Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on June 15, 2009, 10:43:18 AM

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on June 15, 2009, 10:43:18 AM
The list covers the various opinions, or "what things you have to pick a position on", to illustrate how complicated Sedevacantism actually is.

(Sedevacantism is defined here as "believing that the man commonly known as Pope Francis I is not the pope")

The Crisis in the Church is not a simple matter.

These are the "33 choices" that any Sedevacantist (or would-be Sedevacantist) eventually asks himself/herself, and should be happy to answer. These are ALL crossroads or points of departure for the various opinions within the sedevacantist world.

Also, for the sake of accuracy and truth, I would admit that several of these questions are for Traditional Catholics in general.

Some of these, rather than being actual choices, are actual objections/problems with the Sede position that must be addressed/dealt with/answered by the person adhering to the sedevacantist position.

* Does the Catholic Church have a pope right now?
* For how long has the commonly-held pope (in Rome) not been the real pope?
* If we have a Pope, who is he (name and place of residence)?
* Is the Catholic Church currently visible or invisible?
* Is there any priest/bishop/pope you would currently trust now, or follow in matters of faith without judging his every move?
* How do you reconcile the fact that the world is VERY dangerous as an influence, and that we need Mass and the sacraments (and to a lesser degree, the moral support of fellow Catholics) to save our souls?
* How do you reconcile the fact that only a future council can formally judge a Pope? Do you have any evidence that the Church makes it possible for laymen to depose, or deny the papacy of, a given pope?
* How do you reconcile Church indefectibility with the fact (as you hold it) that the current, putative Pope isn't actually a Pope? And the fact that the entire Church structure believes that he is the Pope?
* Do you believe that Sedevacantism is a dogma of the Faith? When was it added to the Deposit of the Faith? What authority added it?
* If you consider Sedevacantism to be a prerequisite for salvation, how do you expect that all men arrive at that conclusion? Are we to take it on authority (WHAT authority?), or must we all become theologians individually?
* Do you believe it's possible to have a less-than-saintly pope on Peter's throne? How about a man who has committed, or who commits, sin? How about a Pope who commits grave sin(s)? How about a man who personally holds some errors? Are you familiar with many Popes throughout Church history? How about Popes that lived before the 18th century?
* How do you reconcile the notion that, in your estimation, the Catholic Church hasn't provided us laymen with any means of dealing with this unprecedented Crisis? Because as you see it, there is no Epikeia, no ability to disobey a lawful pope, no supplied jurisdiction, etc.
* What do you think of SSPX masses?
* If the answer to the above question was in any way negative, please answer: How many SSPX priests have you met? How many SSPX Mass centers have you visited?
* Do you know of any holy independent/sedevacantist priests? If so, do you realize there are just as many holy SSPX priests? In general, priests are flawed men with a great office bestowed on them by God, and sanctity is always the exception rather than the rule. It has always been thus in the Catholic Church. That is why the Church declares who IS a saint, rather than who IS NOT a saint.
* What do you think of Archbishop Lefebvre?
* What do you think of Rome-approved 1962 Masses? (FSSP, ICK, Indult, etc.)
* What edition of the Missale Romanum does your ideal priest use? (1962, 1957, 1913, etc.)
* How many true priests/bishops/cardinals exist? A handful? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
* What kind of priest is needed to say the Mass you would attend? One from CMRI? SSPV? Indpendent? One ordained before 1962? Are there no priests left?
* Do you realize that it is easy for independent priests to be  actual frauds (with no priestly orders) and that this has happened in the past several times?
* Do you realize that some independent priests are simply weak in the virtue of obedience? That is, while professing to be "fighting for the truth" and all, they merely couldn't follow orders in the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, etc. and left so they could "be their own boss".
* Should you attend some Traditional Latin Mass, or just stay at home?
* If you advocate "staying at home", is that for fundamental/dogmatic reasons, or would you like to move closer to an independent (sede) chapel someday if you could?
* If you advocate "staying at home", how do you plan to teach the Faith to your children? How do you expect to maintain that faith, especially as your children grow older and start asserting their own identity? (At a certain age, children stop doing things simply because mom & dad do them -- if the Faith isn't an extra-familial phenomenon, it is often dropped at that point)
* Can the crisis/lack of pope situation be resolved ever? How will you know a new legitimate Pope has been elected? Will Our Lord, Our Lady, St. Michael, Sts. Peter and Paul, etc. do something personally to appoint a Pope and/or cardinals? Are we waiting for something in the very short-term future such as   the Three Days of Darkness or The End of Time?
* Is there anything a person (priest, religious, or layman) can do to help end or ameliorate this Crisis? If so, what?
* Should a new pope be elected by "the remnant"? Should you help elect a pope (or become pope yourself? cf. Pope Michael of Kansas, or Pope Augustine who dresses and works as a layman)
* What do you think of the average (novus ordo attending) Catholic? Will any of them save their soul? Is it possible for some to be of good will?
* What do you think of other traditional Catholics? (Defined as "Those trying to oppose error and keep the Faith during this crisis")
* Do you think those who don't support your preferred sedevacantist group can save their souls? How about those who don't attend your chapel? Should they be formally denounced? In writing?
* Should some, many, or all non-sedevacantist Catholics be declared, or treated as, Vitandi (persons to be avoided) like those who are excommunicated? How about other sedevacantists whom you don't agree with?
* If you advocate being harsh with non sede-Catholics, A) how do you reconcile the fact that normally it is a praiseworthy thing for Catholics to love and pray for the pope? How about the fact that this crisis is not normal, and is, in fact, unprecedented? B) How do you reconcile violating an integral part of Catholicism (Charity) in favor of a much lesser "doctrine" (what you consider the "fact" of Sedevacantism)?
* Are you aware of the actions of past popes throughout Church history? The Great Schism? The fact that St. Vincent Ferrer was on "the wrong side" in that crisis?
* What do you think of the various priests/bishops who seem to be fearless in their defense of the Faith, though they are not sedevacantist? For example: Bishop Williamson, and many SSPX priests (though there are countless others!)
* Should we actually hate the pope? The modernist (or all) cardinals? Bishops? Catholics who are not sedevacantist?
* Can married men be deacons? Priests? (Don't laugh; I know an independent priest who had himself consecrated bishop, and ordained one married man a deacon. He also wants to ordain at least one married man a priest!)
* What do you think of Fatima? Padre Pio? Baptism of Desire? "Natural Family Planning"? Separation of Church and State? St. Thomas Aquinas? Limbo? America? The Jєωs?
* How do you feel about the United States of America? Circa 1940? Circa 1850?
* How would you compare an average Lutheran with an average Novus Ordo Catholic?
* Do you believe that Vatican II taught anything binding on Catholics?
* Do you acknowledge that normally the Catholic Church has a Pope, the spiritual leader of all Catholics? Do you believe that all Catholics must normally submit to this pope, or be in schism?
* With the foregoing statement in mind, do you realize that Sedevacantism is a positive (in the sense that you're doing something) action, not a neutral one or a lack of action? That is, an SSPX-supporting Traditionalist isn't "making a choice" in the same way you're "making a choice".
* Especially if you deny the validity of 1962 masses, you have to ask yourself "Why would God abandon His people and His Church for 51 years, with no means of salvation available to the vast majority of people?"
* Do you have a family? Do you honestly believe that staying at home (or attending a small chapel of 10 people) will be more beneficial to your children than attending, say, an SSPX chapel?
After all, it's not like the Novus Ordo is said in the latter, and aside from mentioning the Pope's name during the canon (quietly), nothing else goes on that a Sede could complain about. Do you honestly think mentioning the Pope's name during Mass will destroy your child's faith?

Those last two points are important ones. I know personally that attending an SSPX Mass center takes some effort -- usually an hour drive (or more) and many live too far away to attend weekly Mass. How much worse would it be if you couldn't attend any TLM except that offered by an independent sedevacantist priest? You'd pretty much be a "home-aloner" -- one who reads their missal at home on Sunday. With my knowledge of the world (and having attended an independent chapel for 24 years), I know how dangerous this is for the children especially. Usually they give up the Faith -- it seems too much like a cult. Just for starters, they end up marrying non-Catholics, which leads to problems that can't possibly be over-stated!

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Prodinoscopus on June 15, 2009, 11:13:49 AM
I abjure my brief adherence to sedevacantism. I bear no ill will toward sedevacantists. In this most dreadful crisis, I believe that sedes can be forgiven for thinking that St. Peter's chair is empty, as hopefully I can be forgiven for drawing the opposite conclusion.  I cast no stones.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Dulcamara on June 15, 2009, 11:27:25 AM
Chant: That bishop... if it's who I think you mean, he recently publicly stated that he is not now, never has been, nor (by the grace of God) ever will be sedevacantist. He was quite worked up on that occasion, because apparently someone on the internet had been spreading rumors that he was, which he denounced as "grave/serious lies".

Granted, it's been sometimes difficult to understand exactly what he DOES think of the present situation in the Church (except that it's a crisis and a mess), but... thanks be to God, at least he is not a sede.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on June 15, 2009, 11:39:02 AM
Well, just so you know, it wasn't me spreading such rumors, because I don't use names when I'm discussing things in a high-level manner. I am purposely vague.

I realize he might not be sede, but he does have all the problems that go with being a "maverick" or "independent" priest -- one who is completely alone and has to follow orders from no one. It's easy for such a priest to A) get discouraged, especially after many years and B) to go off the deep end.

It's the old truism that schism virtually always leads to heresy.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: trent13 on June 15, 2009, 04:02:17 PM
Quote
The list covers the various opinions, or "what things you have to pick a position on", to illustrate how complicated the decision to become Sedevacantist really is.


I don't quite understand this - are you implying that because it is more complicated to decide a course of action if one is sedevacantist, it is best to go along with the SSPX?  And "the decision to become sedevacantist," just sounds weird - it's a position where one comes to the conclusion that the pope is not who he claims to be, it's not a matter of deciding to become sedevacantist, like, "Today, I will become sedevacantist."
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on June 15, 2009, 04:15:36 PM
Thank you for your question -- I will try to clarify.

Deciding what to do in this Crisis in the Church IS VERY COMPLICATED no matter what position you end up holding. That is my point. I don't want people thinking Sedevacantism is somehow the most graceful, or easiest, solution.

We recently had someone on this board "become Sedevacantist", and he was wondering out loud what practical effect it would have on his life. He was trying to figure out what else he needed to be thinking about, etc.

That is what gave me the idea to make this list.

This list is meant to ask honest questions (and point out actual problems or issues) that will have to be dealt with by any sedevacantist. Anyone who has ever considered sedevacantism has probably thought of many of these things at some point.

It isn't meant to be offensive -- with any major decision, you choose your consequences. The sedevacantist position is no different. I'm helping people to see what those consequences will be.

It also points out the variations in the broad "sedevacantist" camp.

It serves the same purpose as a "questionnaire" you might fill out on MySpace, Facebook, or a dating site, to help people get to know you.

Lastly, these are the issues/points filed in my head under "sedevacantism", and why I'm not a sedevacantist today.

At the very least, it serves as a reference, and a good springboard for discussion.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on June 15, 2009, 05:33:00 PM
Thanks for the comment, Roscoe. I modified the above docuмent accordingly.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on June 15, 2009, 05:44:41 PM
Well, I do give everyone credit for wanting to give some thought to a decision that will impact their immortal soul.

But perhaps some people can't be bothered to "stop and think" even about something so weighty.

There will always be hotheads.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: trent13 on June 15, 2009, 10:15:35 PM
[/quote]I didn't mean that there are not HUGE ramifications because there are, but the fact is that once a person accepts this as the correct position, the world actually makes sense.  And once a person sees the truth of it, it's one of those forehead smacking moments, when one would say "How could I ever have not seen it?!"
Quote


Even though I disagree with, what seems to me the general extremity of your ideas on the pope situation, I definitely agree with you on this point.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on June 16, 2009, 01:33:36 AM
I am at work, doing my quasi-vampire thing at the hotel.  If I have more time, I will get to this at greater length, but...

I do not know a single person who thinks the Holy Sacrifice offered according to the 1962 Missal is invalid.  For any fruitful discussion amongst those who resist, it facilitates things immensely when we actually understand correctly the position of our confereres.  God speed.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on June 16, 2009, 02:29:31 AM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
...because BoD is the real nonsense.


Tell that to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, et alii.

Read St. Thomas' explanation of the THREE ways to receive the grace of the ONE Sacrament of Baptism.  It is both clear and profound.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on June 16, 2009, 04:06:08 AM
Try to grasp this:

The SAME CHURCH that issued those decrees elevated Sts Thomas and Alphonsus to the level of Doctor - and did so knowing they taught BoD and BoB.  Such teachings have remained in their writings to this day.  St. Alphonsus lived well after Trent, btw.

There is a HARMONY between their teachings and that of Holy Church.  It is NOT one or the other.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on June 16, 2009, 04:31:31 AM
Matthew,

You realize, of course, that I - or a good-willed, non-Catholic outsider - could also draw up a lengthy list of questions for those who think as you do?

Your "take" is not so simple, either.  Such is unavoidable in an unprecedented situation.  God speed.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on June 16, 2009, 04:37:56 AM
The V2 Church is highly visible.  Is it leading people to heaven or hell?  If the latter, how is that possible if it is the ONE invincible guardian and the infallible, authoritative teacher of revealed truth?

Was Holy Church visible when she was only made up of a few Jєωs still living in Palestine?  Waht does it even mean to be "visible" in this instance?

Did God-made-man actually DIE?  How could that happen?  Could his church go through a similar, albeit-mystical experience?

No, this is not the list to which I alluded.  These are just tough questions.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Raoul76 on June 16, 2009, 04:58:47 AM
Gladius, you work a late-shift at a hotel?  

I tried to get a job like that, it didn't work out.  I like to stay up all night.  Maybe we are "symbolically" staying up through the dark night of the Church, waiting for daylight.  

I think the Church is plenty visible.  As soon as I figured out something was wrong in VII, it took me no time at all to scout around on the Internet and discover sedevacantism.  Heck, Mel Gibson made us world-famous, even if he is not the best advocate.  No one can say that they haven't heard of traditional Catholics.  God has seen to it with the Internet and all the other blessings He's given us that no one has an excuse ( yes, the Internet is a blessing in our time, without it there is no way I'd have found sedevacantism ).


I'm not sure what this list you're referring to is, though.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on June 16, 2009, 05:06:43 AM
Quote from: Raoul76
He didn't post here so I'm guessing you're posting in the wrong thread.


He STARTED the bloomin' thread, mate!  Yes, you need to go to sleep! LOL
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: DeMaistre on June 16, 2009, 05:42:24 PM
Well, so Prodinoscopus is no longer sedevacantist? That was quick.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on June 16, 2009, 06:33:18 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
I am at work, doing my quasi-vampire thing at the hotel.  If I have more time, I will get to this at greater length, but...

I do not know a single person who thinks the Holy Sacrifice offered according to the 1962 Missal is invalid.  For any fruitful discussion amongst those who resist, it facilitates things immensely when we actually understand correctly the position of our confereres.  God speed.


So you think I'm insulting you by creating a straw man argument, or exaggerating your position? Sorry, but you misunderstand.

Every item on that list I've seen answered different ways by sedevacantists I've known or run into (personally or on the Internet). What, you thought I didn't know any sedevacantists?

For example, I've met plenty who would never be caught dead at a 1962 Tridentine Mass. They claim it's invalid, Novus Ordo, etc.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on June 16, 2009, 06:37:03 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Matthew,

You realize, of course, that I - or a good-willed, non-Catholic outsider - could also draw up a lengthy list of questions for those who think as you do?

Your "take" is not so simple, either.  Such is unavoidable in an unprecedented situation.  God speed.


Yes, you could -- and I would answer them and go on with my life. That's all I'm asking of anyone else.

You are assuming that if you answer any of those questions "the wrong way" you will have my finger wagging at you. That's not true. I'm just stimulating a bit of thought, that's all.

You're welcome to do the same -- "So you've decided to follow the SSPX" but it wouldn't be nearly as interesting, because although there are some "SSPX Catholics" who don't tow the party line, they are precisely that -- rebels who don't follow SSPX teaching and instruction. For example, some SSPX Catholics have a TV, but it's always against the advice of their priest.

Whereas Sedevacantism covers a HUGE swath of beliefs.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Prodinoscopus on June 16, 2009, 07:42:16 PM
Quote from: DeMaistre
Well, so Prodinoscopus is no longer sedevacantist? That was quick.

Sorry, DeMaistre.  I just cannot bring myself to hold to that position. I do not deny that I'm drawn to it at certain moments. Rest assured that I do not judge or condemn those who hold the sedevacantist position, not even Catholic Martyr, who has judged and condemned me.  Yes, CM, I know that according to you it is Holy Mother Church, not you, who judges and condemns me. Whatever, I consider it to be a fallible opinion and not binding on my conscience -- although it does exert some pressure upon my conscience at times.

