Author Topic: Sedevacantist Altars? (Read 11160 times)

Canuk the Lionheart · « **on:** February 21, 2011, 10:29:26 PM »

Hi, this is not a thread to debate the position of sedevacantism or if there is any such thing as a sedevacantist (as I have read numerous times on this forum) but a simple question regarding your altars. It is my understanding that to have a validly Consecrated altar, it needs to contain relics from saints and/or martyrs (please correct me if I am wrong). It is also my understanding that most relics are in the position of either the Catholic Church or Orthodox Churches. My question to you, is where do you get the relics needed to consecrate an altar or do you forego them altogether?

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** February 22, 2011, 09:28:11 AM »

First of all, while the vast majority of surviving relics are in the hands of the Conciliar Catholics and the Orthodox, given the number of relics that are in existence the number of relics not in the hands of Conciliar Catholics and Orthodox is still very staggering.

Second, priests are not nearly as estranged from each other as many of the laity. Independent and sedevacantist priests often have friends and contacts with many priests. I know of one sedevacantist priest who set up an independent chapel and obtained relics for the altar from a sympathetic Eastern Catholic priest.

As strange as it may seem to the laity, Conciliar, traditional, sedevacantist, Eastern, and Orthodox clergy have a common bond even though they may believe the other priests to be in error. On the other hand, there are a great number of Conciliar, Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic priests who have great sympathy for independent and sedevacantist clergy.

SJB · « **Reply #2 on:** February 22, 2011, 09:40:06 AM »

The bond of a common Faith still exists. This is why the traditional layman should detest any breaking of these bonds.

This is also why many traditionalists were and are uncomfortable with the raising of some unauthorized theological opinions to dogmatic facts (even if they agree with the position being elevated.)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2011, 11:07:02 AM »

Consider also, with the closure of so many novus ordo churches, and remodling relics were given freely to many sede chaples. Mount St. Michael was purchased from novus ordo with many relics within the altars.

I wonder with the new fashion and strange architecture designs of new church if they even bother to have a relic within their "table". Many now days don't even have an altar to speak of.

Canuk the Lionheart · « **Reply #4 on:** February 22, 2011, 03:32:12 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Consider also, with the closure of so many novus ordo churches, and remodling relics were given freely to many sede chaples. Mount St. Michael was purchased from novus ordo with many relics within the altars.

I wonder with the new fashion and strange architecture designs of new church if they even bother to have a relic within their "table". Many now days don't even have an altar to speak of.

Let me get this straight, they sold the churches with the relics stll in the altars? Did they really care that little?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** February 22, 2011, 03:35:22 PM »

Quote from: Canuk the Lionheart

Did they really care that little?

Even less.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 22, 2011, 04:06:30 PM »

SJB said:

Quote

The bond of a common Faith still exists. This is why the traditional layman should detest any breaking of these bonds.

This is also why many traditionalists were and are uncomfortable with the raising of some unauthorized theological opinions to dogmatic facts (even if they agree with the position being elevated.)

Is this your mantra? Seriously, SJB, why do you even call yourself a sede? I know people in the you-know-what that are more sede-sounding than you. Maybe I missed it, but I almost never see you defending sedevacantism these days, you only rail against "dogmatic sedes." With friends like these...

If you have doubt about your position, then maybe you should give it up, but please stop telling others they shouldn't be convinced by theirs. This constant pushing of "non-dogmatic" sedevacantism is truly "mou du genou."

What are you trying to accomplish? Am I supposed to get a warm and fuzzy feeling and say, ah, SJB is right, it really doesn't matter what position one takes, we're all Catholics... Can't we all just get along?

Of course you're right, a bond still exists, there are true Catholics even in the Novus Ordo. But don't you think it's a little legalistic to constantly refer to sedevacantism being an opinion? For a long time, technically speaking, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was also just an "opinion," get what I'm saying?

Someone in the you-know-what like CathMomof7, who just isn't ready to make the leap and say that the man who appears to be the Pope isn't the Pope, that I can understand. I wrestled with this myself and I wasn't as confident about sedevacantism as I sounded for a good long while. But for someone like you for whom sedevacantism presumably HAS clicked, who understands the issues involved, the theology involved, it makes much less sense to me, the way you talk.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #7 on:** February 22, 2011, 04:35:20 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

SJB said:
Quote
The bond of a common Faith still exists. This is why the traditional layman should detest any breaking of these bonds.

This is also why many traditionalists were and are uncomfortable with the raising of some unauthorized theological opinions to dogmatic facts (even if they agree with the position being elevated.)

Is this your mantra? Seriously, SJB, why do you even call yourself a sede? I know people in the you-know-what that are more sede-sounding than you. Maybe I missed it, but I almost never see you defending sedevacantism these days, you only rail against "dogmatic sedes." With friends like these...

If you have doubt about your position, then maybe you should give it up, but please stop telling others they shouldn't be convinced by theirs. This constant pushing of "non-dogmatic" sedevacantism is truly "mou du genou."

What are you trying to accomplish? Am I supposed to get a warm and fuzzy feeling and say, ah, SJB is right, it really doesn't matter what position one takes, we're all Catholics... Can't we all just get along?

