Author Topic: Sedevacantist position on Our Lady of Akita? (Read 5168 times)

curiouscatholic23 · « **on:** August 07, 2011, 03:17:43 PM »

What is the sedevacantist position on Our Lady of Akita? If the Vatican II created a false church/religion why would she appear there?

I am torn between my sedevacantist views and my belief in marian apparitions.

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** August 07, 2011, 08:28:25 PM »

Please understand that there is no "sedevacantist position" on anything. The word "sedevacantist" means one and only one thing.

If you believe that the present claimant to the papcy, Benedict 16, is the pope of the Holy Catholic Church, then you are not a sedevacantist.

On the other hand, if you believe that the present claimant to the papcy, Benedict 16, is not the pope of the Holy Catholic Church, then you are a sedevacantist.

"Sedevacantism" does not extend to any doctrine, liturgical rite or practice, Marian apparition, or any other thing. It is not a "movement", or a group, or a church. It is merely the recognition that the man commonly held to be the pope is, in fact, a non-Catholic, an imposter, a usurper. Period. For a more detailed and authoritative explanation of sedevacantism, I would recommend browsing The Aquinas Site at http://sedevacantist.com/

On the issue of Marian apparitions, individual sedevacantists may have differing views. I believe Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Fatima, and Our Lady of Guadelupe are true apparations of the Blessed Virgin. I believe Our Lady of Medjugorje is demonstrably a false apparition.

And though I've heard of Our Lady of Akita, I honestly have never read anything truly authoritative on what it was other than short comments here and there from people on forums such as this one. The bottom line is that if the apparition gave approval of Vatican II as you suggest, then it also is demonstrably false.

The bottom line is that there is no conflict between sedevacantism and true Marian apparitions.

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 07, 2011, 08:47:25 PM »

Sr. Agnes Sasagawa of the Akita apparitions was affiliated with was a Novus Ordo convent. Logic tells us that if the Mass of Paul VI is invalid and if imposters have occupied the Chair of Peter since 1958, surly the Blessed Virgin Mary would have said something.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #3 on:** August 08, 2011, 01:48:25 AM »

Discussions of Marian apparitions invariably skip Our Lady of Good Success (Ecuador).

She warned us of a Freemasonic domination and subversion of morality in the public sphere and ultimately (If I recall) Freemasonic infiltration of the Church at the highest levels.

herbert · « **Reply #4 on:** August 08, 2011, 07:08:18 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: TKGS
if you believe that the present claimant to the papcy, Benedict 16, is not the pope of the Holy Catholic Church, then you are a sedevacantist.

Not to go off topic here but not all those who don't recognize Fr. Ratzinger as the pope consider themselves as sedevacantist. It really is a term that should be discarded.

what is other term?

Emerentiana · « **Reply #5 on:** August 08, 2011, 04:32:38 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: TKGS
if you believe that the present claimant to the papcy, Benedict 16, is not the pope of the Holy Catholic Church, then you are a sedevacantist.

Not to go off topic here but not all those who don't recognize Fr. Ratzinger as the pope consider themselves as sedevacantist. It really is a term that should be discarded.

I think some day the term will be discarded. For now, its used to distinguish these trad catholics who reject the false popes of Vatican 11

Sigismund · « **Reply #6 on:** August 08, 2011, 08:02:16 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: TKGS
if you believe that the present claimant to the papcy, Benedict 16, is not the pope of the Holy Catholic Church, then you are a sedevacantist.

Not to go off topic here but not all those who don't recognize Fr. Ratzinger as the pope consider themselves as sedevacantist. It really is a term that should be discarded.

What other options are there?

I am not trying to be contentious here. This is a genuine and respectfully offered question.

Judas Machabeus · « **Reply #7 on:** August 12, 2011, 07:10:10 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

What other options are there?

"Papally disabled"? :stare:

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #8 on:** August 12, 2011, 07:52:07 PM »

"Sede Plenist."(SP?)

Meaning: The papal chair has a usurper sitting in it, and there is a real pope somewhere.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #9 on:** August 13, 2011, 08:29:38 AM »

Sede Plena means: The rightful occupant sits in his see.

Sede Vacante means: There is at present and temporarily no rightful occupant of a certain see.

Sede Impedite means: There is a rightful occupant of a certain see, but he is impeded from sitting in it.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #10 on:** August 13, 2011, 08:38:45 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

Sede Plena means: The rightful occupant sits in his see.

Sede Vacante means: There is at present and temporarily no rightful occupant of a certain see.

Sede Impedite means: There is a rightful occupant of a certain see, but he is impeded from sitting in it.

Arg. Yes. This is correct.

Sorry.

Daegus · « **Reply #11 on:** August 13, 2011, 08:47:04 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

Sede Plena means: The rightful occupant sits in his see.

Sede Vacante means: There is at present and temporarily no rightful occupant of a certain see.

Sede Impedite means: There is a rightful occupant of a certain see, but he is impeded from sitting in it.

I'm not sure I understand the third position...

Exilenomore · « **Reply #12 on:** August 13, 2011, 08:54:24 AM »

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: Exilenomore
Sede Plena means: The rightful occupant sits in his see.

Sede Vacante means: There is at present and temporarily no rightful occupant of a certain see.

Sede Impedite means: There is a rightful occupant of a certain see, but he is impeded from sitting in it.

I'm not sure I understand the third position...

When applied to the Roman See, it means that there is a rightful Pope, but who is blocked from taking up his residence in Rome due to an usurper.

Daegus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 13, 2011, 09:14:19 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

Quote from: Daegus
Quote from: Exilenomore
Sede Plena means: The rightful occupant sits in his see.

Sede Vacante means: There is at present and temporarily no rightful occupant of a certain see.

Sede Impedite means: There is a rightful occupant of a certain see, but he is impeded from sitting in it.

I'm not sure I understand the third position...

When applied to the Roman See, it means that there is a rightful Pope, but who is blocked from taking up his residence in Rome due to an usurper.

I would assume that to maintain this position you would have to have an idea of who the real Pope is that is being overshadowed by the supposed fraud (Benedict). Who might that be?

Exilenomore · « **Reply #14 on:** August 13, 2011, 10:06:32 AM »

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: Exilenomore
Quote from: Daegus
Quote from: Exilenomore
Sede Plena means: The rightful occupant sits in his see.

Sede Vacante means: There is at present and temporarily no rightful occupant of a certain see.

Sede Impedite means: There is a rightful occupant of a certain see, but he is impeded from sitting in it.

I'm not sure I understand the third position...

When applied to the Roman See, it means that there is a rightful Pope, but who is blocked from taking up his residence in Rome due to an usurper.

I would assume that to maintain this position you would have to have an idea of who the real Pope is that is being overshadowed by the supposed fraud (Benedict). Who might that be?

Both the rejection of papa-haereticism and the belief in the indefectability of the particular Church of Rome is the basis for this position regarding the present state of things. It is not necessary to know a person for that person to exist. I do not know who the rightful Pope is at present, but my invincible ignorance does not negate the fact that he exists, or at least that his electors exist.