The funny (strange, not ha ha) thing is that I have plenty of sins in which I stand condemned even by the Conciliar Church. I'll be condemned to hell with or without sedevacantism, barring a miracle of God's grace. Jesus save me, Mary pray for me.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: DeMaistre on June 16, 2009, 09:24:02 PM
I am sorry to hear that. It just seems rather rash if you ask me. A bit like converting to Catholicism from Protestantism one day and then reverting back the next.

To be honest, I have my doubts as well, but I've gone to far, I can't go back. Its like a story related by a priest who was a former nαzι, even in the face of immanent defeat, his superior said "We can't go back, we've gone to far". I can never be a "normal" Catholic again.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Dawn on June 17, 2009, 10:04:24 AM
My question is, " Do you think an Apostate  can be Pope? Ever?"
I do not for the record. No never.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Dulcamara on June 17, 2009, 12:12:06 PM
Quote from: Prodinoscopus


The funny (strange, not ha ha) thing is that I have plenty of sins in which I stand condemned even by the Conciliar Church. I'll be condemned to hell with or without sedevacantism, barring a miracle of God's grace. Jesus save me, Mary pray for me.


You hit on a very important point in saying this. One my own confessor has put into words a couple of times that I've heard. That is, when we get to heaven, the issue is not going to be nearly so much "who the pope was" as it will be whether we adhered to the Catholic Faith, whether we lived it, whether we held to the ten commandments, the commandments of the Church ,etc..

If a person dies confused about this situation, their minimum commitment, so to speak, to the truth, (as far as I can tell) will have to be the Catholic one: That the Church has a head, a pope, and that the Church cannot "die out" (and therefore cannot need "reviving" or "re-creating" or "rebirth" which implies hell prevailed against it, even if for a time). Anything that is Catholic dogma or known Catholic truth, which we MUST believe to be saved, well... obviously we must believe it. So if God says, there is a pope, and the Church will always exist, then... that is that. If we die confused about WHO the pope was, God may forgive us, depending on various factors like our understanding, or how much of our decision was just wanting to get off easy, or pride, etc.... whether or not we really did what we could to sort it out... whatever.

However... if we get to the judgment seat, and God finds that not only did we go awry on the pope question (which in many cases is understandable), but that we also went awry on all of the virtues and commandments in the process... THEN we've got issues.

I'm not going to say that nobody will go to hell for denying the true pope. The reason I'm not going to say that is, I believe that like the Faith itself, if you really want to know, and you humble yourself enough, and are willing enough to face the trials and difficulties of finding out, then you CAN find the truth, with pretty much full certainty, if not full certainty. The facts, the legal issues, the technicalities... everything will point to the true answer, if only we turn off our pride and our overwhelming desire to condemn others, and just look at the naked (albeit possibly unpleasant) facts.

However I will say that we can ABSOLUTELY and of course, go to hell for abandoning the commandments, or... dare I say it? ... things like charity, humility, etc., which are vital to a true Catholic life.

To Prodinoscopus:
Don't be discouraged in this hour of darkness. Whatever our understanding, the whole situation is not an easy one. But I think you are on the right page to be as concerned about your personal sins as you are about arguing to the death about this issue.

However, I would say...  don't despair, however black the sins. If God can forgive harlots and people who killed Christians, and every manner of grave offense, because of His goodness, mercy and love, we should not doubt that if we are sincere in our sorrow for our sins, that God, our perfect and loving father, will forgive us as well. Sometimes, depending on the gravity of our sins, that can SEEM like a lot of nerve or presumption on our part, but... the reality is, we are speaking of a perfect God, whose virtues are infinitely above our own, and even above our understanding. Now any decent parent whose child has gone awry... however far awry... even to the extent of murder or other crimes that cry to heaven for vengeance... would nevertheless, if they were good, forgive that person if they repented sincerely of their crimes. (To quote loosely: ) But if you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to them that ask thee, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good gifts to them that ask Him?

If we, being flawed, have mercy upon those many would not have mercy upon, because we know that in the end, a person can truly regret their actions and decide not to do them anymore, so, too, we can be sure that God has such forgiveness, and more, being perfect. Moreover, He knows us better than we know ourselves, and what things prompted us to fall to begin with, and whether or not we knew what we were doing, or meant to do wrong, or what have you. Yet even if we were wholly malicious, the Good God does not want to see us burn in hell, because He is perfect goodness. He would much rather we repent, and spend eternity with Him, than to loose any one of us.

Never give up that fight. In time, God will sort out the question of the pope, and I think history will show in retrospect (at that time) that the SSPX was dead on. In the meantime, arguing about it with people who will never budge is pretty much a waste of time, and an occasion of scandal or deception for ourselves in many cases (especially if we know we're tempted to just give up and throw the baby out with the bath water). But if you adhere to what you know is true, and live the best you can according to God's laws for the love of Him, then I'm sure that He and the Blessed Virgin will never give up on you. God does not give up on us. We walk away from Him.

If you suffer from doubts and strong temptations, and are inclined to despair, I strongly, strongly recommend getting this book and doing the consecration (or renewing it with this book, because it's very much like a retreat):

Consecration to Mary (http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/6713/consecration-to-mary)

I can't say enough about this devotion, or this book in particular. It is VITAL for souls inclined to doubts and despair to attach themselves firmly to Mary. We may be "naughty little children" in terms of our sins and the poor condition of our spiritual life, and the lack of devotion... but Mary is the Mother Christ gave to such children, so that none of them will be lost. This devotion, I think, is all but indispensable to such souls. (I know, because I'm one of them!)

I also cannot say enough about the merits of making a general confession. It may be a difficult thing to drag one's self through in a sense, because obviously, we're deeply ashamed of what we've done through our whole lives, but... there is nothing like the peace of walking out of that confessional knowing that at that moment, the devil has absolutely NOTHING on you. It's a great blow to feelings of despair in one's salvation!

Anyhow, it's nothing the priest hasn't heard before. However bad we are, or whatever horrible things we may have done, someone else has always done something worse.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Dawn on June 17, 2009, 01:17:08 PM
Just finished reading Fr. Meramo's letter to Bishop Fellay. The SSPX will be shown dead on in accepting 95% of the council that began a new church."This council represents, both in the eyes of the Roman Autorities and ours, a new Church that they otherwise call the Conciliar Church."- Archbishop Lefebvre.
He also affirmed it was a schismatic council.
So, go ahead. For myself I shall reject the Apostates who brought us the New Church, abandoned the True Chruch of Christ. I will reject it all. As for those who accept 95% it is that last 5% that will sneak up and choke the life out of your soul.
These days are no surprise to any of us. They were fortold since the beginning. Most especially from Our Lady of LaSallete. We were told that our priests and Bishops would lose the faith. We were told that Rome would become the seat of the anti-Christ. I see it and believe it.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Dawn on June 17, 2009, 01:28:40 PM
And, yes, it would be best for my children to attend a Church with 10 real Catholics instead of a group of 100 or more in league with the New Church as they themselves call it.
How many were in the pews during Anthanasius's time? Not many, but should he have gone to the Church of the Arians? Should any of his followers those that listened to the truths he proclaimed gone to the Church of the Arians? After all they had EVERYONE, and you would not want to sit in the pews all by your lonsome self.
And for sure you may indeed run into a "independent priest" who is questionable at best. I did. SO??? How many "questionable priests" are in the New Religion founded by Vatican II? Leaving invalid orders aside (All of them are invalid since 1969.) It would be better to subject my family to  sermon of no value given by a graduate of the Pink Palace Seminary. So, that there are more people in the pew?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Dawn on June 17, 2009, 01:39:02 PM
Furthermore, I must believe in the Papacy. Not in Benedict XVI. And, I must also remind you that THEY elected Bendict (as they elected the other Conciliar Popes.) The Holy Spirit is to elect the Pope. Not only that, they are already deciding who the will elect next time around. So, now they are making themselve God by doing the job of the Holy Spirit. Of course just as they did not invite the Holy Spirit to their Vatican Council, they can hardly afford to have him elect a REAL POPE. Still, it is correct to say that the Church is suffering Her Passion just as her beloved Spouse suffered His. Bruised and tattered by the new Sanhedrin lead by the False Ciaphus she will be restored to her full glory by Christ.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: DeMaistre on June 18, 2009, 01:05:50 AM
What makes you not able to profess "sede-vacantism", Prodinoscopus?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Prodinoscopus on June 18, 2009, 07:38:30 AM
Quote from: DeMaistre
What makes you not able to profess "sede-vacantism", Prodinoscopus?

I am not competent to judge with absolute certainty that the post-Vatican II popes are guilty of manifest and pertinacious heresy. In response to my anticipated censure by CM, I am not conscious of the mortal sin of following a heretical anti-pope, because I am not convinced that he is such.

God will sort it out.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: parentsfortruth on June 18, 2009, 10:30:45 AM
Quote from: Dawn
Just finished reading Fr. Meramo's letter to Bishop Fellay. The SSPX will be shown dead on in accepting 95% of the council that began a new church."This council represents, both in the eyes of the Roman Autorities and ours, a new Church that they otherwise call the Conciliar Church."- Archbishop Lefebvre.
He also affirmed it was a schismatic council.
So, go ahead. For myself I shall reject the Apostates who brought us the New Church, abandoned the True Chruch of Christ. I will reject it all. As for those who accept 95% it is that last 5% that will sneak up and choke the life out of your soul.
These days are no surprise to any of us. They were fortold since the beginning. Most especially from Our Lady of LaSallete. We were told that our priests and Bishops would lose the faith. We were told that Rome would become the seat of the anti-Christ. I see it and believe it.


And, yes, it would be best for my children to attend a Church with 10 real Catholics instead of a group of 100 or more in league with the New Church as they themselves call it.
How many were in the pews during Anthanasius's time? Not many, but should he have gone to the Church of the Arians? Should any of his followers those that listened to the truths he proclaimed gone to the Church of the Arians? After all they had EVERYONE, and you would not want to sit in the pews all by your lonesome self.
And for sure you may indeed run into a "independent priest" who is questionable at best. I did. SO??? How many "questionable priests" are in the New Religion founded by Vatican II? Leaving invalid orders aside (All of them are invalid since 1969.) It would be better to subject my family to sermon of no value given by a graduate of the Pink Palace Seminary. So, that there are more people in the pew?


Furthermore, I must believe in the Papacy. Not in Benedict XVI. And, I must also remind you that THEY elected Benedict (as they elected the other Conciliar Popes.) The Holy Spirit is to elect the Pope. Not only that, they are already deciding who the will elect next time around. So, now they are making themselves God by doing the job of the Holy Spirit. Of course just as they did not invite the Holy Spirit to their Vatican Council, they can hardly afford to have him elect a REAL POPE. Still, it is correct to say that the Church is suffering Her Passion just as her beloved Spouse suffered His. Bruised and tattered by the new Sanhedrin lead by the False Caiaphas she will be restored to her full glory by Christ.



You are so exactly right on.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Prodinoscopus on June 19, 2009, 09:28:52 PM
Quote from: roscoe
Quote from: Prodinoscopus
Quote from: DeMaistre
What makes you not able to profess "sede-vacantism", Prodinoscopus?

I am not competent to judge with absolute certainty that the post-Vatican II popes are guilty of manifest and pertinacious heresy. In response to my anticipated censure by CM, I am not conscious of the mortal sin of following a heretical anti-pope, because I am not convinced that he is such.

God will sort it out.


Common sense dictates that the v2 'popes' are anti-popes guilty of manifest and pertinacious heresy.

You have no authority to declare your "common sense" judgment in a way that is binding on me or anyone else. You will never have that authority, not on this earth.

Same goes for you, CM.

Only the Pope has that authority, and if there is no Pope, it's a free for all.  Every man becomes his own Pope.

The only sane alternative, for me, at least, is to recognize Benedict XVI as a Pope who has abused his authority and resist him tooth and nail.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Raoul76 on June 19, 2009, 11:12:09 PM
Prodino, how is acknowledging him and his successors as Popes "resisting" him?  You're not resisting him; you're licking his scaly hooves.

Do you know that these people, modernists, liberals, Freemasons, have been planning this for a long time?  They will elect one of themselves, then another, then another, and this will go on forever until people see the truth.  The fact that people so far AREN'T seeing the truth is because we are in the great apostasy.  

The Church before Vatican II had Catholics who were more liberal and those who were more conservative, but the liberals have since taken over and let me tell you, just as any communist regime shows, these guys don't mess around.   They have made sure to set up a draconian screening process for any future priest that eliminates anyone who is against ecuмenism and doesn't worship at the altar of the Jєωs.  Heck, it probably even eliminates anyone who is heterosɛҳuąƖ, except for the occasional token like Father Cutie.  You want to stake your eternal salvation on a Jєωιѕн-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ crime ring that operates exactly like Hollywood?  Oh, and besides that, dogmatically enforces heresy and destroys the Church Militant by reducing Catholicism to just one religion among many paths to the truth?  Hey dude -- go right ahead.  

The resistance can only succeed if the sede movement becomes strong enough that it grows and grows while Vatican II shrinks and shrinks.  You who are in SSPX, unless you have grave reasons for going there -- such as no sede chapels in your area -- are SAPPING US.  When you go to SSPX, your butt in that seat means an empty pew for a sede church.  You are involved in this endless waiting game with the usurpers in Rome, a game that is impossible to win.  In your minds you think you are being "reasonable" and taking the moderate position, you think you are espousing humility.  No.  You're actually helping evil to flourish.  God does not ask us to humbly defer to rampant Satanism and the overthrow of "all that is called God," as Daniel puts it.  I hope that you see this one day and wake up out of your trance.  I won't say "I'll pray for you" because it's condescending and corny ( but I will ).

When it begins to dawn on people naturally that the sedevacantists/privationists are the real Church and that Vatican II is an impostor sect, a real Pope can be chosen by the Holy Spirit ( with help from the sede bishops ).  I suppose SSPX priests and bishops can participate too if they recant their errors.  We wouldn't want to be Donatists.  

But just as Dulcamara is sure that SSPX's attitude will prove to be correct, I am sure that the sedevacantists will prove to be correct.  They have already been proven to be correct by the incoherent ridiculous fluctuating of SSPX and by the fact that SSPX implicitly denies papal infallibility and is thus persistently denying a dogma.  

I also notice that those in SSPX seem to deny the very existence of a conspiracy in the Church, yet someone like Williamson sees the conspiracy of the h0Ɩ0h0αx.  This is kind of the opposite of the sedes, all of whom see through the Freemasonic takeover of the Church but don't seem to be able to trace the same causes in politics.  While it's best to see through both types of conspiracy, as they are really one and the same, it is MORE crucial to see through the religious one as that is where our faith hangs in the balance.  

I don't know why I bother.  If you can't see the myriad contradictions in your position, such as how Lefebvre talks about the Church being taken over by Freemasons and then acts as if he can somehow talk them out of what they're doing... You've rendered judgment on yourself.  If a rabid dog got into your house, completely deprived of its senses and looking to kill, what would you do, offer it tea and crumpets?  What kind of blissful, incredible ignorance is this?  The devil is on a joyride, he's on a pleasure cruise, he's made the Vatican into his dragon and he's riding it across the night sky.  Entire populations are falling like dominoes into hell.  And you want to have polite discussions?  Ratzinger is playing you like a Steinway baby grand.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: roscoe on June 20, 2009, 12:21:57 AM
And I do not recall using the term pertinacious as it has never been in my vocabulary so what is going on here?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Prodinoscopus on June 20, 2009, 12:56:59 AM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Prodinoscopus, you talk about authority as though my lack of it matters.  No it doesn't.  The fact that sedevacantism is the correct position is what matters.

Your lack of authority does matter, absolutely. You can be convinced in your own mind that Benedict XVI is a manifest and pertinacious heretic, yet you have no authority or power whatsoever to bind anyone else to that conviction. All that you can do is try to impose your point of view.

Quote from: Catholic Martyr
It is an objective truth, and as such, anyone who doesn't recognize it will suffer, by their own judgment, and I have to ask WHY people don't recognize it.  There must be some bias, some vested interest holding you back from making the sacrifices and changes needed in your life, or from wanting to believe that you have to make these changes.

The only objective truth that truly matters is Divine Revelation, to which we must cling in order to be saved. Sedevacantism is not revealed truth, it is a point of view. You talk about sacrifices and life changes.  Does not the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ require us to make sufficient sacrifices and life changes? "Sell all that you have and give it to the poor, and come, follow Me." Why do we need to add to the Gospel the further requirement of accepting the sedevacantist thesis? By seeking to bind people to that thesis, you make yourself into a Pharisee.

