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

Poll

Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?

Become an R&R Traditionalist
12 (36.4%)
Become an Indult Traditionalist
5 (15.2%)
Become an NO Cath Conservative
9 (27.3%)
Become a very liberal Catholic
1 (3%)
Cease to practice Catholicism
6 (18.2%)

Total Members Voted: 27

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18

Author Topic: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?  (Read 14676 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 4187
  • Reputation: +2431/-557
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2020, 02:48:48 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on July 07, 2020, 01:27:12 PM





    The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility


    Can we say Gallicanism? What a stupid and ridiculous statement. Yeah, the most “dangerous” heresy of all! 😂

    Was modernism on his radar? Sean, you believe in the Church of the superfluous pope. In your bizarre idea of the Church, the pope is unnecessary, he actually has no function except on rare occasions he proclaims a dogma, otherwise he’s just a figurehead. You R&R people want your cake and eat it too, sorry the Church doesn’t work that way. You have to erroneously lower the status of the pope and the papacy in order to support your erroneous thesis. Back 20 years ago the confusion was understandable, it’s wearing a bit thin today.
    Also, just because Archbishop Lefebvre did much good for the Church, didn’t mean he was perfect, he wasn’t, sorry.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #31 on: July 07, 2020, 02:54:59 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on July 07, 2020, 02:48:48 PM

    Can we say Gallicanism? What a stupid and ridiculous statement. Yeah, the most “dangerous” heresy of all! 😂

    Was modernism on his radar? Sean, you believe in the Church of the superfluous pope. In your bizarre idea of the Church, the pope is unnecessary, he actually has no function except on rare occasions he proclaims a dogma, otherwise he’s just a figurehead. You R&R people want your cake and eat it too, sorry the Church doesn’t work that way. You have to erroneously lower the status of the pope and the papacy in order to support your erroneous thesis. Back 20 years ago the confusion was understandable, it’s wearing a bit thin today.
    Also, just because Archbishop Lefebvre did much good for the Church, didn’t mean he was perfect, he wasn’t, sorry.
    Typical sede gibberish, showing you never bothered to read the article (probably because you intuit it would threaten your false faith).
    Sedevacantism is its own liberal religion of papalotry:
    Everything is infallible, or he isn’t the pope.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4187
    • Reputation: +2431/-557
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #32 on: July 07, 2020, 03:15:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on July 07, 2020, 02:54:59 PM
    Typical sede gibberish, showing you never bothered to read the article (probably because you intuit it would threaten your false faith).
    Sedevacantism is its own liberal religion of papalotry:
    Everything is infallible, or he isn’t the pope.


    No Sean, you don’t just lower the status of the papacy, you border on hating it. Frankly, I find it repulsive. If I thought Bergoglio was a real pope, I would obey him unquestionably. Obviously, I can’t because he’s a heretic and a heretic is not a Catholic and someone who is not a Catholic can’t possibly be the head of the Catholic Church.


    But, for you, you have a dilemma, your pope is a heretical communist, what are you to do??? The Catholic
    attitude would be to either accept him as a true pope and obey his decisions or to reject him as a false shepherd. No, you want your cake and eat it too and do you know why? I suspect that you have been brainwashed(possibly from an early age) to believe, a priori, that the R&R position is infallibly right and that the sedevacantist position is infallibly wrong. You won’t, nay, you can’t allow yourself the notion that you could possibly be wrong. Think man!

    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10305
    • Reputation: +6215/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #33 on: July 07, 2020, 03:19:12 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
     If I thought Bergoglio was a real pope, I would obey him unquestionably.
    That's not catholic at all.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4187
    • Reputation: +2431/-557
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #34 on: July 07, 2020, 03:31:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 07, 2020, 03:19:12 PM
    That's not catholic at all.
    Oh really? So you don’t owe obedience to the pope? Is this what the R&R position has come down to? Why do I bother?
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +453/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #35 on: July 07, 2020, 03:35:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on July 07, 2020, 01:27:12 PM
    Here's what the sedes need to refute: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

    The article discusses alleged errors which allegedly lead to either sedevacantism or servile obedience.

    No need for any sedevacantist to refute it, since it doesn't even try to refute sedevacantist positions.

