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 (35.3%)
Become an Indult Traditionalist
6 (17.6%)
Become an NO Cath Conservative
9 (26.5%)
Become a very liberal Catholic
1 (2.9%)
Cease to practice Catholicism
6 (17.6%)

Total Members Voted: 28

Author Topic: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?  (Read 27073 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter

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.
"In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience".- Fr. Fenton

Quo, what you are saying is in fact what the masses *actually did* when the revolution was only in it's infancy - they obeyed unquestionably.

It's not too far fetched to say the success of the NO altogether hinged upon the above quote, because when Catholics in the 60s and 70s saw what was happening within the Church and saw what they KNEW was wrong, the enemies' won over most of the the stubborn hold outs by appealing to the above false teaching, thereby convincing most of the holdouts that obedience to the authority of the pope makes null and void our duty to remain faithful to the true faith and doctrines of the Church - just exactly as you believe and just as exactly as directed to do by Fr. Fenton and other certain theologians of the past two centuries as quoted above.

I know you don't engage debates with me, so be it, but know the above quote is at least grave error, if not outright heresy, a heresy that Lad repeatedly quotes in support of sedes as their impenetrable foundation - which in reality is a foundation made of nothing but sand.  

Consider that if in fact the above is truly an authentic teaching of the Church, then I, as well as you, as well as Lad and all other sedes, as well as all of the people on earth who *do not* "obey him unquestionably" will lose our souls.

Stubborn, but it is not just the Theologians. The Popes themselves say that the Ordinary Magisterium is to be regarded as being protected by the promise, "Whoever hears you, hears Me". This is the way it is explained by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. The theory that doctrine taught even by the non-infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs or of the teaching Church is nonetheless at least safe even if not immediately infallibly true dogma comes from that. Your thoughts on those words of the Holy Father Pope Pius XII?

Quote from: Quo
There is *no* dogma that states that an interregnum can’t be 60, 70, or 100 years and I never contended that there are no bishops today that have ordinary jurisdiction.
Well, the two are inter-connected. Loss of Papally Authorized Bishops=Loss of Ordinary Jurisdiction=Defection of the Church's Apostolicity.

Unless you wish to argue that Ordinary Jurisdiction can be transmitted to the Bishops apart from the Pope, but that seems to contradict doctrine of the Authentic Magisterium of Pope Pius XII, who taught, in Ad Apostolorum Principis, in 1958: "bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ". . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff."[13]

40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."[14]" 

http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html No Pope in history perhaps had taught this doctrine as clearly as Pope Pius XII, whom sedevacantists now consider to be "the last Pope". Yet, if you agree (1) the Church cannot lose Apostolicity, and (2) at least some Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction are necessary for the Church's Apostolicity, then you must hold that (3) Ordinary Jurisdiction can be transmitted to Bishops other than through the Successor of St. Peter, which seems to contradict Pope Pius XII word-for-word. Cardinal Ottaviani and Msgr. Fenton also confirmed this doctrine of Pope Pius XII in their writings. If you want to discuss this in more detail, we can do that in the "Oldest living Bishops" thread.

Ladislaus, I agree with Bp. Athanasius Schneider almost completely. Bp. Athanasius has also been very strong on the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation, identifying that as one of the key issues of the day: yet I support Abp. Vigano also, and believe both Bishops are on the same side, fighting for the same end, trying to correct the abuses that have cropped up. These issues have to be discussed by the Church Authorities, especially Bishops, and I believe that will be done correctly at something like a future Third Vatican Council. One of the early traditionalists Priests - I forgot his name; he wasn't SSPX, though - was a proponent of a Vatican III. It is at such a future Council, which will be dogmatic and infallible, that some of these issues can be corrected/explicitly defined. 


Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Stubborn, but it is not just the Theologians. The Popes themselves say that the Ordinary Magisterium is to be regarded as being protected by the promise, "Whoever hears you, hears Me". This is the way it is explained by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. The theory that doctrine taught even by the non-infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs or of the teaching Church is nonetheless at least safe even if not immediately infallibly true dogma comes from that. Your thoughts on those words of the Holy Father Pope Pius XII?
Well, the two are inter-connected. Loss of Papally Authorized Bishops=Loss of Ordinary Jurisdiction=Defection of the Church's Apostolicity.

Unless you wish to argue that Ordinary Jurisdiction can be transmitted to the Bishops apart from the Pope, but that seems to contradict doctrine of the Authentic Magisterium of Pope Pius XII, who taught, in Ad Apostolorum Principis, in 1958: "bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ". . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff."[13]

40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."[14]"

http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html No Pope in history perhaps had taught this doctrine as clearly as Pope Pius XII, whom sedevacantists now consider to be "the last Pope". Yet, if you agree (1) the Church cannot lose Apostolicity, and (2) at least some Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction are necessary for the Church's Apostolicity, then you must hold that (3) Ordinary Jurisdiction can be transmitted to Bishops other than through the Successor of St. Peter, which seems to contradict Pope Pius XII word-for-word. Cardinal Ottaviani and Msgr. Fenton also confirmed this doctrine of Pope Pius XII in their writings. If you want to discuss this in more detail, we can do that in the "Oldest living Bishops" thread.

Ladislaus, I agree with Bp. Athanasius Schneider almost completely. Bp. Athanasius has also been very strong on the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation, identifying that as one of the key issues of the day: yet I support Abp. Vigano also, and believe both Bishops are on the same side, fighting for the same end, trying to correct the abuses that have cropped up. These issues have to be discussed by the Church Authorities, especially Bishops, and I believe that will be done correctly at something like a future Third Vatican Council. One of the early traditionalists Priests - I forgot his name; he wasn't SSPX, though - was a proponent of a Vatican III. It is at such a future Council, which will be dogmatic and infallible, that some of these issues can be corrected/explicitly defined.
I have no problem in believing that bishops can and could legitimately be appointed by false shepherds under common error, especially in the Eastern Rite of the Church. I also have no problem in believing that some older bishops validly consecrated in the Roman Rite didn’t resign to lawful authority and thus still retain their office. 
You, on the other hand, have a much much bigger problem. You have to accept the *condemned* proposition that the Church can teach and promote error. 

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Stubborn, but it is not just the Theologians. The Popes themselves say that the Ordinary Magisterium is to be regarded as being protected by the promise, "Whoever hears you, hears Me". This is the way it is explained by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. The theory that doctrine taught even by the non-infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs or of the teaching Church is nonetheless at least safe even if not immediately infallibly true dogma comes from that. Your thoughts on those words of the Holy Father Pope Pius XII?
You are way off the context of what I said. My point is that the dogma states in apodictic terms that the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra - period.

The pope has no other "kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility", this is a novel idea, this is grave error or heresy - to insist he has an other infallibility in addition to the infallibility defined at V1, is to grant him an infallibility that per V1, he simply does not have. Do you agree?





It is absolutely and unambiguously clear that the Conciliar sect teaches that salvation can be obtained through any religion and even no religion.  So, if Bergoglio is the pope, one can legitimately ditch all religion, lead an entirely secular life, just be a "good person", be environmentally conscientious, and one is pretty much assured heaven.
I missed to respond to this. No, it isn't "absolutely and unambiguously clear". Here is CCC 161, "http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/161.htm
161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"
And Ad Gentes, Vatican II, on the Missionary Activity of the Church: "7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:4-5), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity." http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html

Quo Vaidis Domine, I don't say the Church can teach error. Jurisdiction will not be supplied to heretics for heretics to make appointments. Is jurisdiction supplied to the Patriarch of Constantinople and Patriarch of Moscow? If the Papal appointments confer authority, it is because those doing the appointing are True Popes. 

Stubborn, this is Humani Generis: "20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." Agree or disagree?