Raoul76, do you have hard evidence to show that Benedict XVI is a Freemason? I do not ask for evidence that he says things that savor of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (there is no lack of it), but that he is in fact a member of a Masonic Lodge. Absent such evidence, I do not accept at face value any claim that the Freemasons have literally "taken over the Church" all the way up to the Papacy.  Until you provide such evidence, it is going to be difficult for me take anything that you say seriously.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: DeMaistre on June 20, 2009, 12:57:42 AM
No one wants to be a sede. We have to. No one asked for this, and trust me, I hate being a "sede".
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Prodinoscopus on June 20, 2009, 01:00:46 AM
Quote from: DeMaistre
No one wants to be a sede. We have to. No one asked for this, and trust me, I hate being a "sede".

Be a sede, if you conscience compels you.  Just don't try to bind my conscience to your conviction.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: roscoe on June 20, 2009, 01:22:46 AM
Most here are more competent theologians than myself but as historian most of you are below myself. It is true to say that in all my studies I have never encountered such a thing as a 'sede vacantist' until I clicked on TCW. Those of you that can't choose between Greg XVII and John 23 are in a perfectly circular orbit-- something at odds with the eliptical nature of things. BTW-- one of Galileo's Mistakes was being in error re: ellipses.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Prodinoscopus on June 20, 2009, 09:38:19 AM
Quote from: DeMaistre
Like you, I'll most likely end up damned either way.

Don't say that, DeMaistre.  I understand your feeling and I've said the same thing many times myself. (I think that we both have been influenced by St. Alphonsus -- and that's certainly not a bad thing.) You've said elsewhere that we all must try our best to live a Catholic life, irrespective of our views concerning sedevacantism. You were right about that. I'll pray for you, I'm sure that you'll do the same for me. I won't pray that you "convert" to non-sedevacantism. I do not think that your salvation depends on reaching a "correct" conclusion on that issue, despite past comments of mine to the contrary.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: roscoe on June 20, 2009, 05:20:45 PM
Are any of my other posts out of the past being altered? This is extremely disingenuous and fraudulent.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on June 23, 2009, 04:47:31 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Sedevacantism is defined here as "believing that the man commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI is not the pope")...The Crisis in the Church is not a simple matter.


Defining sedeplenism as the contrary of sedevacantism, we proceed:

1. What do you think about being a co-religionist with Hans Kung?
2. Do you think the fact that Mahoney and COUNTLESS others are still a part of your Church takes away therefrom?  Do you feel the incessant need to answer for their stupidity, perversity, and abominable heresy/apostasy/etc?
3. Why do you think I should be taken up with answering for those lunatic elements among those who deny BXVI?  Mathematically, you have FAR MORE in the way of lunatics, perverts, etc., on your side of the equation.  Does this make you uneasy?  Probably not.  Why do you presume I would be uneasy about the 'pope' from Mushroom Rock?
4. So, why don't you stop bringing up BS that has no application to any reasonable discussion?
ETC., ETC., ETC....

Believe me, I could go ON and ON and ON with questions for those who support V2 and the purveyors thereof.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on June 23, 2009, 04:51:49 AM
Btw, Matthew, it is clear from your comments/questions that you do not understand some of the points of disagreement.  For example, the 'date of departure' for the Rite of Ordination is in 1968, not 1962.  Little things to be sure, but you might want to learn about them before constructing another list.  Getting the facts wrong often makes people ignore even the correct and well-framed questions.  God speed.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on July 17, 2009, 09:02:55 AM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Btw, Matthew, it is clear from your comments/questions that you do not understand some of the points of disagreement.  For example, the 'date of departure' for the Rite of Ordination is in 1968, not 1962.  Little things to be sure, but you might want to learn about them before constructing another list.  Getting the facts wrong often makes people ignore even the correct and well-framed questions.  God speed.


Actually, the list was meant to be arbitrary, based on my own experiences. Yes, 1968 is A MORE LOGICAL departure date, but what place has logic in many people's beliefs?

Your particular brand of Sedevacantism might respect a priest ordained in 1967, but there are PLENTY of Sedes out there who would consider them "novus ordo" since they were ordained after Vatican II was convoked, or under the reign of John XXIII/Paul VI.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: SJB on October 07, 2009, 05:52:21 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Btw, Matthew, it is clear from your comments/questions that you do not understand some of the points of disagreement.  For example, the 'date of departure' for the Rite of Ordination is in 1968, not 1962.  Little things to be sure, but you might want to learn about them before constructing another list.  Getting the facts wrong often makes people ignore even the correct and well-framed questions.  God speed.


Actually, the list was meant to be arbitrary, based on my own experiences. Yes, 1968 is A MORE LOGICAL departure date, but what place has logic in many people's beliefs?

Your particular brand of Sedevacantism might respect a priest ordained in 1967, but there are PLENTY of Sedes out there who would consider them "novus ordo" since they were ordained after Vatican II was convoked, or under the reign of John XXIII/Paul VI.



Why does this matter to you, Matthew?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 07, 2009, 07:57:32 AM
Can Dulcamara's signature (the WIDTH, not the content) be excommunicated?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 07, 2009, 08:14:28 AM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
I am at work, doing my quasi-vampire thing at the hotel.  If I have more time, I will get to this at greater length, but...

I do not know a single person who thinks the Holy Sacrifice offered according to the 1962 Missal is invalid.  For any fruitful discussion amongst those who resist, it facilitates things immensely when we actually understand correctly the position of our confereres.  God speed.


It is not invalid if a valid priest offers it which just about never happens at the indult/moto.

It "merely" broke the unbreakable canon and opened the door for the invalid "mass" of the anti-popes.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 07, 2009, 08:21:31 AM
Quote from: Raoul76
Gladius, you work a late-shift at a hotel?  

I tried to get a job like that, it didn't work out.  I like to stay up all night.  Maybe we are "symbolically" staying up through the dark night of the Church, waiting for daylight.  

I think the Church is plenty visible.  As soon as I figured out something was wrong in VII, it took me no time at all to scout around on the Internet and discover sedevacantism.  Heck, Mel Gibson made us world-famous, even if he is not the best advocate.  No one can say that they haven't heard of traditional Catholics.  God has seen to it with the Internet and all the other blessings He's given us that no one has an excuse ( yes, the Internet is a blessing in our time, without it there is no way I'd have found sedevacantism ).


I'm not sure what this list you're referring to is, though.  Isn't Matthew ChantCD?  He didn't post here so I'm guessing you're posting in the wrong thread.


Agreed.  When I first realized that they changed the "mass" for the drastic worse.  Then realized that it was invalid as they change the consecration not only with the "for all" but also for the "mystery of faith" and also with "unto the remission of sins" not starting a new sentence but link with the sentence "this the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant which is shed UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.  

Then when I saw that V2 clearly teaches heresy on Ecuмenism, Religious Liberty and on the definition of the Catholic Church among other things.  And this did admittedly take time as the popes not being the popes were the last thing on my mind.  I thought who approved v2 and the new mass and who enforces them.  No Catholic Pope could even if they wanted to.  So the guys who did and are doing it are imposters.  In actuallity it really is not all that complicated.

It takes humility and sincerity to gain the grace to see it.  But it is right there plance and simple.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 07, 2009, 08:26:00 AM
Quote from: Prodinoscopus
Quote from: DeMaistre
What makes you not able to profess "sede-vacantism", Prodinoscopus?

I am not competent to judge with absolute certainty that the post-Vatican II popes are guilty of manifest and pertinacious heresy. In response to my anticipated censure by CM, I am not conscious of the mortal sin of following a heretical anti-pope, because I am not convinced that he is such.

God will sort it out.


This opinion by Prodinoscopus is a humble one and a Catholic one.  It is one thing to say I do not have the copentence to sort through this mess and another to say I know for a fact that the SV's are wrong.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on October 07, 2009, 09:01:27 AM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: Matthew
Sedevacantism is defined here as "believing that the man commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI is not the pope")...The Crisis in the Church is not a simple matter.


Defining sedeplenism as the contrary of sedevacantism, we proceed:

1. What do you think about being a co-religionist with Hans Kung?
2. Do you think the fact that Mahoney and COUNTLESS others are still a part of your Church takes away therefrom?  Do you feel the incessant need to answer for their stupidity, perversity, and abominable heresy/apostasy/etc?
3. Why do you think I should be taken up with answering for those lunatic elements among those who deny BXVI?  Mathematically, you have FAR MORE in the way of lunatics, perverts, etc., on your side of the equation.  Does this make you uneasy?  Probably not.  Why do you presume I would be uneasy about the 'pope' from Mushroom Rock?
4. So, why don't you stop bringing up BS that has no application to any reasonable discussion?
ETC., ETC., ETC....

Believe me, I could go ON and ON and ON with questions for those who support V2 and the purveyors thereof.


I might have said this (to you) before --

I don't attend the NOVUS ORDO. I am a fellow Resister. I am just (in my opinion) more prudent -- less drastic -- in how I carry out my resistance.

And I'm not "embracing" OR "rejecting" the pope -- I'm merely staying put and doing nothing as regards the pope -- and since Catholics aren't normally given a choice upon joining the Church "Pope or non-Pope?" (like restaurants ask you "smoking or non-smoking?") -- I "recognize" the pope because that's the default position for a Catholic. Catholics aren't supposed to decide if they want a Pope in their life or not!

How much guidance I get from him on a daily basis is another story.

I think that's one point you miss.

If Catholics WERE normally given a choice (say, for the last 500 years) to follow a Pope or not, then your choice would simply be the inverse of mine, with no other nuances.

But that's NOT the case, because my choice also happens to be the DEFAULT position for a Catholic. A Catholic who just wants to "hold to what he knows to be true" and stay put until this mess is sorted out will acknowledge the pope, even if he's a bad one in fact.

I think the SSPX reaction to the crisis is more prudent, even if yours is more psychologically satisfying (and is easier for people to grasp).

Here is my take: In the Catholic Church today, there are (bishops, priests, laymen) who have lost the Faith, those who have mostly lost it, some who are losing it, and some who have almost miraculously kept it. Where each man stands I try not to worry about, unless it affects me and my family. I'll "let" God judge each person in His own good time. I have enough to worry about regarding my own soul and raising my children Catholic.

If I bother to discuss my Faith with a nonbeliever, I usually have to mention the Crisis in some way.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 07, 2009, 09:24:06 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Here is my take: In the Catholic Church today, there are (bishops, priests, laymen) who have lost the Faith, those who have mostly lost it, some who are losing it, and some who have almost miraculously kept it.


This is THE issue: Is the Novus Ordo/V2 Church, in some way, still the Catholic Church, or NOT?  The Pope issue is, IMO, a distraction, although an understandable one.  Fr Abrahamowitz seems to be more aware than many SPs that the counterfeit church IS the issue.

I say the Novus Ordo/V2 Church is not the Catholic Church.  For all the resistance on a practical level, SPs say it is.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 07, 2009, 09:26:44 AM
IMO, it isn't a question of joining/belonging to what is undoubtedly the Catholic Church, Pope or non-Pope.  It is a question of Church or anti-Church.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on October 07, 2009, 09:29:06 AM
You got one thing right -- Sedevacantist is a misnomer, because in VIRTUALLY ALL cases, the adherent is not merely rejecting the Pope, but the entire mainstream Catholic Church. (By mainstream Catholic Church, I refer to what people would point you to if you stopped in a town, went to the Town Hall, and asked "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"

So really it's not "empty-seat"ers, but more like "empty-CHURCH"ers.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: SJB on October 07, 2009, 09:31:08 AM
Quote from: G_V
The Pope issue is, IMO, a distraction, although an understandable one.


I agree. When it is discussed in the context of dogmatic sedevacantist vs. dogmatic sedeplentist...it is a distraction...AND NOTHING ELSE.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 07, 2009, 09:34:47 AM
Quote from: Matthew
By mainstream Catholic Church, I refer to what people would point you to if you stopped in a town, went to the Town Hall, and asked "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"

So really it's not "empty-seat"ers, but more like "empty-CHURCH"ers.


Well, you habitually (and rightly) avoid the SAME so-called Catholic Churches, no?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Vladimir on October 07, 2009, 09:36:28 AM
I think that a lifetime's worth of penance will not be able to fully expiate the utter garbage that I posted under the username "DeMaistre".
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 07, 2009, 09:37:46 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Sedevacantist is a misnomer, because in VIRTUALLY ALL cases, the adherent is not merely rejecting the Pope...


No one I know rejects the Pope, as Pope.  It is a question of true versus counterfeit.  It is a question of holding that BXVI, for example, white cassock or not, cannot possibly BE the Pope.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 07, 2009, 09:40:16 AM
Quote from: Vladimir
I think that a lifetime's worth of penance will not be able to fully expiate the utter garbage that I posted under the username "DeMaistre".


We all have our moments!  :wink: You will be okay, my friend.  You are not even 20, man!  There is much good ahead, although you will also make mistakes that are so "big" that they make those from your younger days look almost comedic.  Carry on, young man...
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on October 07, 2009, 09:43:10 AM
Gladius said:
Quote
Well, you habitually (and rightly) avoid the SAME so-called Catholic Churches, no?



Yes, I do, but not because I insist that I know there's no Catholic in there. I just don't want myself (and my family) to be influenced by modernism.

As I said above, in that hypothetical Conciliar church building, most people there will have had massive damage done to their faith by years of Communion in the hand, vernacular liturgy, downplaying of purgatory, the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Rosary, etc. There might be some Catholics of good will there, but they are rare.

Even the GOOD Catholic you might meet will likely be ignorant (or mistaught) about many things, through none of his fault. But that doesn't affect his status as a Catholic, or his salvation.

But saying there are NO Catholics in there seems wrong in my estimation.

As I see it, Sedevacantism is the proverbial "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

If John's house was bombed, he could either walk away and tell people he's homeless "my house was destroyed!", or he could try to find a less-damaged room, salvage some of the goods from the rubble, and do his best.

Sure, it would be easier psychologically to not see his precious house all destroyed, and just move on and find somewhere else "on the street" to stay. But it would be safer, and a bit more prudent, to stay put and deal with the ugly reality. Who knows, he might be able to rebuild part of his house, and maybe the whole thing someday! Better than being a homeless man.

Yes, he might have to bury one or more of his family members (who died in the bombing) if he stays there... It might be easier to run away.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on October 07, 2009, 09:47:59 AM
SJB, I believe I already answered that question.

I would direct him/her to the nearest SSPX chapel -- somewhere where I can vouch for the Faith being held and taught in all its purity.

Why would you go somewhere dangerous to the faith, if you could go somewhere where your faith was not in jeopardy?

I think you're confused on this point:

Saying the visible Catholic Church still exists is NOT the same as saying everything is hunky-dory, or that I would make use of any of that mainstream structure.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on October 07, 2009, 09:49:52 AM
If I don't allow Feeneyites on here, then how am I going to get excellent posts against Feeneyism?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 07, 2009, 09:54:23 AM
Quote from: Matthew
Yes, I do, but not because I insist that I know there's no Catholic in there.


I am not presuming you are implying that I DO think such, but, incidentally, I do not.  There ARE people trickling FROM the Novus TO Traddieland.  There must be something going on inside them where faith, grace, etc., are concerned for this to happen.

Quote
But saying there are NO Catholics in there seems wrong in my estimation.


Agreed and contrary to the evidence.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on October 07, 2009, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Matthew
If I don't allow Feeneyites on here, then how am I going to get excellent posts against Feeneyism?


If I don't allow blasphemy, how can I get good condemnations of blasphemy to be voiced?


No, blasphemy is garbage and you don't need to rationally debunk blasphemy. Sorry, the comparison doesn't hold.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on October 07, 2009, 10:01:50 AM
I don't know if I said it on CathInfo, or maybe it was on Fisheaters 3 years ago --

But there IS a difference between a Novus Ordo Catholic and a Lutheran (just to pick one Protestant sect).

Lutherans SHOULD know better, because their sect is named after Martin Luther, it's only been around 400 years, etc.

But Catholics can be ignorant of what happened to the Church with Modernism, neo-Modernism, etc. and the freemasonic infiltration of the Church.

A Catholic knows that the Catholic Church goes back 2000 years to Jesus Christ, and that it's the True Church.

And when your average novus ordo Catholic goes to church on Sunday, what does his church building say? "St. Mary's Catholic Church" or "St. Joseph's Catholic Church".

So EVEN IF there is little or no difference between a Novus Ordo Mass and a Lutheran service, you have to give the Novus Ordo Catholic some credit, that he might be of good faith, because, after all, he knows he's Catholic -- i.e., in the right place.

MANY sedevacantists seem to miss this point. They treat Lutherans and novus ordo Catholics as equally in error, with an equal chance of being of bad will.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: SJB on October 07, 2009, 10:02:53 AM
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Matthew
Saying the visible Catholic Church still exists is NOT the same as saying everything is hunky-dory


The visible Church certainly does exist...we disagree on the definition given to the visible Church.

