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: 30

Author Topic: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?  (Read 5818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Argentino

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 177
  • Reputation: +68/-62
  • Gender: Male
  • Fighting the good fight.
A dogmatic fact is one declared as such by Church Authority. Theologians commonly give the example of a Papal Election or an Ecuмenical Council as being a dogmatic fact. Thus, the election of Pope Pius IX as the lawful Pope of the Catholic Church, or that Vatican I was a legitimate Ecuмenical Council, would be classified as dogmatic facts.

In order for a sedevacantist to argue the alleged non-Papacy of recent Popes was a dogmatic fact, he or she would need to show a dogmatic declaration by a Church Council to that effect. But no such Council exists.

There are those who argue (like Fr. Connell in 1965) that the Papacy of Pope Paul VI (and thus of Pope John XXIII also) were dogmatic facts. The reason they adduce for this was that those Papal elections were universally accepted.
What you say is contrary to what the second-to-last chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin" says. Read that again.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30695
  • Reputation: +18088/-4550
  • Gender: Male


Offline DigitalLogos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5920
  • Reputation: +3302/-510
  • Gender: Male
  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
As for the poll at hand: I would be a NO conservative. Because it is the only parallel position to sedevacantism without falling into schism like R&R.
"The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else." -- Saint Francis de Sales

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Timothy 4:3]

Offline bodeens

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1345
  • Reputation: +649/-134
  • Gender: Male
As for the poll at hand: I would be a NO conservative. Because it is the only parallel position to sedevacantism without falling into schism like R&R.
Yes, if we're wrong then pinesap and the AF types who are pushing 90% obedience to Bergoglio are right (they do still disobey him but have a "hermeneutic" for it) It seems very wrong but it is more consistent than RnR or Indult. If SP/SV is wrong there is a monstrous ecclesiology crisis and no NO apologists address UR in a convincing way
"We dare not even start to hope until the Faith, the true Faith, and its revealed content, are secured in our minds. Only in terms of Faith do we dare to hope."

Offline Integralism1234

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 74
  • Reputation: +33/-44
  • Gender: Female
Unsure. There is no way that I could ever leave the bosom of Christ and His Church. The answer to what I would do next is simply trust in God's providence. He will provide.
Hold fast to the Holy Catholic faith -- never will God let a faithful soul falter


Offline songbird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4207
  • Reputation: +1499/-273
  • Gender: Female
Valid priests, valid sacraments, that is where I go.

Offline 2Vermont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7303
  • Reputation: +3568/-631
  • Gender: Female

Pray tell, why would you want to resurrect this stupid thread? :facepalm:
"For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

Offline epiphany

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2532
  • Reputation: +658/-582
  • Gender: Male
Valid priests, valid sacraments, that is where I go.
Validity is not the end-all, songbird.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30695
  • Reputation: +18088/-4550
  • Gender: Male
Pray tell, why would you want to resurrect this stupid thread? :facepalm:

It was an accident.  I navigated to this thread to find an old post I had made so I could reference it in the other thread and then replied to the wrong one.  So your assertion that I "want"ed to resurrect this thread is incorrect.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30695
  • Reputation: +18088/-4550
  • Gender: Male
As for the poll at hand: I would be a NO conservative. Because it is the only parallel position to sedevacantism without falling into schism like R&R.

Agreed.  If I were to conclude that the Conciliar Papal Claimants and Conciliar Hierarchy are legitimate, I would make haste back into full communion with Rome ... though I would still mostly avoid the NOM ... out of personal preference rather than out of principle.  Nevertheless, if the NOM was the only Sunday Mass near me, I would feel obligated to assist at it under pain of mortal sin to fulfill my Sunday obligation.  And if I were to conclude that the Conciliar Papal Claimants are legitimate, I would abjure my schism and re-read the docuмents of Vatican II with the docility required of Catholics toward the Magisterium.  God will not punish a Catholic who submits to the teaching of His Church, nor will He allow it to ruin his soul or lead to his damnation.  But R&R don't believe that.  They have in fact reduced the Magisterium to nothing more than opining on the part of the one who sits in the See of Peter.  As such, it has no more authority or credibility than the work of any given theologian, and must be compared by our private judgment to Tradition.  If we find it Traditional, then we agree with it (just like anything we might read that we agree with).  Sorry, guys, but this is utterly preposterous and does not even resemble Roman Catholicism.

Offline DigitalLogos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5920
  • Reputation: +3302/-510
  • Gender: Male
  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
Agreed.  If I were to conclude that the Conciliar Papal Claimants and Conciliar Hierarchy are legitimate, I would make haste back into full communion with Rome ... though I would still mostly avoid the NOM ... out of personal preference rather than out of principle.  Nevertheless, if the NOM was the only Sunday Mass near me, I would feel obligated to assist at it under pain of mortal sin to fulfill my Sunday obligation.  And if I were to conclude that the Conciliar Papal Claimants are legitimate, I would abjure my schism and re-read the docuмents of Vatican II with the docility required of Catholics toward the Magisterium.  God will not punish a Catholic who submits to the teaching of His Church, nor will He allow it to ruin his soul or lead to his damnation.  But R&R don't believe that.  They have in fact reduced the Magisterium to nothing more than opining on the part of the one who sits in the See of Peter.  As such, it has no more authority or credibility than the work of any given theologian, and must be compared by our private judgment to Tradition.  If we find it Traditional, then we agree with it (just like anything we might read that we agree with).  Sorry, guys, but this is utterly preposterous and does not even resemble Roman Catholicism.
I'm not sorry. It isn't Catholicism at all. There is no precedent for it outside of the opinions of a handful of theologians, it is a man-made edifice inspired by Satan to sow a spirit of rebellion within otherwise good Catholics.

Just look at every debate on R&R vs sedevacantism here. It quickly devolves into sophistry and name-calling from certain individuals here because they don't have a good answer on how a heretic, aka non-Catholic/someone outside of the Church, can be a valid Pope or how we can sift Vatican II for the grains of Catholicism while ignoring the teaching of Vatican I (which I have quoted a lot lately, Session 4.4) that we have to take any Magisterial teaching by its word, not reinterpret it for a "better understanding"
"The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else." -- Saint Francis de Sales

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Timothy 4:3]


Offline 2Vermont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7303
  • Reputation: +3568/-631
  • Gender: Female
It was an accident.  I navigated to this thread to find an old post I had made so I could reference it in the other thread and then replied to the wrong one.  So your assertion that I "want"ed to resurrect this thread is incorrect.
Good.  I'm glad I was wrong.  
"For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

Offline Mark 79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5952
  • Reputation: +3505/-801
  • Gender: Male
Valid priests, valid sacraments, that is where I go.