Of course you're right, a bond still exists, there are true Catholics even in the Novus Ordo. But don't you think it's a little legalistic to constantly refer to sedevacantism being an opinion? For a long time, technically speaking, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was also just an "opinion," get what I'm saying?

Someone in the you-know-what like CathMomof7, who just isn't ready to make the leap and say that the man who appears to be the Pope isn't the Pope, that I can understand. I wrestled with this myself and I wasn't as confident about sedevacantism as I sounded for a good long while. But for someone like you for whom sedevacantism presumably HAS clicked, who understands the issues involved, the theology involved, it makes much less sense to me, the way you talk.

I mostly agree with your post, but sedevacantism is in fact an opinion and is a highly debatable issue. Does that mean sedevacantism is wrong? Not at all. But it is not the same as the case of the Immaculate Conception of Mary that was a fact right from the beginning. There has never been any "proof" to back up the sede stance. Evidence and proof are two different things. A Traditional Catholic can be a non-sede and still recieve just as many graces (and no I'm not saying you get graces from believing the Vatican II Popes are true Popes).

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 22, 2011, 04:52:19 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

There has never been any "proof" to back up the sede stance. Evidence and proof are two different things.

So its purely speculation and my opinion that Vatican II was the hammer of Lucifer, pretty much, that made it anathema to practice Catholicism and tradition. Its only my opinion too that its blasphemous to receive Our Lord in the hand, reversing centuries of law, tradition, and respect of the Presence of Jesus in that living bread (and don't bring up the early church and touching the bread.. doesn't cut it and doesn't carry any weight). It is also only a sede's opinion that a true Pope, nevertheless a Catholic, would never attend, host (money and Church property), and endorse a multiculti every-religions-the-same event at Assisi.

Bah.

:soapbox:

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2011, 07:55:39 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Am I supposed to get a warm and fuzzy feeling and say, ah, SJB is right, it really doesn't matter what position one takes, we're all Catholics... Can't we all just get along?

Where did he say, "It doesn't matter..."? If he ever said such a thing, I missed it.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #10 on:** February 23, 2011, 01:35:27 PM »

Quote from: PartyIsOver221

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

There has never been any "proof" to back up the sede stance. Evidence and proof are two different things.

So its purely speculation and my opinion that Vatican II was the hammer of Lucifer, pretty much, that made it anathema to practice Catholicism and tradition. Its only my opinion too that its blasphemous to receive Our Lord in the hand, reversing centuries of law, tradition, and respect of the Presence of Jesus in that living bread (and don't bring up the early church and touching the bread.. doesn't cut it and doesn't carry any weight). It is also only a sede's opinion that a true Pope, nevertheless a Catholic, would never attend, host (money and Church property), and endorse a multiculti every-religions-the-same event at Assisi.

Bah.

:soapbox:

This is a straw man fallacy. I never said that believing Vatican II was the work of Lucifer, believing that recieving Jesus in the hand was blasphemous, etc. was only an opinion. I said that believing the Chair of Peter is empty is only an opinion. I completely agree with you that the devil entered the Church, and that CITH (Communion in the hand) is sacreligious. Those are facts, but sedevacantism has never been proven a fact.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #11 on:** February 23, 2011, 02:54:06 PM »

The proof is, Modernism is the mother of all heresies, and the proof is the Vatican II "popes" are Modernists, and the proof is a heretic can not be a true Vicar of Christ, because that means the Holy Ghost made an error, which is impossible, so there is your proof. Pure and simple!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2011, 04:24:12 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

The proof is, Modernism is the mother of all heresies, and the proof is the Vatican II "popes" are Modernists, and the proof is a heretic can not be a true Vicar of Christ, because that means the Holy Ghost made an error, which is impossible, so there is your proof. Pure and simple!

The Holy Ghost does not make errors, yes you have that right, but it's not like the Holy Ghost makes it to where a modernist gets elected. That was something God did not Will but simply allowed as part of His permissable Will. So really the "proof' you presented isn't proof. I respect the sede position, I really do, but I still do not believe there is enough evidence to back up its claim.

TKGS · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2011, 04:54:26 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I respect the sede position, I really do, but I still do not believe there is enough evidence to back up its claim.

I wonder what kind of evidence you, or anyone else, can provide that Benedict 16 is really a Catholic...today, that is.

I doubt that anyone does not believe he was baptized. I doubt that anyone does not believe that he was, at least at one time, Catholic and held the Catholic Faith.

I just want to see the evidence that he does not believe, say, that all religions are good and that the only the Catholic Church truly worships the One, True God. Whatever evidence that anyone wants to provide is pretty much going to be shot out of the water in October.

The point being that someone who truly believes in Ecuмenism as is currently defined (not simply that we need to "get along" with people of other religions, but that other religions are true paths to God) as Benedict 16 and nearly all Conciliar Catholic clergy do, is not a Catholic. Such a person has defected from the Faith and he has put himself outside the Church.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2011, 05:08:12 PM »

SS, your quote above " That was something God did not Will but simply allowed as part of His permissable Will."

I could buy that if we were taking about a human institution but we are talking about a Divine Institution, His Church.