Here's the definition I use:

Quote from: St. Robert Bellarmine
"The assembly of men bound together by the profession of the Christian faith, and by the communion of the same Sacraments, under the government of their legitimate shepherds, and especially that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff."

(De Ecclesia militante [On the Church Militant], bk. 3, ch. 2, par. 9) (Pragae, 1721, II, p. 65a)



BUMP
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 07, 2009, 10:26:45 AM
Quote from: Matthew
But there IS a difference between a Novus Ordo Catholic and a Lutheran (just to pick one Protestant sect).


Agreed.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: kamalayka on October 18, 2009, 11:16:37 PM
The Council of Trent felt the necessity to define the SACRAMENT of Baptism, due to the fact that the Protestant Reformation was causing such a stir over it.


Baptism by desire is not a Sacrament- however, since the INFALLIBLE CATHOLIC CHURCH tells me it is real, I say it is real.

Someone once said:
If I see the color white, and the Church tells me it is black, I will believe it is black.

The point is that I trust the Catholic Church over my own reasoning.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: SJB on October 19, 2009, 08:19:20 AM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Quote from: kamalayka
Baptism by desire is not a Sacrament- however, since the INFALLIBLE CATHOLIC CHURCH tells me it is real, I say it is real.


How interesting.  SHOW ME the INFALLIBLE CATHOLIC teaching on the matter.


The infallible Church teaches infallibly. She does not teach errors in Faith and Morals...whether that specific teaching is an infallible definition or not.

You have a different rule of Faith, CM. kamalayka is just blind (for what reason, I don't know).
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: JustCatholic on November 15, 2009, 07:22:52 PM
Quote
Absolutely.  We do not reject the Papacy.  We reject the heretic.  It is because of our adherence to the Papacy that we MUST reject the heretic.


A friend said the reason Vatican I (one)  laid down the rule of infallibility under very specific, circuмscribed conditions is precisely because the ordinary magisterium is only infallible when it reaffirms Catholic teachings; when it departs there is no need to jump to conclusions, it is simply then not infallible.

Vatican II we all know was pastoral, defined no dogmas, and therefore is subject to radical criticism. Sedevacantists hump to conclusions, break the bonds of communion, destroy (in their minds) the means of grace in the whole world and disengage the fight for restoration. The SSPX has shown the way while Sedevacantists cannibalize each other.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Lover of Truth on December 06, 2009, 07:03:11 PM
Quote from: JustCatholic
Quote
Absolutely.  We do not reject the Papacy.  We reject the heretic.  It is because of our adherence to the Papacy that we MUST reject the heretic.


A friend said the reason Vatican I (one)  laid down the rule of infallibility under very specific, circuмscribed conditions is precisely because the ordinary magisterium is only infallible when it reaffirms Catholic teachings; when it departs there is no need to jump to conclusions, it is simply then not infallible.

Vatican II we all know was pastoral, defined no dogmas, and therefore is subject to radical criticism. Sedevacantists hump to conclusions, break the bonds of communion, destroy (in their minds) the means of grace in the whole world and disengage the fight for restoration. The SSPX has shown the way while Sedevacantists cannibalize each other.


Vatican "2" taught false doctrines such as the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church not being one and the same, false ecuмenism, the idea that people in false religions can be saved by those religions and religious liberty which is the same as freedom from the true religion.  All of these doctrinal teachings of V "2" go against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

BTW - Father Ratzinger taught heresy in numerous books numerous times before he was "elected" which made him unelectable.  And he has taught heresy and engaged in heretical acts since being "elected" which proves he is invalid for those who did not already know that he is a heretic.

You do not have to solemnly define heresy in order to be a heretic, you just have to be a heretic in order to be a heretic.  But Ratzinger has taught heresy in his encyclicals.  

He also does not believe that Christ necessarily rose from the dead with His "physical body".  This is what we are dealing with here.  A valid Pope would not worship at Mecca or recieve gifts of false religions with esteeem even if he had a gun to his head let alone willingly as Father Joseph Ratzinger does.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: PetrusPrimus on August 18, 2010, 11:25:25 AM
I'd still like to hear about how jurisdiction is supplied in sede situations. Is it supplied in ALL situations where a priest is willing to say Mass or are there some exceptions?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Roman Catholic on August 18, 2010, 09:17:23 PM
Quote from: PetrusPrimus
I'd still like to hear about how jurisdiction is supplied in sede situations. Is it supplied in ALL situations where a priest is willing to say Mass or are there some exceptions?


Why do you ask how jurisdiction is supplied in sede situations?

Supplied jurisdiction is something that SSPX and independent sede-plenist priests invoke too.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: MyrnaM on August 18, 2010, 09:57:19 PM
I didn't decide to become a sedevacantist, I prayed for 5 years to find the Church, and finally God showed me C.M.R.I., in the year 1982.  I came home, and have been very happy since. Yes, even confident!

The remnant did not leave the Church, the majority left the Faith,  God did not leave us orphans, therefore jurisdiction comes from God, His Church supplies.  

"If the Faith is in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public."  St. Thomas Aquinas

Jesus started His Church with a handful, so it is today!  Living in the end times as we do.  

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: TKGS on September 03, 2010, 07:35:56 AM
Dear Matthew, et. al.,

First of all, I would like to point out that I never “decided to become” sedevacantist.  Even now, I do not claim to be a sedevacantist though I suppose the label is a fairly accurate representation of my beliefs on the matter according to the definition provided:  “believing that the man commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI is not the pope.”  On the other hand, I would suggest a better definition, at least for my part, would be, “not knowing or understanding how the man commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI could be the pope.”

Secondly, before I begin to attempt to answer your questions, I want to note that the questions were originally posted before I found the Catholic Info Forum.  After reading through the original post it seemed that the questions were asked in good faith; an attempt by a faithful Catholic to understand the thoughts and reasons that has led other faithful Catholics to come to completely disparate conclusions.  However, after seeing some of the other topics that seem to have their genesis in the resurfacing of the original  post and some of the consequences that have resulted, I am a little puzzled as to the reason the questions were even asked.

There have been comments on this forum critical of what has been called, “dogmatic sedevacantism”.  It is my understanding that this term used here essentially means that one holds the opinion that one must be a sedevacantist in order to be a member of the Catholic Church.  I’ve noticed that there is another notion that has been expressed on this forum which could be termed, “dogmatic anti-sedevacantism” or “dogmatic sedeplenism”; in other words, the idea that if one does not accept a particular claimant to the papacy, one is outside the Church.  The very idea that neither one of these concepts is required for salvation seems to be lost on many.

The reason I had joined the Catholic Info forum was because the forum seemed to allow for the free discussion of the sedevacantist issue.  For the most part, this still seems to be true as I write this, though the freedom to defend the sedevacantist thesis may be waning.  I hope that the freedom does not because for people (including myself) explore the truth in the matter, arguments in defense of the thesis must be permitted without fear of retribution.  On another traditional Catholic forum to which I belong, members are free to condemn any person whose comments merely question and the forum’s programming itself is designed to ridicule the very word “sedevacantism”.  As a result, legitimate questions cannot be asked or answered and, if I am wrong on the question, I cannot be righted.

The biggest problem is that there is no forum I know of that one can truly debate the issue of sedevacantism.  Ultimately, the discussion breaks down with one side or the other making ad hominem arguments rather than addressing the issue.  I understand this problem as passions run deep in favor of each side of the argument, both arguments have valid considerations, and, often enough, proponents of both sides seem to misunderstand, intentionally or otherwise, the opposing arguments.  Frankly, I believe the misunderstanding is more prevalent on the anti-sedevacantist side since most sedevacantists started out fully accepting the claims of the papacy by the Conciliar claimants.  The only forum that I’ve ever been acquainted with that truly allowed full and open debate of the issue was the now closed St. Belarmine Forum run by Mr. John Lane.

The most curious thing I have noticed about traditional Catholic forums is that members feel absolutely free to condemn, as non-Catholic, nearly anyone for any reason with one, and only one, exception.  The only person that cannot be condemned is the person commonly accepted by world to be the pope in the Vatican.  Even bishops and cardinals are not exempt.  Cardinal Kasper has been condemned as non-Catholic on this and other forums for his recent comments about his greatest “regret” being the lack of shared communion between Catholics and Protestants.  Yet one cannot even question the pope who maintains Cardinal Kasper in office and in good standing.  Before his election, even Cardinal Ratzinger was subject to the wrath of internet forum scribes.

The Vatican will discipline, on those rare occasions, people only for their actions (e.g., Bishop Malingo was disciplined only after he married) but never, it seems, for their proudly proclaimed heretical beliefs.  Cardinal Kasper and other cardinals, bishops, and famous theologians routinely make declarations that any Catholic with even the slightest knowledge of the Catholic Faith can recognize as heresy with only the slightest, if any, peep from Rome.  The Faith and Doctrine seem to be unimportant to Roman officials from the lowliest bureaucrat to the Holy Father himself.

Of course, nothing I’ve written or will write is going to prove anything, nor will this essay truly answer anything.  It will not be my attempt, yet, prove any thesis but only to give, somewhat, a background of some of my thoughts on the matter and directly answer the questions asked about what I think.  When I was merely a “conservative Catholic” I knew something was wrong.  I wondered what would finally “break the camel’s back” for the conservative Catholic press.  Once I thought it might be the official acceptance of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the priesthood but the Vatican abrogated the law that forbid such ordinations without nary a word from the “peanut gallery”.  Recent news seems to indicate that some agitators are calling for “gender equality laws” to force the Church to ordain women and, in one forum, I’ve already seen a comment about the power of Peter to bind and loose.  How many traditional Catholics, should the Vatican cave on this one, will continue to go along with the New Church and continue to condemn sedevacantists?  I know, I know…it’s an hypothetical question that an anti-sedevacantists will deny can happen; but I had been told that the Vatican could never officially sanction altar girls, Communion in the hand, or the ordination of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

I will attempt to answer the questions Matthew asked in order.  I do not intend to restate each question, however, and some questions will be answered together since they are intimately interlinked.  These answers are my own and should not be construed as speaking for others.  Even that often seems to be a major problem.  All too often, the remarks of one individual is posited as being absolutely representative of everyone who is perceived to be in that “group”, and this is especially true of anti-sedevacantists.  I reject that idea.  I do not speak for the Dimond Brothers, nor do they speak for me.  I do not attribute the statements by Conciliar Catholics as being representative of the beliefs of all people “attached” to the Novus Ordo.  Indeed, I do not attribute the actions of Benedict XVI to everyone who believes his claims to the papacy.  On the other hand, if one declares an heretical belief and refuses to listen to correction, I will consider one an heretic, and therefore a non-Catholic, whether a formal declaration has been made by some authority or not.  
*
I have been attending the traditional Mass for just over five years.  Prior to my realization that I could no longer attend the Novus Ordo, I attended only the Novus Ordo.  At that time I really believed that, whatever the problem was, it could be solved, or at least greatly mitigated, for me and my family by simply finding “the right” parish.  I would search for a “conservative” parish with a priest who wasn’t “too liberal” or take “too many” liberties with the Mass.  For a long time I reflexively believed the pope was the man commonly known as the pope.  Today, I don’t understand how he can be the pope after I have seen him, with my own eyes, live on network television, commit an act of apostasy, praying to Allah with the Muslims in a mosque.  I’ve heard all the excuses but none of them are compelling, let alone reasonable.

This realization did not grow over time.  It came upon me like a ton of bricks.  Since 2000, the Archbishop of Indianapolis has hosted an “Interfaith Thanksgiving Service” the Tuesday evening prior to the American Thanksgiving Day holiday in November.  The year I attended to observe the “celebration”, there were representatives from a variety of “Indianapolis Faith Communities”:  a female Jєωιѕн cantor, a Hindu minister, a Muslim Imam, Tibetan Buddhist priests (or monks, I’m not sure), a Methodist minister, and Head Granthi of the Sikh Satsung.  The event is not an exercise in “cultural awareness” but is rather a gathering of peoples of many religions giving thanks to their respective gods (though I’m not sure what the Buddhists did since they have no god) and it was, in every sense of the word, a religious event.  Indeed, it was a pan-religious event held in the Cathedral in honor of Satan himself with the Indianapolis Archbishop warmly welcoming him and all his minions.  It reflected the very definition of pantheism.  For a Catholic to participate is apostasy:  There is no other adequate description.

Many years ago, the Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, gave a sermon at Midnight Mass on Christmas Day saying that the Blessed Virgin can not be properly called the Mother of God but only the Mother of Christ.  Even though the Council of Nicea had once and for all condemned the heresy of Arius, Nestorius attempted to reinvigorate that detestable teaching under veiled language.  Ultimately, he was condemned for preaching heresy.  It is inconceivable to me that had Nestorius never given that sermon but instead invited the Pagans into the Cathedral in Constantinople to give thanks to their Pagan gods he would have been remembered in history as a good and faithful servant of God.  While he would not have been remembered as an heresiarch, he would have been remembered as Nestorius the Apostate.  If I am wrong in this assessment then I will willingly reconsider my judgment.  I await the argument.

When the layman, Eusebius, stood up during Nestorius’s sermon to declare that “We have an Emperor but we have no Bishop!” I think it is accurate to guess that not everyone in the Cathedral immediately withdrew their communion with Nestorius.  After all, Nestorius was the bishop and had been properly and legally installed.  He offered the Divine Liturgy according to the Traditions passed on to him from antiquity.  He was the bishop!  By what right does a mere simply layman depose him?  Not every faithful Catholic immediately departed him just as not every faithful Catholic has departed from the bishops (even the bishop of Rome) that have rejected Christ to embrace false teachings, false gods, and promotes or tolerates every imaginable abuse of God in the Blessed Sacrament.
*
I reiterate that I know I have not proven any thesis, nor will I prove any thesis.  It is not my intention to prove a thesis in this essay as I am simply not competent to do so (as many on this forum will heartily agree).  If individuals would like a more scholarly work to review, I suggest they read the essays on Mr. John Lane’s website (www.strobertbellarmine.net/index.htm) or subscribe to The Four Marks (www.thefourmarks.com/) and pick up the back issues in which a very scholarly essay is being serialized entitled “The Church Crucified”.
*
As for which claimants to the papacy in Rome have not been true popes, all I can say is that I am convinced that, at least, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have not been.  I think it is interesting that traditional Catholics who have, for years, rejected the Novus Ordo and have attended a Mass that Paul VI clearly desired to be abandoned, declaring the new Mass to be the Mass of the Roman Rite, willfully disregarded the authority in a matter of sacramental discipline of the man they regard as pope.  On the other hand, I will accept the possibilities that he may have been the true pope, he may have lost his right to the papacy, or he may never have been a true pope.  I simply do not know and at this point of time, I will leave the matter to the future historians and the Church.  It is the here and now that is important as it is the present teaching of the Roman Pontiff that is leading souls to hell.

In his series entitled, “The Church Crucified”, that has appeared in The Four Marks, John Lane wrote something that shows that the issue of sedevacantism isn’t brand new and it must be taken seriously.  This short passage, of course, does not prove the thesis, but it does indicate that the faithful, and not the “lunatic fringe” faithful, were beginning to ask questions concerning the papacy and the pope as early as the mid-1960s.  Was Paul VI a true pope (or John Paul I, for that matter)?  I am not prepared to answer at this time, but I will not condemn the questioners.  They had legitimate concerns at the time which were not answered just as the concerns of questioners today are not answered.  This is what Mr. Lane wrote:
Quote
On December 7, 1965 the most controversial of all the docuмents of Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanæ, was promulgated by Paul VI.  In that very same month, an arresting question was raised at the American Ecclesiastical Review.  “What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church?”  Rev. Francis J. Connell, CSSR, the theologian who responded, gave the standard answer from the theology manuals, as one would expect.  But this was a case in which the answer was not the point of interest—the question was.

The same question has been popping up, with greater and greater frequency and with increasing insistence, ever since.

