Author Topic: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL (Read 3962 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #15 on:** May 19, 2022, 03:16:18 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on May 19, 2022, 11:51:19 AM

First, I don't know, you sure hold to the same position as him and believe SVists aren't Catholics. Maybe you're Mr. Siscoe...

Second, see Pax's response above.

2Vermont · « **Reply #16 on:** May 19, 2022, 03:20:36 PM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on May 19, 2022, 12:38:44 PM

They refuse to enter the Roman Catholic Church, which is the visible society based on Rome.

The reason they believe they are in the Church is because they have embraced Protestant ecclesiology. They believe the Church consists of the body of individuals who have been baptized and profess the true faith, regardless of what sect they belong to.

Exactly like Protestants since they share the same ecclesiology.

How about the dogma that the Church is a visible society that is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic? And how about the dogma that the visible society with four marks is indefectible? They deny the first by believing they are the Church, when they know their sects lack the four marks. They deny the latter by maintaining that the universal Church based in Rome was the true Church up to the time of Pius XII death, and them became a false Church during the pontificate of John XXIII (or Paul VI).

Those who belong to a non-Catholic sect are public heretics. Sedevacantist chapels are all non-Catholics sects. Therefore...

Sedevacantists realize that their sects lack the four marks. If they believe Sedevacantism constitutes the true Church in spite of that, they are guilty of denying a dogma right out of the Creed, namely, that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

So you've double-downed despite Matthew's warning in the "And Yet Another Novus Ordo Sacrilege" thread.

Subjective enough for you ByzCat?

bodeens · « **Reply #17 on:** May 19, 2022, 07:09:27 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 19, 2022, 12:57:42 PM

I read your response, and will try to respond later, but it's complete horseshit.

To the main point, your accusation of DL's definition of the requirements for membership in the Church, has nowhere been proven and I accuse you of slander.

Please cite the actual defined dogma that DL has rejected in his definition or retract your slander. You spend paragraphs of incredibly weak arguments full of holes trying to back up your slander, but your arguments and paragraphs are not the Magisterium.

I actually disagree with DL's definition, adding one additional criterion, and I will not speak of any distinction between a "visible" and (implied) invisible Church, since the two are co-extensive. Nevertheless, there's a lot of theological disagreement and a range of opinions on this subject that the Church has not yet condemned, so I would not have the temerity to accuse DL of heresy.

Terio Millenio Adveniente:

Quote

At the end of the second millennium, the Church has once again become a Church of martyrs. The persecutions of believers —priests, Religious and laity—has caused a great sowing of martyrdom in different parts of the world. The witness to Christ borne even to the shedding of blood has become a common inheritance of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants (JPII)

I don't even understand how he can choose ecclesiology as his angle of attack vs SV. We don't deny any dogmas but those who do can be martyrs? If FEMA, ZOG or whatever kills DL I am expecting you to call him a martyr, RT.

Will you?

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #18 on:** May 19, 2022, 07:20:11 PM »

Quote from: bodeens on May 19, 2022, 07:09:27 PM

I don't even understand how he can choose ecclesiology as his angle of attack vs SV.

Because it's the weakest point of the SV position. But, that doesn't disprove the position as non-Catholic. It just shows how grave this situation is, from the perspective of the SVist.

bodeens · « **Reply #19 on:** May 19, 2022, 07:40:47 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on May 19, 2022, 07:20:11 PM

Because it's the weakest point of the SV position. But, that doesn't disprove the position as non-Catholic. It just shows how grave this situation is, from the perspective of the SVist.

UR makes it

for the NO at the end of the day though because it says sanctifying grace exists outside the Catholic Church. Faith, Hope and Charity don't simply pertain to grace, but rather sanctifying grace.

Matthew · « **Reply #20 on:** May 19, 2022, 08:13:48 PM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on May 19, 2022, 12:38:44 PM

How about the dogma that the Church is a visible society that is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic? And how about the dogma that the visible society with four marks is indefectible? They deny the first by believing they are the Church, when they know their sects lack the four marks. They deny the latter by maintaining that the universal Church based in Rome was the true Church up to the time of Pius XII death, and them became a false Church during the pontificate of John XXIII (or Paul VI).

Those who belong to a non-Catholic sect are public heretics. Sedevacantist chapels are all non-Catholics sects. Therefore...

Sedevacantists realize that their sects lack the four marks. If they believe Sedevacantism constitutes the true Church in spite of that, they are guilty of denying a dogma right out of the Creed, namely, that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Sedevacantists realize NO SUCH THING. You are imputing ill will and malice that isn't there.

You are COMPLETELY ignoring the elephant in the room -- the UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS IN THE CHURCH which would justify things that would normally be unjustifiable.

