is victim to modernism. And remember that it's not only the Church that is in a crisis, it's the whole world.

trad123 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 10, 2010, 10:25:54 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I dis-agree with that last sentence. If Satan is ruling the world then it will take a direct intervention from God to cleanse the world and solve the crisis. A crisis this bad can't correct itself if even the Pope is victim to modernism. And remember that it's not only the Church that is in a crisis, it's the whole world.

Satan has always been the prince of this world since mans downfall. It's funny to call the present "pope" a victim to modernism when he has espoused it for most of his life.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=63&catname=15

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #10 on:** October 10, 2010, 10:57:00 PM »

Dom A. Grea, whose attachment to papal primacy is beyond all suspicion, writes that "thus in the 4th century St. Eusebius of Samosata traveled among the eastern churches devastated by the Arians and consecrated Catholic bishops without having any special jurisdiction"5 or, as the young Conciliar priest might put it, "without the required authorization." Other Catholic bishops, defenders of Catholic orthodoxy whom the Church today venerates on her altars, acted in the same way. "Without the required authorization" they conferred not only the power of orders, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, but also, when necessity demanded it, the power of jurisdiction over individual dioceses. Dom Grea calls this action "the extraordinary action of the episcopate," called by extraordinary circuмstances to "supply a remedy to the pressing need of the Catholic faithful," and he writes that in such cases the episcopate acts "with the tacit consent of its head made certain by the necessity."
5. Dom A. Grea, De I'Eglise et de sa divine constitution, Vol. I, p.218.

This is very interesting, trad123! Thank you for this quote. I had never seen it before.

When did Dom Grea write this book?

trad123 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 10, 2010, 11:00:23 PM »

Quote from: St Jude Thaddeus

When is this quote from?

It says at the bottom,

Dom A. Grea, De I'Eglise et de sa divine constitution, Vol. I.

I believe it's a Spanish text.

trad123 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 10, 2010, 11:02:40 PM »

Quote from: St Jude Thaddeus

When did Dom Grea write this book?

That would be a question for Cristian.

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #13 on:** October 10, 2010, 11:09:18 PM »

So, if the traditionalist bishops still extant go around consecrating new bishops, could they eventually have enough bishops to convene a conclave and elect a new pope?

How many bishops are necessary for a papal conclave anyway? Is there any way to iron out the differences among the main sede groups and the independents and elect a new pope? Would this be a final "crossing of the Tiber" so to speak, burning any possible bridges back to communion with the Vatican II sect, if such a thing were even desirable? Or were those bridges torched a long time ago? Would defecting Novus Ordoers have to "convert" and redo first communions, confirmations, marriages, holy orders, etc., or simply sign an abjuration?

I'm just playing with ideas here, by the way. I'm not trying to promote any one particular point of view and I certainly don't want anyone to get upset here and start calling names and anathematizing. In fact, I'm asking these questions now precisely because I took a hiatus from this forum for a few months and when I returned I noticed that the worse fire-breathers had been banned or left out of their own volition, so now perhaps would be a good time to play around with some of these ideas and see what we can come up with.

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #14 on:** October 10, 2010, 11:14:01 PM »

Quote from: trad123

Quote from: St Jude Thaddeus
When did Dom Grea write this book?

That would be a question for Cristian.

Actually, I looked him up myself right now and I found a Wikipedia site in French and I can just puzzle out enough with my bad Spanish and 32 words of Latin to see that he was born in 1828 and died in 1917.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dom_Gr%C3%A9a

Apparently he also founded the Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception with the approval of Pius IX.