*
I do not accept the claims of any of the various “popes” around the world.  The papacy is not an office in and of itself.  That is, the Bishop of Phoenix cannot be declared the pope unless he relinquish the Diocese of Phoenix and assume the See of Rome.  A claimant to the Holy See who has no clergy in Rome can not, by that very fact, be the pope.  I am not personally aware of any claimant to the Holy See, except Benedict XVI, who commands any allegiance of any of the clergy of Rome.  And frankly, given the state of the Church today, I wonder how much allegiance even Benedict XVI commands other than the applause he is given when he appears.  Since Paul VI issued Humana Vitæ papal commands have pretty much become worthless.
*
The Church is, by definition, a visible society on earth along with the invisible society in Purgatory and in Heaven.  I am not sure whether or not a denial of this fact would constitute heresy, but it would certainly be in error.  That said, I believe the faithful Catholic, whether he mistakenly believes that Benedict XVI is the pope or not, is part of that visible society.  While Jesus Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of days, he never promised that it will be large or that it would control a city-state in the middle of Rome.  As Saint Athanasius famously penned during the Arian Crisis, “What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside.  It is a fact that they have the premises—but you have the Apostolic Faith.  They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith.  You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you....  Even if Catholics who are faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”  The Church is visible even if it is reduced to a mere handful.  I find it amusing that members of this and other traditional Catholic forums can, and often do, anathematize various theologians (Father Andrew Greely and Father Hans Kung who are both priests in “good standing” in their respective dioceses, for example), bishops and cardinals (e.g., Cardinals Kasper and Mahony) but refuse to anathematize Benedict XVI who says and does many of the very same things.
*
In the recent past, a few priests of the Society of Saint Pius X have been expelled because of their outspoken criticism of the ongoing talks between the Society and Rome.  (I will not debate the utility of these talks since I’ve not really been privy to all that has been discussed.  Though I will say that if the Society holds firm to what the leaders have been saying I don’t see a problem even as others do see a problem.)  When I am asked if there is any priest or bishop I would currently trust or follow in matters of faith without judging his every move, I have to answer that there are several priests that I know whom I would follow.  On the other hand, just as a layman who attends Society parishes would have to make a judgment if his priest were expelled from the Society, I would have to make a judgment if a priest begins to stray from my understanding of the Catholic Faith without adequately explaining, teaching, and defending his actions and doctrine.  If his teaching is shown to be according to the Catholic Faith I would modify my understanding and if his teaching was not shown to be according to the Catholic Faith, I would depart from him.

People who are comfortable with their current priest (as are most lay faithful of the Society) overly criticize sedevacantists as people who personally judge every move and parse every sentence of every sermon delivered by a priest to make sure he’s not uttering some sort of heretical doctrine or, heaven forbid, accept the pope!.  All, I daresay even most, sedevacantists are not akin to the Dimond Brothers.  Some sedevacantists do indeed unjustly anathematize those in communion with Benedict XVI, but most, I think, remember the time they also believed the occupier in Rome was the pope and understand that one can sincerely believe in one of the various theories that allows for a legitimate pope who can hold, teach, and countenance  the heresies rampant throughout the Conciliar Church and clearly taught by its ordinary magisterium.  In fact, I have generally found that it is traditional Catholics who accept the claims to the papacy of Benedict XVI who are more prone to be judging every statement of priests (and suspected sedevacantists) for signs of that scourge of sedevacantism.  I wonder if the question is asked out of a genuine desire to understand the thinking of sedevacantists or if it is asked as part of some sort of psychological projection.

This topic was introduced with a most curious statement:  “The list covers the various opinions, or ‘what things you have to pick a position on’, to illustrate how complicated Sedevacantism actually is.”  There is one glaring problem with that sentence.  Even though there are a number of questions that really do not have anything to do with sedevacantism, they are all issues about which even the non-sedevacantist must “pick a position on”.  Indeed, there is great disagreement in traditional Catholic circles over the issue of so-called Natural Family Planning (NFP), an issue which is raised later.  I know sedevacantists, anti-sedevacantists, traditional Catholics, non-traditional Catholics, and even liberal Catholics who say that NFP is most certainly sinful and an abomination, and others of each persuasion who say otherwise.  The same can be said for Baptism of Desire (except that I know of no liberal Catholics who deny it).  It is not sedevacantism that is especially complicated, it is the lack of a pope who teaches the faith unambiguously and in conformity with the constant teaching of the Church’s magisterium since her beginning that is complicated.
*
The next question asked is, quite frankly, mysterious.  It does not seem to have any relevance to the sedevacantist thesis, so I will restate this question verbatim:  “How do you reconcile the fact that the world is VERY dangerous as an influence, and that we need Mass and the sacraments (and to a lesser degree, the moral support of fellow Catholics) to save our souls?”  Since the fall of Adam, I can think of no time that the world was not a very dangerous influence.  Since the foundation of the Church, I can think of no time that Catholics have not needed the Mass and the sacraments.  Even though I am not convinced, and in fact positively doubt, the claim of Benedict XVI as pope, I have not been deprived of the sacraments nor of the moral support of fellow Catholics either personally or through traditional Catholic forums such as Catholic Info.

While there are indeed those “home alone” Catholics who do not accept that any priests today may lawfully provide the sacraments; I do not subscribe to the theory.  I have not yet seen any credible arguments for this thesis, but I can not consider those who hold them, at this time, to necessarily be heretics or schismatics.  There have been numerous times when some Catholics have been deprived of most of the sacraments, the generations of Japanese after the emperor had expelled all priests from Japan is the most striking example.  Though the hierarchal Church had completely disappeared from Japan, the Catholic population was able to continue and even thrive.  The Japanese Catholics surely suffered many difficulties but they also certainly did survive and there is no reason to assume that all of them suffered eternally due to their depravation of the sacraments.
*
I was not aware that only a future council can judge the pope.  In fact, I thought that Vatican I definitively declared that a council is not superior to a pope.  Thus, the proposition that a council can judge a pope is objectively material heresy.  On the other hand, if Benedict XVI (and before him, John Paul II and possibly others) are not actually popes, then a future council can indeed judge one or more of these men to have been imposters or usurpers of the Holy See and, since they are/were not popes, I, as a layman, am not judging the pope.

I realize that this sounds a bit like sophistry but the Church has already given us historical examples in order to judge other Catholics’ status within the Church.  The first case is that of Nestorius which I previously mentioned.  Just as in the case of the pope, the Church grants no authority to laymen to depose or deny the bishopric of any given bishop, but this is not what the layman, Eusubius, did.  He merely observed the clearly manifest truth that the See was vacant as the properly and legally installed bishop had fallen from office due to heresy.  The second case can be found in the Church’s reaction to the Great Western Schism.  Ultimately, the Church did not judge any person who, with good conscience and reason, accepted the claims to the papacy of the various anti-popes.  There were cities in western Europe in which each claimant to the papacy appointed a bishop who, in turn, had clergy who was loyal to him and condemned his rivals.  The faithful had to choose and, what made things more confusing, they had to choose between priests, bishops, and popes who were all teaching essentially sound Catholic doctrine.  When the crisis was finally resolved, the Church did not condemn the faithful who ended up on “the wrong side” and even canonized as saints men who actively supported an anti-pope.  The main difference between then and now is that today the usurpers are generally teaching heresy:  religious indifferentism, religious liberty, universal salvation, pantheism, etc.

The problem with the idea that no one can judge the current situation is that it requires the faithful to resort to a legal positivism and ignore what is plainly obvious to all—the fruits of the doctrinal and liturgical revolution and the fact that the present claimant to the papal throne once noted that Vatican II represents the 1789 of the Church and is a counter-Syllabus.  What, pray tell, is counter to a Syllabus of Errors?  If the consistent teaching of popes, bishops, and theologians prior to Vatican II were wrong, why should we believe the consistent teaching of popes, bishops, and theologians since Vatican II?  Sedevacantists are constantly accused of “picking and choosing” what doctrines to follow, yet I contend that sedevacantists are generally faithful to Catholic doctrines that have been consistently and traditionally taught for centuries.  It seems to me that the people who “pick and choose” what to follow are Conciliar Catholics and traditional Catholics who accept Benedict XVI as pope.  Again, it is legal sophistry that suggests that the traditional Mass was not, for all intents and purposes, outlawed in the Conciliar Church in the 1970s.  The only reason it has continued to this day is through the clear (and admitted) disobedience to Paul VI and John Paul II by a great many traditional priests and bishops, including Archbishop Lefebvre.  Just as the Conciliar Church conceded to disobedience by allowing Communion in the hand and altar girls, the Conciliar Church has conceded to disobedience by declaring that the traditional Mass really is acceptable—all the while intending to use this greater acquiescence to help move traditional Catholics closer to the Conciliar religion, though this intention may be is backfiring.  Only time will tell.
*
Clearly, sedevacantism is not a dogma of the faith.  It is merely a point of fact.  The Chair of Peter is either legitimately occupied by a Catholic prelate or it is not.  I will point out again that there are some sedevacantists who consider any person who is not a sedevacantist outside the Church, but that itself is a schismatic attitude and they forget that there truly are just reasons for someone to have not come to the conclusion that the Holy See is occupied by a usurper.  Just as the existence of the Vatican City-State is not a dogma of the Church—remember that there was a time in Church history that the Vatican Hill was merely a cemetery and not a political entity—there are times when the See of Peter is vacant.  Since the man commonly held to be the pope has been condemned of heresy (by many Catholics before his election) he cannot be considered a legitimate pope today.  This idea is not dogma or even doctrine.  It merely is what is.  
*
Church history shows that a great number of “less-than-saintly” popes have occupied the Holy See.  Once again, a question is asked that has no real relevance to the issue of sedevacantism.  Any faithful history of the Church will be straightforward about those popes, especially those in Medieval times, who made the Vatican a veritable brothel.  Concubines, illegitimate children, Simony, wars of conquest, and all manner of moral depravity has found a place in Rome under the tutelage of the pope.  All mortal sins, however, are not equal.  While ignoring moral precepts with impunity, how many of these popes proposed heretical doctrines to the universal Church for belief or freely participated in Pagan worship?  If any did, their actions were certainly not notorious as their actions were unknown to almost everyone at the time and are completely unknown today.  On the other hand, the last two commonly accepted popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI) have indeed declared heretical beliefs and have freely participated in worship of false gods with adherents of false religions.  Their actions are notorious because they have proudly publicized their apostasy going so far as to have their exploits broadcast worldwide on television and published in their own newspaper and website.  I am indeed familiar with Church history.
*
Once again, I must quote the question asked:  “How do you reconcile the notion that, in your estimation, the Catholic Church hasn’t provided us laymen with any means of dealing with this crisis?  No Epikeia, no ability to disobey a lawful pope, no supplied jurisdiction, etc.”  I believe that if one has carefully read this essay to this point he would instantly see that this question has already been answered.  The Church has indeed provided us laymen with a means, through precedent, of dealing with the crisis.  Additional examples of how the Church teaches us to deal with the crisis include Elizabethan England, Roman persecutions, and underground Churches in communist countries.  I remind the reader that I am not even attempting to prove anything, for to prove a thesis requires evidence and sources, both theological and historical.  On the other hand, I do claim that anyone who is casually familiar with history can see the parallels, at least remotely, if he just considers the matter; and if he still cannot see any comparison it is because he refuses to see.  Finally, I don’t know how one has the right to disobey a lawful pope in matters of faith and morals or in liturgical matters though I do accept the concept of supplied jurisdiction, as do many, if not most, sedevacantists, so I am not sure why this has been asked.
*
I have attended Masses at five chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X.  I have found their Masses to be the very same Mass found in all the old Missals.  The priests’ preaching have been exemplary.  The independent chapel to which I belong is currently considering whether to align itself with the SSPX  and I have publicly stated that I have no intention of withdrawing from the chapel should the Society be invited to the chapel.  I do not consider the Society of Saint Pius X to be the enemy, unless they were to abandon everything they say they stand for and, like Bishop Rifan of Campos, Brazil, concelebrate just one Novus Ordo as a sign of “unity” with the Conciliar religion.  I just don’t know where they are going but I hope to learn something of the future at the Society’s conference in October in Kansas City.

I do not really personally know many priests.  I live quite distant from the church at which I and my family attend Mass.  Of the few I know, or with whom I have personal knowledge and experience, I do indeed know some who are very holy.  Though I don’t personally know any Society priests, I am sure that many of them are holy priests as well.  Sedevacantism or the lack thereof does not indicate holiness.  One does not determine the holiness of an individual based on matters unrelated to his faith and actions.  Saint Vincent was a holy priest even though he recognized an anti-pope as the legitimate pope.  Saint John Fisher was a holy bishop who refused to recognize the claims of the English King over the Church.

One holy bishop whom I believe will one day be canonized as a saint is Archbishop Lefebvre.  I also think that some of the Thuc-line bishops may eventually be raised to the altar because the Church will have been preserved and perpetuated through their efforts.  On the other hand, those who have declared themselves popes or who anathematize anyone who does not follow them and them alone I cannot consider holy or saintly.  There is an attitude that I find particularly troubling and that attitude can be found in some sedevacantists and also in some non-sedevacantists.  That attitude is that they, and they alone, represent the true Church and outside that group there is no salvation.  Officially, the Society does not, in any way, present that teaching.  Where I seem to find it is in some of the laity who frequent Society chapels.  I am not sure why some of the faithful seem to have this point of view as I have not seen it displayed by the Society bishops or priests, but some certainly do exhibit it.  It is too bad that all of the Society faithful did not follow the Society’s founder a little more closely in understanding that that crisis in the Church is not quite as cut and dry as today’s lay theologians would have it believed.

On a side note, I find it interesting that the Conciliar Church specifically denies that outside its communion there is no salvation.  Conservatives and anti-sedevacantists, meanwhile, cling to the doctrine and insist that the Conciliar Church really does teach that outside its communion salvation is impossible by appealing to Catholic doctrines uttered before the Conciliar Church usurped the real estate and titles of Catholicism.  Then, even on those occasions when “officialdom” declares them in schism, they simply insist that it is not so and seek “official” status and decrees that they are not any longer in schism until, in a truly ecuмenical spirit, the Conciliar Church welcomes them “home”.
*
For the most part, I am not personally enthusiastic about the “Rome-approved” traditional Mass societies such as, for example, the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, diocesan approved indults, etc.  Of course, we tend to forget that these “approved” Masses no longer use the 1962 Missal since the Missal was recently changed by Benedict XVI to completely re-write one of the oldest and most traditional prayers of the Roman Rite:  The Good Friday prayer for the Jєωs.  We should now be referring to the 2008 Missal, which, I understand, the SSPX does not use.  I am not enthusiastic about them because they tend to trap souls within the Conciliar structures.  Every person I know who attends Mass at the archdiocesan approved traditional Mass parish (there are some infrequent traditional Masses offered by various priests by the authority of the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificuм, but there has been no “explosion” of traditional Masses offered around me) has a very skewed view of the Faith.  They place “obedience” on a pedestal and consider it more important than the faith itself saying that they can filter out heresy for themselves and their children and they can reconcile differences in the faith they and their children see in the traditional Mass community and the Novus Ordo community around them.

On the other hand, I can see the time when I was at that same point in my “faith journey”, to borrow one of those favorite Modernist terms.  If it hadn’t been for the indult Mass, it would have taken me much longer to find tradition.  I believe I would have still found tradition since it was the Rosary and the “Luminous Mysteries” that was the impetus in my search for Truth, but it was the indult Mass that gave me familiarity with a Rite I had never before experienced while, at the same time, being so familiarly in conformity with the “new” books written so long ago that I was reading to finally learn something about the Catholic Faith.  Any person who continually seeks the Lord will not stop in the indult communities because he must, in the end, compromise the faith on some fine point at some time when the Conciliar authorities decide to speak.