You are aware there is a Crisis in the Church, right? None of us have message(s) from God how we should keep our Faith during this Crisis. The fact of the matter is, there is no position or strategy that is without any downside(s). It's a classic case of "pick your poison".

Yes, if someone went "sede" in 1950, they would be a heretic. But we're talking about the Crisis popes, not those before Vatican II.

I'm not a sedevacantist myself, but I won't have you calling them literal heretics, claiming that ALL of them willfully embrace heresy. That is patently false.

I don't know if a sedevacantist ran over your dog when you were a kid or what, but you're banned.

Frankly, when it comes to actions touching on the Crisis in the Church, just about ANYTHING GOES as long as no sin is committed. One must LIBERALLY apply "Benefit of the doubt" to our fellow-Catholics who are only trying to deal with this Crisis of diabolical confusion, disorientation and destruction of the Church.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #21 on:** May 20, 2022, 01:31:55 AM »

Quote from: Sir Percival on May 19, 2022, 12:30:57 PM

All you’re doing, RomanTheo, is saving one aspect of the indefectibility of Mother Church while destroying another.

Traddieland in a nutshell, all while blasting anyone who disagrees with your take (which can, and often does, change at any moment based upon new info). Traddieland's unspoken-yet-grotesque motto is "Endless latitude for me, none for thee."

Sefa · « **Reply #22 on:** May 20, 2022, 06:13:27 AM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on May 19, 2022, 11:30:46 AM

Here's what Vatican II teaches:

Sedevacantists know the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, yet they refuse to enter it. Why? Because they they think they already belong to it, since 1) they define he Church as "the baptized who profess the true faith" and 2) they (mistakenly) believe they meet both those condition.

Quote the teaching of Vatican II you are referring to and let's see what it says.

According to Tradition, the Church is a visible society with four marks united under a single hierarchy, not a body of individuals who have been baptized and profess the true faith, regardless of which sect they belong to. It is not I, but you who has departed - and departed VERY FAR - from Tradition.

According to tradition the four marks of the church which you have conveniently omitted are that the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which thus you believe the novus ordo sect to be all 4 of these. According to tradition the pope is the proximate rule of faith, thus if you believe francis to be pope you must have the same faith as him and to not would be schismatic (and heretical if he were an actual catholic pope). Do you believe francis is catholic? Do you have the same faith as him? Do you believe the novus ordo sect to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, including all the sodomite pro tranny, pro abortion "bishops" whom are not excommunicated but promoted by francis?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** May 20, 2022, 06:31:24 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 19, 2022, 08:13:48 PM

Sedevacantists realize NO SUCH THING. You are imputing ill will and malice that isn't there.

You are COMPLETELY ignoring the elephant in the room -- the UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS IN THE CHURCH which would justify things that would normally be unjustifiable.

As I said before, there's NO ONE HERE (that I know of) who holds a Protestant ecclesiology. At best you can argue that some of their principles might imply a Prot ecclesiology or lead toward it implicitly.

That's why I got so angry with his imputation of heresy to DL. There was nothing even close to heretical in the statement he made. In fact, if I wanted to take the time to dissect RomanTheo's OP, I could call out a dozen errors in his logic. I read Msgr. Fenton's article detailing the range of opinions regarding what constitues membership in the Church, and the opinions were all over the map, including one CATHOLIC theologian who said that the Sacrament of Baptism was all that was required.

This criticism is the same that I have had of the Dimonds, where they make some arguments based on dogma and then hold that their conclusion is dogmatic. It's the same error that Bishop Sanborn made in his dogmatic SV treatise on a rejection of "Opinionism". As soon as you start reasoning from dogma, often even if BOTH presmises are de fide (hint, they rarely are), the conclusion cannot be de fide unless you're dealing with nearly a direct contradiction. There can always be a missing distinction somewhere or a false application or interpretation of one of the premises.

There is no one here who pertinaciously adheres to any kind of heresy. Yes, there are some bad principles and bad thinking that may, when taken to their logical conclusions, lead to heresy. I've had my own issues with certain articulations of R&R (not all of them), which I believe are extremely dangerous, but if I were a priest, I would never dream of withholding the Sacraments from someeone who held that position or considering them to be non-Catholics. What's actually more prevalent is a schismatic mentality ... that comes precisely from imputing formal and pretinacious heresy to others and holding them to be outside the Church, which is what RomanTheo is doing.