    The (or at least a) sedevacantist position is that manifest heretics (whether material or formal) are not members of the Church and hold no office in the Church. To refute sedevacantism you need to either show that the Robber Council and the Church of that new Pentecost did not propose heresies, or that the Church of God may include heretical members (holding offices).
    Logged
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #36 on: July 07, 2020, 03:57:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on July 07, 2020, 01:14:51 PM
    One of the few threads I've seen where people seem to be grappling with the issues and not just talking past each other.

    I've read a fair amount from Francis. He writes differently than the pre-V2 popes did. He is often stating things ambiguously that admit of different interpretations, or talking about possibilities for consideration, without imposing much of anything definitely.

    Is Francis being pope really incompatible with the magisterium meaning something, if he's not exactly teaching magisterially?

    Uhm, he (and his predecessors) are clearly teaching Magisterially.  Their teaching is at least "merely authentic" Magisterium.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #37 on: July 07, 2020, 04:10:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on July 07, 2020, 09:50:19 AM
    Ok. So, as I understand it, you're an "opinionist" sedevacantist. A sede-doubtist in other words, who believes neither position is dogmatically certain with the certainty of faith; as you explained, you believe defection is impossible and take the position that R&R contradicts Church indefectibility. You say Pope Paul VI could have been blackmailed, in theory, and this would save indefectibility. You mentioned that distinction between NO Catholics and Indult traditionalists etc that I discussed above. Did I leave anything out?

    You and I agree to an extent, I think, on the non-infallible Magisterium. I'm surprised you would then in such a case disagree with Bp. Vigano and even Bp. Schneider. Bp. Schneider arguably is now saying what the Remnant, CFN, One Peter Five, Life Site News etc have argued for some time. I believe we agree Vatican II is non-infallible and defined no new dogma. But perhaps, as you quoted, we may disagree on how radically things have gone "off the rails" as you put it. I believe you once said that if it was only a question of Vatican II you would raise questions through the normal channels and go on with Catholic life as normally as possible. Well, I believe in something close to that. Regarding the Mass, I explained my thoughts earlier; not just a subjective preference but an objective superiority of the TLM. Your thoughts on that?

    Yes, I don't believe that anything in Vatican II strictly had the notes of infallibility.  Nevertheless, I do agree with +Vigano against +Schneider that it's not just a question of one or two expressions in Vatican II that needs to be amended or corrected.  I believe, as +Vigano has articulated, that the entire thing is permeated with false principles that renders the thing defective at a whole.  And it set the entire Church on an orientation to depart from Tradition.  But unlike +Vigano, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit would ever allow something this radically defective.

    So I agree with +Vigano that Vatican II is not salvageable with a handful of corrections.

    Then I agree with Sandro Magister's recent critique of +Vigano that it is not acceptable to simply jettison an entire Ecuмenical Council.
    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/archbishop-vigano-to-sandro-magister-'we-should-forget-vatican-ii'

    So I combine my agreement with these two points ... to lead me to my sede-doubtist position.

    So, Xavier, do you agree with +Schneider that we're simply talking about a few points that need to be amended, or with +Vigano that it's radically defective as a whole and not salvageable?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #38 on: July 07, 2020, 04:19:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Cera on July 07, 2020, 02:37:02 PM
    What if the Popes since 1958 have been anti-popes, since Cardinal Siri was canonically elected, white smoke went up, the crowd roared, it was announced that a new pope had been elected, he accepted the papacy, chose the name Pope Gregory XVII and then an outside source bnai brith, gave the order to threaten him with the deaths of all Catholic hierarchy behind the Iron Curtain. He capitulated and resigned, which was invalid according to cannon law because it was forced.

    The Freemasons/ Communists wanted a Pope in exile (also in approved Catholic Prophecy) because they had had a bad experience when they put a Freemason on the Papal Throne previously -- it was Pius IX, who was converted to Catholicism by virtue of the office -- being on the throne of Peter.

    So this time they got what they wanted. A true Pope in exile and neutralized, and a series of anti-popes in the Vatican.

    Pope Gregory XVII was succeeded by Pope Gregory XVIII and after that they have been in hiding.

    This view is not sede.

    I do believe that Siri was elected and uncanonically ousted.  I have not seen any evidence for his having a successor, so, as far as I could tell, it would be merely hypothetical.

    I think that the answer to the Church crisis really is as straighforward as this ...

    Cardinal Siri was the legitimately-elected pope, forced out of office under duress, and a series of impostors / usurpers / infiltrators were set up in his place by the enemies of the Church.  That is why the "Magisterium" could "fail" this badly, because it was never the Magisterium, but an Anti-Magisterium.