Another problem I have with the indult communities is the question of Orders.  Father Pulvermacher, who used to edit The Angelus Magazine for the Society of Saint Pius X famously used to say that the Conciliar Church would free the traditional Mass only when there were no more priests left to offer it.  Archbishop Lefebvre, at one time, questioned the validity of the new Rites of Ordination of priests and Consecration of bishops.  And frankly, if he were ever convinced of these new rites’ intrinsic validity he would not have consecrated four bishops for the Society.  I am not convinced that the new rites are invalid, but I have doubts and I will not visit a priest for the administration of the sacraments if I have doubts about his Orders.  The Society seems to be of two minds on the matter.  I have read both defenses of the new rites in The Angelus as well as calls for the conditional ordination of any priest ordained in the new rite or by a bishop consecrated in the new rite if he wishes to offer Masses for the Society.  The current “policy” seems to be that the Society will conditionally ordain a priests who wishes it but does not conditionally ordain priests who do not.  This seems to be another aspect of the “pick and choose” mentality that is prevalent amongst anti-sedevacantists.
*
Which edition of the Missal does my ideal priest use?  Frankly, I am not really that concerned.  I use the SSPX hand-Missal to follow the Mass in English though I have crossed out the change in the Canon.  The chapel I usually attend currently uses the pre-1962 Missal with the in Bugnini-inspired changes in Holy Week.  Another chapel I attend uses the Missal in effect before the Holy Week changes.  If my chapel becomes affiliated with the SSPX, I understand the chapel will have to use the 1962 Missal (but thankfully not the 2008 Missal).  Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with a priest who wanted to use the Missal that was in effect in 1600.  I don’t think most sedevacantists are truly that concerned though many reject all things Bugnini, which is completely understandable and hardly makes one a non-Catholic.  What I don’t understand is why the SSPX, if they truly believe Benedict XVI is the pope, do not use the 2008 Missal in obedience to the Holy Father since this is still the traditional Missal with the traditional rubrics—with just one tiny, little difference.
*
I do not know how may true priests, bishops, or cardinals exist.  I believe the Thuc-line bishops are valid bishops and many of them, along with the Society bishops, are perpetuating the True Faith.  Unfortunately, some of these traditional bishops have fallen into schism by refusing communion with faithful Catholics who do not share their doctrines (such as those concerning Baptism of Desire), in some cases, or their understanding of the facts—such as whether or not the See of Peter is vacant.
*
I have attended and will gladly attend Masses offered by priests of the SSPX, the CMRI, the SSPV, and by independent priests.  While I do not make a thorough investigation into the validity of Orders of each and every priest, I do make a cursory examination to ensure that I can be reasonably assured of the priest’s valid orders.  When I visit a chapel where I am not known, I do not demand the right to receive Holy Communion until I have discussed the issue in the chapel and understand the chapel’s policy.  I think this answer also answers all of the questions concerning the “home-alone” Catholics.  I do not understand their thought process but I also do not consider them to be, by that criterion alone, to be non-Catholics.
*
It is interesting that the issue of fraudulent independent priests should come up since the Conciliar Church recently had a well-publicized case in Germany in which a man who had some seminary training but was never ordained was arrested for impersonating a priest and had fooled at least one diocese with forged docuмents.  He had been saying Mass (Novus Ordo), hearing confessions, and acting as an assistant pastor in a parish when he was discovered.  In any event, I am aware that there are frauds out there though I think most of the frauds are in the Conciliar establishment.  This is the nature of the crisis.
*
Once again, I am compelled to quote the question:  “Do you realize that some independent priests are simply weak in the virtue of obedience?  That is, while professing to be ‘fighting for the truth’ and all, they merely couldn’t follow orders in the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, etc. and left so they could ‘be their own boss’?”  This sounds like calumny against a whole class of priests rather than a genuine inquiry.  While I will admit that it is possible that there exists independent priests who might be described in this way, I would like to know how the questioner knows there are priests who are simply disobedient and egotistical men.  Actually, I can think of a few independent priests who may fit this description based solely on news reports I have read.  But I would say that the description of “some independent priests” is pretty much the standard description of most Conciliar priests and bishops who have made disobedience to the law, liturgy, morals, and superiors the rule rather than the exception, and none of them are sedevacantists.
*
I do believe the Modernist Crisis will be resolved one day.  When that will be is unknown.  Hopefully, the crisis will end before the end of the world.  The possibility does exist that the end of the crisis will be at the second coming of Jesus Christ and the Final Judgment.  I, for one, do not pray for this to come soon as I want as much time as possible to try to adequately repent of my sins.  There are many theories about how the Church can have a new pope, but the bottom line is that the pope is the Bishop of Rome.  Once we know we have a Catholic Bishop of Rome, we will have a pope.

I also realize, unlike some sedevacantists, conservative Catholics, and even flaming liberals, that the pope cannot simply wave is arm and restore the Church to her former glory.  It will take time and during that interim we may have a true pope who is not recognized as such by many people.  When we have a true pope, I believe—and this is my personal belief alone—that pope will recognize the fact that the validity of the new Rites of Orders was questioned almost immediately upon their promulgation.  In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre believed for a time that the new Rite of Consecration of a bishop was most certainly invalid while the new Rite of Ordination of a priest was questionable.  The pope will establish a commission to study those Rites and that commission will either present a compelling logical argument (one that has not yet truly been made) that the new Rites are certainly and intrinsically valid or will recommend that all Catholic bishops be conditionally consecrated by traditional bishops and all priests be, in turn, conditionally ordained.  This will remove all doubts in the minds of the faithful that the Orders of the priests and bishops may not be valid.

Over time, the new rites for the other sacraments will be slowly abrogated and the use of Latin will be prescribed for them.  While the pope will not immediately suppress the Novus Ordo he will not use it and his example will inspire priests and bishops throughout the world and that new rite will gradually fall into disuse until such time it is so rare that it is virtually unknown in the world.

The first evidence, however, that we have a valid pope will come in the first weeks and months of his pontificate when he uses his writings, sermons, and speeches to promote traditional Catholic teaching, condemn error, and—most especially—call for Protestants, Orthodox, Jєωs, Muslims, and Pagans to be converted to the Catholic Faith so that they can be saved.  He will eschew the new ecuмenism and will call upon countries to restore Christ to their lands to the exclusion of false and malicious religions.  And he will be hated for it.

Of course, the crisis may be resolved some other way.  Everyone reading this essay knows there is a crisis; the only question is how deep the crisis really is.  One thing I am sure of is that none of this will happen until such time those priests, bishops, and theologians who are so wedded to Vatican II have died off.  As long as they remain in the Conciliar Structures of the Church, they will nurture their offspring and keep it safe from God.
*
The problem remains, what can a person, be he priest, religious, or layman, do toward ending the crisis.  The only thing we can do is to offer our prayers and sacrifices towards that end.  Sedevacantists do understand, I am sure, that the pope is what binds Catholics and keeps them unified.  The reason there is so much apparent disunity in the Church, both in the Conciliar Church and in various traditional enclaves, is that there is no binding force currently present.  The Church has the priests and bishops she deserves and because so many in the Church have fallen so far from God and have turned to man as the ultimate source of spirituality.  Our Lord has given the Church Modernists with only a few traditional priests and bishops to care for the few faithful Catholics who never stop seeking the Face of the Lord.

That being said, this faithful remnant cannot simply elect a pope.  As I noted above, the pope is the Bishop of Rome; he is not some one who can be elected by just anyone and have absolutely no connection with the city of Rome.  If there is no clergy of Rome who accepts a man’s claims to the papacy, he can certainly not be the pope.
*
There is little, if any real faith, in the average Novus Ordo attending Catholic.  I know because I was one of them.  They have not been taught the Catholic Faith.  They are taught, and they believe, that it really doesn’t matter what religion one is, as long as one is faithful to that religion.  Recall Mother Theresa’s famous quip that it doesn’t matter if one is a Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu as long as he is a good Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu, or something like that.  I recall comments from fellow parishioners complaining about priests who don’t offer “the wine” for communion because “when you only get the bread it feels like you’ve only been to half a Mass.”  Then there are all the mixed marriages where the family goes to the (Conciliar) Catholic parish one week and to the Baptist (or Presbyterian, or Methodist, etc.) church the next and the kids are taught that they will have to make their own choice about religion when they grow up only to lament that the kids don’t seem interested in any religion!  The truth be told, the average Evangelical Protestant is closer to the Catholic Faith than the average Novus Ordo attending Catholic.

There can be found, however, True Faith even there though it is rare and in constant danger.  Sometimes the Faith can be found among Conciliar priests who, for one reason or another, never quite take the step to tradition.  These priests are usually found in those thriving parishes where heresy (other than the fiction that Christ’s Blood was shed for “you and for all”) is not preached.  Of course, these are also the priests who never stay in one place very long before someone complains to the chancery that the priest is just “too exclusive” or “too rigid” and he finds himself transferred to another parish where he must take years to rebuild the faith amongst the few people who are willing to listen while the faith is undermined in his prior parish by the new priest in a matter of a few short weeks or months.  I hear these same complaints from non-sedevacantist, conservative Catholics.

I think, also, that I have already clearly and unmistakably answered all the questions concerning my thoughts about the various “factions” within the sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist traditional communities.  Catholics, no matter what they have discerned concerning the identity of the pope should be accepted as fellow Catholics and should not be excommunicated or treated as one would treat the publican and the Pagans.  In return, others should treat me with the same compassion and, if they truly believe I am wrong, refute, with evidence, that what I plainly see with my eyes and hear with my ears is not what really is.  Wasn’t it Saint Augustine who noted that charity covers a multitude of sins?

I think it now opportune to discuss the Society of Saint Pius X directly since Bishop Williamson is specifically mentioned as one of many priests and bishops who “seem to be fearless in their defense of the Faith, though are not sedevacantist.”  The Society actually puzzles me in this regard.  When writing about the “doctrinal discussions” between the Society and Rome, Bishop Williamson and others of the Society always emphasize that they are not “negotiating” and have no intention of changing their views in order to come to some agreement and be granted some sort of official “status”, but that the purpose of the discussions is to “convert Rome.”  I have read these exact words numerous times.  My question then is simply, to what does Rome need to be converted if Rome is Catholic?  It does no good to say, “to tradition” for tradition is not a faith, it is the expression of a faith.  For this reason, I have believed that the Society actually is sedevacantist in a way though they absolutely refuse to apply the term to themselves.  I have never seen an adequate explanation of this other than Benedict XVI (and before him John Paul II) are true popes who can exercise true papal authority but the Society is exempt from obeying the pope when the Society judges that authority has been misused or is not in accordance with the Tradition.  While I will grant that, as the current crisis is unprecedented, this might just be the correct answer (in which case the Society holds to a practical sedevacantism) and they should be much less critical of those who willingly accept the label.

The way the Society and other anti-sedevacantist traditional Catholics who are in “irregular situations” speak of Rome, that is, they both publicly declare the authority of the claimant to the papal throne and publicly declare that the claimant to the papal throne may be disobeyed, reminds me of when Christ was asked about John’s baptism.  The pope’s authority, they are asked, does is come from God or from men.  It seems that they say within themselves, if we say from God, we will be asked why we don’t obey him.  If we say from men we will then be asked how he can be thought to be a true pope.  
*
Christ does not call upon any one to hate others.  We should not actually hate the claimant to the papal throne nor his cardinals, bishops, and priests.  We should not hate Modernists or other heretics nor should we hate Catholics who have not reached the same conclusions on the facts that we have.  Catholics should actively pray for Benedict XVI, for his conversion to the Catholic Faith and his protection from the evil one.  In old Catholic prayer books I’ve noticed many prayers for the pope.  The prayers were for their protection against heresy, evil influences, strength to rule, etc.  I’ve even seen a prayer card that was produced in the early 1960s asking God for the success of the upcoming Vatican Council.  I sometimes wonder if Catholics just became complaisant, assuming that whatever the pope did would be great and wonderful.  How many Catholics prayed for the success of the second Vatican Council?  How many Catholics actually prayed for the pope and how many pray for Benedict XVI?  I suspect the prayers that went to heaven in the early 20th Century were few and I doubt many more are uttered by self-professed Catholics today.  Catholics seem to have an unshakable belief that the leaders of the Church can do no wrong and are dismayed when that belief is proven over and over again to be unfounded.
*
What follows is a series of questions seeking, I think, short and concise answers about a sedevacantist’s personal opinions in a variety of unrelated but contentious issues.  I will therefore answer them in short complete bullet sentences.  Again these are my own opinions; I do not answer for others nor am I fully explaining my answers.  This is simply what I think and I believe these to be acceptable positions for faithful Catholics to believe:

•   The current law of the western Church forbids a married clergy.  There is no tradition in the Church, Eastern or Western, to allow for ministers, once ordained, to marry at all.  I do not think that Church can grant priests the right to marry.

•   I believe Fatima was an authentic apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

•   I don’t know enough about Padre Pio to form an opinion other than that he was a holy man and is likely a saint in heaven.

•   I believe Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire (neither of which are sedevacantist issues) are doctrines of the Catholic Church though not as they are almost always taught so as to include nearly every human that has ever lived and ever will live.

•   Mutually agreed upon abstinence in marriage is not a sin.

•   The “separation of Church and State” is something that the Church must tolerate in Pagan lands but it is not the ideal state and is not what the Catholic Church teaches as God’s will; though John Paul II and Benedict XVI clearly teach that it is doctrinally required.

•   Saint Thomas Aquinas was a great theologian and his teachings and method of logical reasoning is one of the foundations of the Church’s theology.

•   Limbo is a theological possibility, the “outskirts of hell”, if you will, where the unbaptized who have no personal sin will reside for eternity.  Unbaptized babies cannot go to heaven.  This is the de fide teaching of the Church.

•   The United States of America is the greatest country currently in the world, though we are falling fast.  Though it was not founded on Catholic principles, it’s constitution (if only we followed it) was about as close as it could be without this nation actually being a Catholic nation.

•   The Jєωs must be converted to the Catholic Faith or suffer eternally in hell.  I do not subscribe to the theory that every evil in the world is a Jєωιѕн conspiracy though it is curious that secular Jєωs do figure prominently in many of the evils of today.

•   The United States of America circa 1940 was a better and safer place than the America of today.  Unfortunately, the Church in the 1940s clearly did not take the warnings of Pope Saint Pius X seriously.

•   At Vatican II commands and directives were certainly issued.  Many statements were asserted that give the appearance of doctrinal teaching, but I know of nothing that the Council actually does teach.  On the other hand, the priests, bishops, and theologians who have worked to put the directives of the Council into effect have certainly taught many things that they say presents the teaching of the Council and binds their followers, so much so that 75% of the non-scriptural footnotes in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church are references to Vatican II docuмents.  Virtually nothing that emanated from the Council is truly Catholic, thus no Catholic is bound by it.

•   I do indeed acknowledge that the Catholic Church normally has a pope and that Catholics must, not just normally but at all times, docilely submit to the teachings and liturgical requirements of the pope or be in schism.  

The questions continue:  “With the foregoing statement in mind, do you realize that Sedevacantism is a positive (in the sense that you’re doing something) action, not a neutral one or a lack of action? That is, an SSPX Traditionalist isn’t ‘making a choice’ in the same way you’re ‘making a choice’.”  Indeed.  The sedevacantist makes one choice:  To face the facts and accept the deplorable situation that there is no pope at this time; the Church is experiencing an extended interregnum.  Yes, indeed.  The SSPX traditional Catholic, on the other hand is likewise not making a “neutral choice.”  He is making positive choices in determining which commands and teachings of his pope he is going to obey and which commands and teachings of his pope he is going to disregard.  I have made one choice.  The anti-sedevacantist traditional Catholic has to make many choices nearly every time the pope speaks and every time a docuмent is issued from the Vatican.  And, of course, the average Novus Ordo Catholic just does and believes as he wishes, remaining intentionally ignorant of Catholic doctrines.
*
God has not abandoned His people or His Church.  His people have abandoned Him.  His Church continues even though she is much smaller than she was in the past.  We are, however, in a much better position than the Catholics of Japan were for generations and we are in a much more comfortable position that the Catholics were in ancient Rome or are in Red China or Muslim and Hindu countries.  We are not hunted down and beaten and murdered as Arians (who, by the way, considered themselves the “true” Catholics in their day) did to Catholics who refused communion with Arian bishops.  True Catholics in that era oftentimes held priestless, worship services at local cemeteries.  Faithful Catholics today do indeed have the means of salvation.
*
I do have a family.  I have a wife and five children.  I do not stay at home and our chapel is quite as large (population wise) as many SSPX chapels and larger than some chapels.  I would not object to attending an SSPX chapel though I doubt I would move as I have developed many friendships at the chapel I attend, which is, by the way, officially not a sedevacantist chapel.  The nearest SSPX chapel is at least 3 hours distant while the “small” independent Chapel at which I usually attend Mass is about 45 minutes from home.  I am not averse to driving a distance to attend Mass, and if the SSPX had a chapel in central Indiana I may very well have started going there when we escaped the Novus Ordo.  I agree that the priest mentioning Benedict’s name in the Canon is not going to damage my faith or my family’s faith.  I know a priest who is a sedevacantist though it is not generally known that he is.  The non-sedevacantists that I’ve seen attend his Masses also do not seem to have their faith damaged because the priest does not mention Benedict’s name in the Canon.

I truly believe this is because both the priests, the sedevacantist and the non-sedevacantist, are good and faithful servants of God.  Both are Catholics.  Both are imperfect but both are trying to lead souls to Christ and teach the True Faith that has come down to us from the Apostles rather than the faith that has been cleared through the feminist camps and focus-group tested amongst the Protestants and infidels.
*  *  *
This answers the questions put to the sedevacantist on the forum.  While I do not speak for all sedevacantists, I dislike the term greatly, most of my comments could be echoed by not a few Catholics who either doubt or deny that Benedict XVI is truly the pope.  It is unfortunate that those who have raised their opinion to the level of dogma are the most vocal.  The rest of us are always searching for the Truth and seeking to try to live our lives in fear and trembling.  

It is likewise unfortunate that there are enclaves of sedevacantists who have become more a cult (in the negative sense of the word) and less traditional Catholic.  I hasten to add, however, that this same cultish behavior is found in many locales in Conciliarist circles including at least one FSSP parish of which I am familiar.  The cult-like following is not generally found at SSPX chapels or at the CMRI chapels I have visited, though it does seem to find a place on traditional Catholic forums on the internet.