Both Avrille and Bishop Williamson have recently stated that sedevacantism is "understandable" given what's taking place during this Crisis ... even if they don't themselves agree with it. Those comments came as a breath of fresh air. This dogmatism regarding conclusions made about the Crisis has been one of my greatest pet peeves. It's OK to argue tooth and nail for your position, but the line is crossed when you start denouncing people you disagree with as non-Catholics. There's no one here who if we had a normal situation in the Church would not simply be attending his local Catholic parish ... or spending so much time posting on CathInfo.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #24 on:** May 20, 2022, 06:43:44 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on May 19, 2022, 12:24:14 PM

Exactly. We are sedes because we do not believe that abomination preaching heresy could ever possibly be the Catholic Church

Is it heresy to teach something which goes beyond the Word of God and in fact denies it?

Jesus said of the Pharisees that they were legitimate rulers in Israel (the OT covenant people of God):

Quote

Matthew 23:1-3

[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

And yet:

Quote

Matthew 15:1-3

[1] Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: [2] Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. [3] But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition?

Mark 7:7-9

[7] And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. [8] For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. [9] And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.

The Catholic Church is the Israel of the New Covenant. The annotators of the original Douay Rheims reminds us that, under the New Covenant, the Catholic Church "answereth to the seat of Moses" (I'll track down the quote later) - i.e., the hierarchy of the RCC replaced the Pharisees as the legitimate authority.

Question for all - DL, Lad, Roman Theo, anyone: Where in Scripture does it say that our popes and bishops cannot teach error, error that might even "make void the commandment of God"?

I know the hierarchy (cf. the Pharisees) teaches it can't, and that it is "infallible" and "indefectible" under certain conditions, but where does Scripture teach it?

Interesting discussion.

Thank you,

DR

Stubborn · « **Reply #25 on:** May 20, 2022, 07:17:13 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 19, 2022, 08:13:48 PM

Sedevacantists realize NO SUCH THING. You are imputing ill will and malice that isn't there.

You are COMPLETELY ignoring the elephant in the room -- the UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS IN THE CHURCH which would justify things that would normally be unjustifiable.

Yes Matthew, what you say here is certain. I think we all agree that the reason for this is because the true faith is our foundation which remains unchanged, and preserving, persevering and handing it down means doing whatever must be done in order to keep the true faith.

The debate revolves around sedeism being one of those "things" unnecessary to justify in order to keep the faith. To many of those who've rejected the sede position, they see the idea as being at the very least unnecessary, which, they believe, renders sedesim one of those things that are unjustifiable, which is something that will apparently, keep the whole idea of sedeism debatable for as long as this crisis lasts.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** May 20, 2022, 07:47:08 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on May 20, 2022, 06:43:44 AM

Question for all - DL, Lad, Roman Theo, anyone: Where in Scripture does it say that our popes and bishops cannot teach error, error that might even "make void the commandment of God"?

Are we Prots now? There are lots of things that Scripture doesn't detail regarding ecclesiology, but which are in the Church's Tradition. Early in Church history, expression that "Peter has spoken; the matter is closed" was very widely used, and the teachings of the Church Fathers are that the Roman See can not err or be polluted with error.

This isn't about the strict limits of infallibility, as I have repeatedly pointed out. It is about the question of whether the Catholic Church can change so drastically that it would be unrecognizable to Catholics living 100 years ago and mistaken for a Protestant sect. This Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, as Archbishop Lefebvre has repeatedly stated, and, agreeing with the Catholic Encyclopedia and pretty much every Catholic theologian in history, we hold that this is not possible, as it would be tantamount to a defection of the Church.

What the exact legal disposition is of the man sitting on the Chair in Rome, that can be debated, and frankly it's a sideshow distraction. Whether the see is vacant or "impounded" (Father Chazal) or whatever, that's not for us to dispose of. We simply know that we cannot be part of this institution. We don't belong there. We do not hear from Rome the "Voice of the Shepherd" and do not recognize their Magisterium as the Catholic Magisterium. That's why we're Traditional Catholics. If I thought that Conciliar Church was the Church, I'd never dream of abandoning it but would rather be at some FSSP chapel smelling the smells and hearing the bells.

See, when you have an institution that Catholics simply don't recognize as Catholic and that you must stay away from to please God and keep the faith, if that wouldn't constitute a defection of the Church, then nothing would.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote

Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being.

We see a Conciliar Church that has corrupted doctrine (both of faith and, with Bergoglio, also now of morals), that has an official public worship that displeases God and is worse than a lot of what the Prots came up with in terms of Liturgy, that has a huge pool of bogus saints, including the destroyers themselves (the greatest uninterrupted line of saint popes since the early martyr popes, despite their responsibility for the greatest decay of the Church in history) ... and you are trying to tell me that's the Catholic Church. You might as well be calling my mother a whore ... and you are.