    This monstrosity known as the Conciliar Church is simply not recognizable as the Catholic Church and has none of the notes of the Catholic Church.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #39 on: July 07, 2020, 04:21:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Argentino on July 07, 2020, 01:49:18 PM
    Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:
    Quote

    Don't you know that if the R&R downplays infallibility, then they will then perceive the truth to be an exaggeration of infallibility?

    Yeah, sure, that "heresy" is the root of all the Church's problems.  Spoken like a true Old Catholic (or Gallican).  This French Gallicanism is in fact behind R&R theory.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #40 on: July 07, 2020, 04:24:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on July 07, 2020, 02:17:24 PM
    Accusing sedevacantists of mixing infallibility with indefectibility is just dodging the issue with the latter by attacking the strawman of the former. Fact of the matter is, if Vatican 2 is a legitimate Church council and Francis is a legitimate pope, then the Church has been taken over by non-Catholics and has promulgated teachings and rites which are harmful to faith - by definition, a defection.

    No, BOTH sides are conflating infallibility and indefectibility.  Your second sentence here is in fact the argument from indefectibility.  There's no need to exaggerate the scope if "infallibility in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton called it).
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #41 on: July 07, 2020, 04:26:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on July 07, 2020, 02:48:48 PM

    Can we say Gallicanism? What a stupid and ridiculous statement. Yeah, the most “dangerous” heresy of all! 😂
     
    LOL ... I responded to this (in a similar manner) before I saw your response.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #42 on: July 07, 2020, 04:30:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 07, 2020, 03:19:12 PM
    That's not catholic at all.

    He's talking about with regard to his official papal acts, the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church ... not private commands.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #43 on: July 07, 2020, 04:33:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Struthio on July 07, 2020, 03:35:13 PM
    The article discusses alleged errors which allegedly lead to either sedevacantism or servile obedience.

    Correct.  It poses a false dilemma and beats down a sedevacantist strawman.

    It does rightly speak about the existence of non-infallible Magisterium, but does not address the broader problem of indefectibility posed by Vatican II.

    Unfortunately, sedevacantists tend to join them in battle on this false battleground, and have had a tendency to exaggerate the scope of infallibility in the strict sense.

    This Vatican II phenomenon, as +Vigano pointed out, is MUCH MORE than a small handful of erroneous propositions, but represents a radical alteration of the Traditional Church.  Such cannot proceed from the legitimate Magisterium.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
    « Reply #44 on: July 07, 2020, 04:38:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • So what of this notion that Vatican II was a pastoral Council that did not intend to teach anything new?

    Its intention was to re-present existing Catholic teaching to the world in a way that would make it more palatable.  It's a re-interpretation.  Sure, the Church teaches that there's no salvation outside the Church, but, hey, you all got it wrong, what the Church REALLY meant was ...  Oh, of course we have a Mass, but it is in fact the "Lord's supper" and "assembly of the faithful."  People used to think that when we taught that the Catholic Church was the ONE TRUE Religion, it meant that other religions were false, but, no, what we REALLY meant was that we have the FULLNESS of truth, not that you guys are wrong or bad.  You all have truth too.  We're both true.  You've heard it said that ..., but what we REALLY MEANT was ...

    Basically, the very notion of this "Pastoral" Council was MODERNISM IN A NUTSHELL.  It's the notion that the meanings of Catholic doctrine can change with time and be MODERNIZED.

    SO THE VERY NOTION of a PASTORAL Council is in fact textbook Modernism.  Consequently, it is heretical in its very intent and formal end, in its entire orientation.  It is not just one or two bad propositions.  You could strike 10% of it from the existence, and it still would remain a blight and a pollution on the Magisterium.  Who could ever take the Catholic Church seriously ever again?  It reduces papal Magisterium to a mere opining about various subjects related to the faith which any Catholic is free to take or leave if he decides that it's contrary to prior Church teaching.

    Sure, let's keep Vatican II as a legitimate Council.  Pius XIII comes along and overturns some teachings of Vatican II.  What's to stop a Catholic from saying, Pius XIII got it wrong because he went against Tradition (as in the Vatican II Tradition)?  In that case, the only way a Pope would have to put an end to dissension and nonsense would be to issue solemn pronouncements, because everything short of that is fair game for dissent.  Yo, Pius X, you condemned Modernism?  Well, I think you're wrong.  Phouey on you!  Until you issue a dogma, I'm going to keep on truckin'.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18
    « previous next »