The simple faithful among traditional Catholic laymen are not evangelists trying to “convert” other Catholics to one particular “brand” of Catholicism.  The simple faithful are trying to save our souls and we do much more listening than preaching, more asking than answering, more reading than writing.  I expect there may be some replies or comments to my screed.  If what I have seen on other topics is a useful guide, most of the comments will either be irrelevant or designed to ridicule and berate rather than offer useful criticism.  The title of the thread is, “So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist.”  As I noted at the beginning of this essay, I never decided upon this; the realization simply hit me.  I will listen to all who attempt to demonstrate how Benedict XVI can be pope and at the same time lead a religion that believes all religions, including the Catholic one, are simply the outward expressions of the religious experience that wells up inside each of us.  The Catholic religion is not simply one of many “faith traditions”; it is not a synthesis resulting from a clash between thesis and antithesis (which becomes the new thesis which will conflict with its antithesis, and so on); it is not one truth among many or one way to God amongst countless ways.  I will not entertain such notions.  

Likely, I will remain silent if anyone comments.  Please do not take my silence as consent.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Trinity on September 03, 2010, 10:08:04 AM
For my part, I'm simply incapable of being anything other than a sedevacantist.  But if you keep speaking like this, TKGS, you can speak for me anytime.  I agreed with you 100%, and really liked your idea that the change would occur quietly and gradually.  What curious creatures we humans are.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Belloc on September 03, 2010, 10:15:46 AM
"The biggest problem is that there is no forum I know of that one can truly debate the issue of sedevacantism.  Ultimately, the discussion breaks down with one side or the other making ad hominem arguments rather than addressing the issue. "

ok, true statement-which begs yet again, why do not SV's put up their own forum????? why come here-or FE, AQ,etc,etc that are clearly NOT run by SV's, for SV's, by SV's and then complain????

perhaps a SV site is just too much work to do and easier to complain on others forums.....coplaining is easier then productive action, like getting a site, setting it up,etc...

TKGS has done obviously a lot of soul searching and took a lot of thought and time putting up his posts, but as CI is NOT run, owned, operated by SV, then complaining about being attacked here,etc is rather unproductive.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Belloc on September 03, 2010, 10:20:04 AM
"The United States of America is the greatest country currently in the world, though we are falling fast.  Though it was not founded on Catholic principles, it’s constitution (if only we followed it) was about as close as it could be without this nation actually being a Catholic nation"

never that great, as never a Catholic nation! hence, we take what is good and work toward Catholicizing this nation! which requires poractiveness..being close does not get one a cigar and St. thomas stated taht anything born in disobediance cannot bear fruit. why USA is falling (actually, really, already fallen) is based on fact of faulty foundation poured to start with. Shining city on the hil? nope, not even close.....positive possibilities for future, yes...
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Belloc on September 03, 2010, 10:24:03 AM
"The “separation of Church and State” is something that the Church must tolerate in Pagan lands but it is not the ideal state and is not what the Catholic Church teaches as God’s will; though John Paul II and Benedict XVI clearly teach that it is doctrinally required. "

but, the USA was founded on this principle!!!!! still a cherished principle in Baptist/anabaptist circles, that is why there is no tate religion for them, then they complain how Obama this, Peℓσѕι that and Govts are out of sync with God-um, duh baptists!!! that is why...

also, can anyone show me where, follwoing the papal approved 1494 agreement, England was given access to lands in 13 colonies area? was teh land not usurped post-English reformation, hence England illegally seized the area we now know as 13 colonies....France was allowed parts of Canada, ok, but they were Catholic.....

so, we are notto go along with B16, etc,etc-but heck, the USA is the greatest, man.....okey dokey, then...

can it be? yes, was it better in past, sure...but nothing "great" about USA in many, many yrs.we fall as we are evil and again, foundations were faulty......end
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Alexandria on September 03, 2010, 11:54:53 AM
TKGS

I wish I had clarity of thought like you.  God reward you for what you have taken the time to write.  It has been a great help to me.

God bless you, dear man!
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Alexandria on September 03, 2010, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Belloc
"The biggest problem is that there is no forum I know of that one can truly debate the issue of sedevacantism.  Ultimately, the discussion breaks down with one side or the other making ad hominem arguments rather than addressing the issue. "

ok, true statement-which begs yet again, why do not SV's put up their own forum????? why come here-or FE, AQ,etc,etc that are clearly NOT run by SV's, for SV's, by SV's and then complain????

perhaps a SV site is just too much work to do and easier to complain on others forums.....coplaining is easier then productive action, like getting a site, setting it up,etc...

TKGS has done obviously a lot of soul searching and took a lot of thought and time putting up his posts, but as CI is NOT run, owned, operated by SV, then complaining about being attacked here,etc is rather unproductive.


Belloc, maybe you had a bad week.

Where do you see him complaining?  This is the kindest and most charitable piece I have ever read.  It will come as no surprise to many here (right, Matthew? :wink:) if I say that I could never have done as well.


Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Lighthouse on September 04, 2010, 08:32:22 PM
I'm thinking that due to its length, it would make more sense to just call it: that TKGS post.  If you quote the whole thing again every time you refer to it, a lot of us are going to have to replace our scroll wheelie.

 :whistleblower:
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: TKGS on September 06, 2010, 03:34:23 PM
Quote from: Belloc
"The biggest problem is that there is no forum I know of that one can truly debate the issue of sedevacantism.  Ultimately, the discussion breaks down with one side or the other making ad hominem arguments rather than addressing the issue. "

ok, true statement-which begs yet again, why do not SV's put up their own forum????? why come here-or FE, AQ,etc,etc that are clearly NOT run by SV's, for SV's, by SV's and then complain????

perhaps a SV site is just too much work to do and easier to complain on others forums.....coplaining is easier then productive action, like getting a site, setting it up,etc...

TKGS has done obviously a lot of soul searching and took a lot of thought and time putting up his posts, but as CI is NOT run, owned, operated by SV, then complaining about being attacked here,etc is rather unproductive.


Who's complaining?

The fact is that I'm not interested in a forum where everyone thinks exactly the same.  You (and others) keep telling me I'm wrong, but if I only read and post in a purely sedevacantist forum, I cannot be corrected--if I'm, in fact, wrong.  Putting people in ghettos tends to perpetuate error among the various ghettos.

Amazingly, the largest error-ridden ghetto is the Conciliar Church.  I am simply amazed when I talk to a Novus Ordo Catholic who has, as most of them do, no concept of the Catholic Faith or realization that there is any crisis in the Church.

As for why sedevacantists don't seem to have the technical expertise and time and money to run a sedevacantist forum, I'll leave those speculations to you.  I'm sure they won't be pretty.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Alexandria on September 06, 2010, 03:47:38 PM
Quote
Amazingly, the largest error-ridden ghetto is the Conciliar Church.  I am simply amazed when I talk to a Novus Ordo Catholic who has, as most of them do, no concept of the Catholic Faith or realization that there is any crisis in the Church.


Unfortunately, this is 100% accurate.

Sometimes I envy them....

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on March 12, 2011, 10:51:48 PM
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Belloc
"The biggest problem is that there is no forum I know of that one can truly debate the issue of sedevacantism.  Ultimately, the discussion breaks down with one side or the other making ad hominem arguments rather than addressing the issue. "

ok, true statement-which begs yet again, why do not SV's put up their own forum????? why come here-or FE, AQ,etc,etc that are clearly NOT run by SV's, for SV's, by SV's and then complain????

perhaps a SV site is just too much work to do and easier to complain on others forums.....coplaining is easier then productive action, like getting a site, setting it up,etc...

TKGS has done obviously a lot of soul searching and took a lot of thought and time putting up his posts, but as CI is NOT run, owned, operated by SV, then complaining about being attacked here,etc is rather unproductive.


Who's complaining?

The fact is that I'm not interested in a forum where everyone thinks exactly the same.  You (and others) keep telling me I'm wrong, but if I only read and post in a purely sedevacantist forum, I cannot be corrected--if I'm, in fact, wrong.  Putting people in ghettos tends to perpetuate error among the various ghettos.

Amazingly, the largest error-ridden ghetto is the Conciliar Church.  I am simply amazed when I talk to a Novus Ordo Catholic who has, as most of them do, no concept of the Catholic Faith or realization that there is any crisis in the Church.

As for why sedevacantists don't seem to have the technical expertise and time and money to run a sedevacantist forum, I'll leave those speculations to you.  I'm sure they won't be pretty.


Yes, there are indeed many good reasons to have a forum populated by Catholics of all opinions regarding how to deal with the Crisis.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Penitent on March 13, 2011, 05:02:14 PM
TKGS,

I don't usually read lengthy message board posts.  But this one ... I read every word.

Bravo.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Arborman on March 13, 2011, 10:15:16 PM
This what I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism

I attend the Diocesan Latin Mass, but I am seriously thinking about going to the SSPX for good, that is where my heart is.  But I also listen to traditional Catholic sermons on the internet from the CMRI.
Who is right?  I don't really care because they all have their strong points.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 17, 2011, 12:09:38 AM
If the OP doesn't show how this position is absurd I don't know what does.

I'd disagree on one point though. The belief that a future Council can judge the Pope is the error of Conciliarism. Luther often appealed to future Councils against the Pope.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: PartyIsOver221 on March 17, 2011, 04:04:16 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
If the OP doesn't show how this position is absurd I don't know what does.

I'd disagree on one point though. The belief that a future Council can judge the Pope is the error of Conciliarism. Luther often appealed to future Councils against the Pope.


Still running ad hominems and shoveling in emotional-fuel to the Crisis debate fire, stevus?

What is absurd about the traditional Catholic position, which is what sedevacantism is actually? NAME IT! What is?? You'll attempt and try to but in the end there's no escaping the hard-to-swallow truth. Pride consumes all.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Exilenomore on March 17, 2011, 07:08:10 AM
Quote from: PartyIsOver221
Quote from: stevusmagnus
If the OP doesn't show how this position is absurd I don't know what does.

I'd disagree on one point though. The belief that a future Council can judge the Pope is the error of Conciliarism. Luther often appealed to future Councils against the Pope.


Still running ad hominems and shoveling in emotional-fuel to the Crisis debate fire, stevus?

What is absurd about the traditional Catholic position, which is what sedevacantism is actually? NAME IT! What is?? You'll attempt and try to but in the end there's no escaping the hard-to-swallow truth. Pride consumes all.


This is one of the things that helped me embrace the SV position. No one ever manages to 'refute' it other than by hurling ad hominems and saying that we are nutcases. Never are the teachings of the fathers and the popes used, only novel sophistries and calumny (for example, associating the position with the absurd 'conclavism', while it has nothing to do with that).

The whole anti-SV movement is based upon a psychological game, trying to make people feel as if they are mad when they even think about accepting it as truth.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 17, 2011, 07:08:50 AM
What is ad hominem in that quote?

What is absurd? The notion God abandoned His visible Church for almost half a century and counting.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Exilenomore on March 17, 2011, 07:34:03 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
What is ad hominem in that quote?

What is absurd? The notion God abandoned His visible Church for almost half a century and counting.


"Even if the amount of catholics faithful to tradition is reduced to a remnant; they are the true Church of Christ." - St. Athanasius

God did not abandon His Church, neither do we say that He did. There are still valid bishops and priests, offering the spotless Sacrifice in the world. As long as this is the case, the Church has not defected, which she cannot. There will come a valid Pontiff again, who will restore all things.

The visibility of the Church means that the Church is not some invisible pneumatic entity, but consists of tangible and visible human beings who believe the same doctrines of the same faith.

Modernism is 'absurd' and 'crazy', not the belief that the throne of Peter is vacant at present.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Exilenomore on March 17, 2011, 07:41:03 AM
Neque enim mystica Christi Sponsa, saeculorum decursu, contaminata est unquam, neo contaminari aliquando potest, teste Cypriano: « Adulterari non potest Sponsa Christi: incorrupta est et pudica. Unam domum novit, unius cubiculi sanctitatem casto pudore custodit ». - Mortalium Animos (Pius XI)

During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." - Mortalium Animos (Pius XI)

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on March 17, 2011, 08:37:25 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
What is absurd? The notion God abandoned His visible Church for almost half a century and counting.


His "abiding" with in 'her' in these days does not seem to have done much good, has it?  'She' is the laughing stock of the entire world; a babbling, disgraced harlot whose roof protects heretics and perverts of all sorts.  No one, not even her own 'loyal' children, listens to her.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: MyrnaM on March 17, 2011, 11:44:15 AM
Also, He didn't abandon His Church, it's still here isn't it?  In fact He warned us,  when He returns will He find the Faith.

Just what do you think His Church is, a building?  Vatican City?  No, its His teachings!  THE FAITH!
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 17, 2011, 08:18:44 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Also, He didn't abandon His Church, it's still here isn't it?  In fact He warned us,  when He returns will He find the Faith.

Just what do you think His Church is, a building?  Vatican City?  No, its His teachings!  THE FAITH!


His Church is visible.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 17, 2011, 08:20:02 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
His "abiding" with in 'her' in these days does not seem to have done much good, has it?  'She' is the laughing stock of the entire world; a babbling, disgraced harlot whose roof protects heretics and perverts of all sorts.  No one, not even her own 'loyal' children, listens to her.


That description could fit the Church at various points of history. Christ has always seen to it the seeds of resurrection are there. The Church was almost all Arian at one time as well.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 17, 2011, 08:26:37 PM
Quote from: Exilenomore

"Even if the amount of catholics faithful to tradition is reduced to a remnant; they are the true Church of Christ." - St. Athanasius


St. Athanasius didn't deny Liberius was Pope even after he unjustly excommunicated him.

Quote
God did not abandon His Church, neither do we say that He did. There are still valid bishops and priests, offering the spotless Sacrifice in the world. As long as this is the case, the Church has not defected, which she cannot. There will come a valid Pontiff again, who will restore all things.


The Church has defected if it has been, not only headless for 50 years but visibly non-existant except for a few smatterings of fractured believers contradicting each other with no hope of restoration because they deny the visible Church exists.

Quote
The visibility of the Church means that the Church is not some invisible pneumatic entity, but consists of tangible and visible human beings who believe the same doctrines of the same faith.


To say the Church's visibility means that one human is Catholic and not invisible makes the teaching on "visibility" completely meaningless.

Quote
Modernism is 'absurd' and 'crazy', not the belief that the throne of Peter is vacant at present.


I think both are crazy objectively, though subjectively people sincerely hold to them.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on March 17, 2011, 08:43:12 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Christ has always seen to it the seeds of resurrection are there.


They are present now, too, although you and I see them under different aspects at the moment.

Quote
The Church was almost all Arian at one time as well.


This is not really ad rem, stevus, as Arianism was not emanating from the very See of Peter.  Sure, there were some parallels to our day, but nothing in Church history is really analogous.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on March 17, 2011, 08:46:27 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
His Church is visible.


True, but what is the proper definition of visibility?  What is YOUR understanding of visibility?  I am not being smart, but want to know what you think.

There are many religious bodies that are false, yet visible, even highly so.  Visibility, however you define it, means nothing if the Gospel being preached is false.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on March 17, 2011, 08:50:28 PM
BTW, I do not deny the visible Church exists.  I just don't think visibility is defined in the way most Catholics, many SVs included, seem to think.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 17, 2011, 09:02:39 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Christ has always seen to it the seeds of resurrection are there.


They are present now, too, although you and I see them under different aspects at the moment.


So you are saying the sedes are the seeds?  :laugh1:

Quote
The Church was almost all Arian at one time as well.


Quote
This is not really ad rem, stevus, as Arianism was not emanating from the very See of Peter.  Sure, there were some parallels to our day, but nothing in Church history is really analogous.


Liberius excommunicated the only prominent Bishop fighting the heresy of Arianism which almost took over the Church and signed, what many say is an heretical Creed.

If you see things from the Society point of view it is similar to Arianism, though greater in degree. The Sede point of view has no precedent.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on March 17, 2011, 09:13:00 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
So you are saying the sedes are the seeds?


Actually, I am not -- but you can have your irrational laugh if you feel the need :)

Quote
The Sede point of view has no precedent.


This means nothing, stevus.  In the time of Arianism, there was no precedent for Arianism or how to deal with it, but the correct view was still correct.  This was true at many stages in the long life of the Church.  Lack of precedent means NADA, and it is as clear as the summer sun that the present crisis is...you got it...UNPRECEDENTED!
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: MyrnaM on March 17, 2011, 10:42:05 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Quote from: MyrnaM
Also, He didn't abandon His Church, it's still here isn't it?  In fact He warned us,  when He returns will He find the Faith.

Just what do you think His Church is, a building?  Vatican City?  No, its His teachings!  THE FAITH!