So please take your nonsense somewhere else. Stop playing your game with splitting hairs about the strict limits of infallibility. This goes WAY BEYOND THAT. If there hadn't been a New Mass and new Sacraments and all the bogus saints, there likely would be only a very small Traditional movement. But the overall perception we have of the Conciliar Church ... that monstrosity is simply unrecognizable as the Church.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #27 on:** May 20, 2022, 07:51:55 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 20, 2022, 07:47:08 AM

Are we Prots now? There are lots of things that Scripture doesn't detail regarding ecclesiology, but which are in the Church's Tradition. Early in Church history, expression that "Peter has spoken; the matter is closed" was very widely used, and the teachings of the Church Fathers are that the Roman See can not err or be polluted with error.

This isn't about the strict limits of infallibility, as I have repeatedly pointed out. It is about the question of whether the Catholic Church can change so drastically that it would be unrecognizable to Catholics living 100 years ago and mistaken for a Protestant sect. This Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, as Archbishop Lefebvre has repeatedly stated, and, agreeing with the Catholic Encyclopedia and pretty much every Catholic theologian in history, we hold that this is not possible, as it would be tantamount to a defection of the Church.

What the exact legal disposition is of the man sitting on the Chair in Rome, that can be debated, and frankly it's a sideshow distraction. Whether the see is vacant or "impounded" (Father Chazal) or whatever, that's not for us to dispose of. We simply know that we cannot be part of this institution. We don't belong there. We do not hear from Rome the "Voice of the Shepherd" and do not recognize their Magisterium as the Catholic Magisterium. That's why we're Traditional Catholics. If I thought that Conciliar Church was the Church, I'd never dream of abandoning it but would rather be at some FSSP chapel smelling the smells and hearing the bells.

See, when you have an institution that Catholics simply don't recognize as Catholic and that you must stay away from to please God and keep the faith, if that wouldn't constitute a defection of the Church, then nothing would.

Catholic Encyclopedia:
We see a Conciliar Church that has corrupted doctrine (both of faith and, with Bergoglio, also now of morals), that has an official public worship that displeases God and is worse than a lot of what the Prots came up with in terms of Liturgy, that has a huge pool of bogus saints, including the destroyers themselves (the greatest uninterrupted line of saint popes since the early martyr popes, despite their responsibility for the greatest decay of the Church in history) ... and you are trying to tell me that's the Catholic Church. You might as well be calling my mother a whore ... and you are.

So please take your nonsense somewhere else. Stop playing your game with splitting hairs about the strict limits of infallibility. This goes WAY BEYOND THAT. If there hadn't been a New Mass and new Sacraments and all the bogus saints, there likely would be only a very small Traditional movement. But the overall perception we have of the Conciliar Church ... that monstrosity is simply unrecognizable as the Church.

Lots of rhetorical slashing and thrashing.

I hope someone will mention some Scripture here.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #28 on:** May 20, 2022, 08:02:32 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on May 20, 2022, 06:43:44 AM

Question for all - DL, Lad, Roman Theo, anyone: Where in Scripture does it say that our popes and bishops cannot teach error, error that might even "make void the commandment of God"?

Considering Scripture does not use the term "Pope" anywhere, you'd be hard-pressed to find what you're looking for.

But here's a few on heresy and heretics from A Textual Concordance on the Scriptures:

Quote

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. - Gal. 1:8, 9

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ: - Col. 2:8

[18] Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, [19] And not holding the head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God. - Col. 2:18, 19

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. [21] Which some promising, have erred concerning the faith. - 1 Tim. 6:20, 21

A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: [11] Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. -Titus 3:10, 11

Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. [10] If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works. - 2 John 1:9-11

Also, the term "sedeism" comes across as retarded. What is it even supposed to mean? Seatism? See-ism? Chair-ism? What does it even imply? One who believes in the Holy See? The Chair? Does it mean sedeplenism or sedevacantism or sedeimpoundism?

It implies, to me, that it is an error to believe in the See of Rome or the Chair of St. Peter. Rather than the reality of sedevacantism: belief that the See is currently vacant, which has precedent in the Church every single time a Pope dies, only this time that it is of an unprecedented length. That is no heresy, maybe an error, but applying a stupid term like "sedeism" to it is unnecessary and misleading.

Emile · « **Reply #29 on:** May 20, 2022, 08:04:13 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on May 20, 2022, 07:51:55 AM

Lots of rhetorical slashing and thrashing.

I hope someone will mention some Scripture here.

"The senseless man shall not know: nor will the fool understand these things."

[Psalms 91:7]

You left yourself wide open, DR.

Author Topic: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL (Read 3962 times)

2Vermont

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

2Vermont

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

bodeens

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

DigitalLogos

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

bodeens

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

Matthew

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

gladius_veritatis

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

Sefa

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

Ladislaus

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

DecemRationis

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

Stubborn

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

Ladislaus

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

DecemRationis

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

DigitalLogos

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL

Emile

Re: Sedevacantist Ecclesiology and Protestant Ecclesiology are IDENTICAL