His Church is visible.


It is visible in the sense that one can recogzine it, by its 4 marks.  ONE, all traditionalist have the same Faith, even the sede does believe in the office of Pope.  HOLY, all traditionalist enjoy the holiness of the Mass of All Times.  Catholic, it is universal, not exclusive to just one particular race of people, and we can all agree the Traditional Catholic Faith holds firm to the traditions it was taught from the beginning, the deposit of Faith handed down from Christ through the apostles who were inspired by the Holy Ghost.

I will take up some reading on the visibility of the Church tomorrow just to see if my definition is close to being correct.

I do not recognize the novus ordo as being founded by Christ.  Each parish is divided, Holy; where?
Universal, I suppose if you want to change that to mean, all religions are equal now.  Apostolic, no way, they were founded in 1962 - 1965 somewhere around that time.  

BTW, the title of this thread, "so you want to become a sede"
 NO, I want to remain a Catholic.  Just thought I would mention that.   Sedevacantist is not a religion per se.  It is a position held by Catholics who believe a true pope can not be a heretic, a true pope can not lead people on a path outside the Church.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 18, 2011, 05:02:37 AM
Gladius,

I was laughing at the play on words. The "Sedes" are the "seeds"? Get it?

The degree of the crisis is unprecedented, but the Society reaction is not unprecedented. They are following the example of St. Athanasius. The Sede response to the crisis is unprecedented as there have been no Sedes till the 1970's. I think that is a fair point.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: MyrnaM on March 18, 2011, 08:12:04 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Gladius,

I was laughing at the play on words. The "Sedes" are the "seeds"? Get it?

The degree of the crisis is unprecedented, but the Society reaction is not unprecedented. They are following the example of St. Athanasius. The Sede response to the crisis is unprecedented as there have been no Sedes till the 1970's. I think that is a fair point.



Congregation Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI) the Sedes position was organized in 1967; prior to that the word was used during an interregnum.  A coin or stamp with the words "Sedevacantism" was issued by the Vatican during a longer interregnum.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Exilenomore on March 18, 2011, 08:51:17 AM
The argument of Pope Liberius is often used against us. It cannot be compared. Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine said of it:

"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for 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 [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic."

This Felix is venerated by the Roman Church as Pope and Martyr.

Liberius did not preach heresy, but sinned by making peace to the arians to safeguard his life. Even then the Roman clergy was justified, according to Bellarmine, in taking the pontifical dignity from Liberius and giving it to Felix, because of the impression of heresy Liberius gave.

Otherwise the Church has been wrong for more than thousand years in venerating an antipope as Pope and Martyr.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Exilenomore on March 18, 2011, 08:59:39 AM
And to say that we have no hope for restoration is something which you put into our mouths. I firmly believe that catholic restoration will take place.

As to your assertion that there were no adherents tot he sede vacante position before the seventies; How do you know? How do you know whether every bishop and priest scattered abroad the globe still inserted the name of the concilliar heads in the canon of the Mass?

I wonder how many clerics retreated into silence because they wanted to have nothing to do with the new religion. Archbishop Lefebvre, too, has spoken of the many priests and bishops who died of sorrow because of what their eyes saw.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on March 18, 2011, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
The degree of the crisis is unprecedented...


It is not merely a matter of degree, but of kind.  A bogus Council held in and approved by Rome, altered Sacramental forms across the board, and a list of 'official' deviations that could go on and on.  Something like this has never occurred.  Anyone who cannot see this fact is as blind as a bat.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 18, 2011, 11:05:04 AM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: stevusmagnus
The degree of the crisis is unprecedented...


It is not merely a matter of degree, but of kind.  A bogus Council held in and approved by Rome, altered Sacramental forms across the board, and a list of 'official' deviations that could go on and on.  Something like this has never occurred.  Anyone who cannot see this fact is as blind as a bat.


Trent standardized sacramental forms across the board. It altered them in the sense that it did away with any liturgical rite younger than 200 years old.

OBVIOUSLY Trent did a good thing standardizing the Roman Rite in the West and protecting against novelty.

VCII was a valid Council, not bogus. It simply dealt with pastoral realities and later the crew enacted disciplinary laws. It created the "Great Facade", but changed not one iota of Catholic dogma. It is a chameleon Council that can shape shift depending on who is implementing it. Couple that with a Pope and Episcopacy who don't enforce any of the laws on the books and you have complete chaos and loss of faith.

We agree on the effects. It seems you are saying the cause is a complete apostasy of almost the entire clergy, Pope, and a false Council. I think that argument conflates the scale of the destruction with the scale of the cause.

Vatican II is simply blithering hot air and the implentation was on the level of disciplinary laws. The post-conciliar Popes have not defined a single dogma nor have they exercised their infallibility. The Abbe de Nantes tried to put Paul VI on trial under the theory that, even though Paul VI would judge his own case, it would force him to disavow his "heresies" or else proclaim official and once and for all infallibly that his "heresies" were true and correct. The Vatican didn't even accept his docuмents and, I think, had police escort the Abbe away before he could even file his case.

The sede case concludes too much. It is not supported by the evidence no matter how much hand waving and dog and pony show appeals to the atrocities one makes.

Yes they are outrageous, unprecedented, scandalous actions and misleading and conducive to error opinions that cause mass confusion. But a thousand of these don't equal infallibly defined error or formal heresy.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on March 18, 2011, 11:36:21 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
We agree on the effects...I think that argument conflates the scale of the destruction with the scale of the cause...


There must be proportion between every cause and effect.  In fact, the cause must always be superior to the effect produced.

You want to posit the contrary idea -- i.e., that enormous effects can flow from a lesser cause -- but that is inadmissible, for it violates sound thinking and all that we observe throughout creation.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on March 18, 2011, 11:40:12 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
The sede case concludes too much.


I agree.  That is why I do not hold to SVism.  It leans too far toward the order of fact, more or less doing away with the order of law.  However, the Recognize and Resist crowd lean too far toward the order of law, more or less doing away with the order of fact.  That is why I am what is normally termed a sede-privationist.  IMO, this take on things gives that which is due to BOTH the order of law AND the order of fact.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Exilenomore on March 18, 2011, 12:00:39 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: stevusmagnus
The sede case concludes too much.


I agree.  That is why I do not hold to SVism.  It leans too far toward the order of fact, more or less doing away with the order of law.  However, the Recognize and Resist crowd lean too far toward the order of law, more or less doing away with the order of fact.  That is why I am what is normally termed a sede-privationist.  IMO, this take on things gives that which is due to BOTH the order of law AND the order of fact.


I actually find that sede vacante thesis and the cassiciacuм thesis pretty much come down to the same point; that the See of Rome is formally vacant. Those who condemn the C-thesis usually do not understand it or have been presented with a false version of it.

Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers was a great man of the Church and his theological capacities should not be underestimated, as has unfortunately often happened.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Emerentiana on March 18, 2011, 06:03:33 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Gladius,

I was laughing at the play on words. The "Sedes" are the "seeds"? Get it?

The degree of the crisis is unprecedented, but the Society reaction is not unprecedented. They are following the example of St. Athanasius. The Sede response to the crisis is unprecedented as there have been no Sedes till the 1970's. I think that is a fair point.


Just like I said, Steve.......you dont know what you are talking about.  The CMRI was the FIRST trad group to emerge after Vatican 2.  They took the sede position.  The SSPX was formed in the 1970s.  Actually, their view is more unprecedented.  
 Catholics have had antipopes in the history of the church, but none that changed doctrine.  These Vatican 11 popes have overturned the foundations of Christianity with their errors!
SSPX says we have to believe that they are popes.  They are bad popes, and we  do not have to obey them.  This is not  Catholic thinking.  No where in Catholic history  have Catholics had to make  a stand like in this era.  
One thing we have to remember......no one really deposes a pope.  The church teaches that he is IPSO FACTO excommunicated by teaching heresy.  
Do all of you believe that these last 4 popes are IPSO FACTO excommunicated?  If you do, you believe that the chair of  Peter is vacant.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: MyrnaM on March 18, 2011, 06:44:36 PM

There is information on the internet that John XXIII was a freemason, look it up and decern for yourself if that information might be correct or not.  If correct he certainly was NOT a true pope.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 18, 2011, 07:55:28 PM
These are "bad" Popes, but they teach nothing infallibly and bind nothing on our consciences. They create bad "options" liturgically and they proclaim ambiguity and participate in and foster novel concepts, but they don't legally force any Catholic to partake with them or believe their non-infallible dialectic meandering ponderings.

They want people to accept VCII as a valid Council and the NO as a valid Mass, but even then they have not forced anyone to or leveled an anathema at those who don't. Plus they've neither defined nor clarified  anything in VCII. Them asking you to "accept it" is like asking you to "accept" a Rorshak ink blot. It means nothing until they make it crystal clear what VCII is in specific scholastic statements of belief.

Currently VCII appears  a mixture of Catholicism and ambiguity. What must I believe now differently than I did before VCII? They don't answer the question because they know the answer is nothing, but they lead and the sheep follow thinking it is obligatory they approve.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on March 18, 2011, 08:23:12 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Currently VCII appears  a mixture of Catholicism and ambiguity.


Is this answer coming from the Catholic camp or the ambiguous, vague as it comes, camp?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 18, 2011, 08:55:18 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Currently VCII appears  a mixture of Catholicism and ambiguity.


Is this answer coming from the Catholic camp or the ambiguous, vague as it comes, camp?


Catholic camp. The lib camp clearly sees liberalism and likes it. The Neo-Caths see conservatism and like it. the Catholic camp sees it is a meaningless chimera and wants to start over.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Emerentiana on March 18, 2011, 09:04:24 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
These are "bad" Popes, but they teach nothing infallibly and bind nothing on our consciences. They create bad "options" liturgically and they proclaim ambiguity and participate in and foster novel concepts, but they don't legally force any Catholic to partake with them or believe their non-infallible dialectic meandering ponderings.

They want people to accept VCII as a valid Council and the NO as a valid Mass, but even then they have not forced anyone to or leveled an anathema at those who don't. Plus they've neither defined nor clarified  anything in VCII. Them asking you to "accept it" is like asking you to "accept" a Rorshak ink blot. It means nothing until they make it crystal clear what VCII is in specific scholastic statements of belief.

Currently VCII appears  a mixture of Catholicism and ambiguity. What must I believe now differently than I did before VCII? They don't answer the question because they know the answer is nothing, but they lead and the sheep follow thinking it is obligatory they approve.



Quote
These are "bad" Popes, but they teach nothing infallibly and bind nothing on our consciences.

 :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:  Well........why dont we start with Paul the V! changing the mass !
This is what happens, folks when we dont have a true pope for 40 years!  We get this kind of mixed up thinking!
Of course, I have never known a true pope either.  I became Catholic in 1961 when the changes started.  John X111 was intent on bringing on the changes, not keeping the traditions and teachings of the church.[/b]
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: MyrnaM on March 18, 2011, 09:06:02 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
These are "bad" Popes, but they teach nothing infallibly and bind nothing on our consciences. They create bad "options" liturgically and they proclaim ambiguity and participate in and foster novel concepts, but they don't legally force any Catholic to partake with them or believe their non-infallible dialectic meandering ponderings.


So then you deny the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine, but rather, that they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the  deposit of faith which was handed down through the apostles.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Exilenomore on March 19, 2011, 07:49:43 AM
Quote from: Emerentiana


Of course, I have never known a true pope either.  I became Catholic in 1961 when the changes started.  


I am blessed to be living in a country which has strong catholic roots, though modernism has now devastated the land. The people here, who lived before the apostasy and remembered the valid Popes, will tell you that it was always taken for granted by catholics to say that a Pope could never promulgate magisterial heresy. To say otherwise made you at least a 'bad catholic'.

Despite the mental acrobacy and linguistic gymnastics of those who 'recognise and resist', it is better to be in communion with the empty See of Rome than to set up a 'Gallican See' against what you claim to be the See of Rome.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Emerentiana on March 19, 2011, 07:20:46 PM
Quote
Despite the mental acrobacy and linguistic gymnastics of
Quote
those who 'recognise and resist', it is better to be in communion with the empty See of Rome than to set up a 'Gallican See' against what you claim to be the See of Rome.


Sedevacantists believe the See of Rome is vacant. SSPX believes we HAVE a pope! Sedes are the ones who are in communion with the empty See of Rome. Opposite of what you stated, if I got it right!
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 19, 2011, 10:42:00 PM
There is doubt whether Paul VI ever legally promulgated the NO.

Assuming he did, he merely created another form of Mass separate from the Mass of Pius V. Thus he did not "change" the Mass. He created a watered down ambiguous Rite that kept bits and pieces of the TLM. The NO contains no explicit heresy.

The Sede arguments keep failing because of indefectability. God will not allow His Church to fail. In this crisis He is allowing it to come as close to the line as possible but She never crosses it because She cannot cross it.

Under this post conciliar veneer of novelty there still exists the true Church of Christ. No dogma or doctrine has been changed no matter how much non-infallible rambling bloviation comes from Rome.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: MyrnaM on March 19, 2011, 11:22:18 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
There is doubt whether Paul VI ever legally promulgated the NO.

Assuming he did, he merely created another form of Mass separate from the Mass of Pius V. Thus he did not "change" the Mass. He created a watered down ambiguous Rite that kept bits and pieces of the TLM. The NO contains no explicit heresy.

The Sede arguments keep failing because of indefectability. God will not allow His Church to fail. In this crisis He is allowing it to come as close to the line as possible but She never crosses it because She cannot cross it.

Under this post conciliar veneer of novelty there still exists the true Church of Christ. No dogma or doctrine has been changed no matter how much non-infallible rambling bloviation comes from Rome.


St. Peter wouldn't even recognize what you call "His Church".  

BTW... His Church has not failed, except in your erroneous mind.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Raoul76 on March 19, 2011, 11:40:10 PM
Emerentiana, Exilenomore is one of us.  He is saying he is in communion with the empty See of Peter.

He is also apparently from Dutch-speaking Belgium.  I was about to write something to him in German.  Why do Belgium and Germany have the same flag?

gladius_veritatis said:
Quote
That is why I do not hold to SVism.  It leans too far toward the order of fact, more or less doing away with the order of law.


Then cuм Ex Apostolatus, the Code of Canon Law 1917 and St. Robert Bellarmine do away with the order of law.  

I find the Cassiciacuм thesis to be well-nigh incomprehensible though I'm sure Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was well-intentioned.  Some say it contains heretical implications but I won't start a fight.  I think, like SSPX but leaning more towards the truth, that it is comforting for some people, it allows you to have your cake and eat it too, to be traditional but not take the step of saying the Pope isn't the Pope.  

Anyway, I am absolutely certain that it is wrong, but I know that means little as I am a layman, have been wrong before, etc.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Raoul76 on March 19, 2011, 11:44:29 PM
For the record, I'd happily go to a sedeprivationist chapel, though not to the SSPX unless maybe in an emergency ( since the emergency hasn't happened yet, I prefer not to torment myself unnecessarily on this question ).
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Exilenomore on March 20, 2011, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote
Despite the mental acrobacy and linguistic gymnastics of
Quote
those who 'recognise and resist', it is better to be in communion with the empty See of Rome than to set up a 'Gallican See' against what you claim to be the See of Rome.


Sedevacantists believe the See of Rome is vacant. SSPX believes we HAVE a pope! Sedes are the ones who are in communion with the empty See of Rome. Opposite of what you stated, if I got it right!


I was agreeing with you, actually.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Exilenomore on March 20, 2011, 08:35:21 AM
Quote from: Raoul76
Emerentiana, Exilenomore is one of us.  He is saying he is in communion with the empty See of Peter.

He is also apparently from Dutch-speaking Belgium.  I was about to write something to him in German.  Why do Belgium and Germany have the same flag?

gladius_veritatis said:
Quote
That is why I do not hold to SVism.  It leans too far toward the order of fact, more or less doing away with the order of law.


Then cuм Ex Apostolatus, the Code of Canon Law 1917 and St. Robert Bellarmine do away with the order of law.  

I find the Cassiciacuм thesis to be well-nigh incomprehensible though I'm sure Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was well-intentioned.  Some say it contains heretical implications but I won't start a fight.  I think, like SSPX but leaning more towards the truth, that it is comforting for some people, it allows you to have your cake and eat it too, to be traditional but not take the step of saying the Pope isn't the Pope.  

Anyway, I am absolutely certain that it is wrong, but I know that means little as I am a layman, have been wrong before, etc.


The C-thesis actually holds that a 'papa materialiter' is no Pope at all, because the form is lacking. It simply means that he can become a Pope if the obex (in this case heresy and doubtful episcopal consecration) is removed. Until that happens, the designated person simply has the appearances (accidentes) of the papacy, but is not a Pope in reality (realiter). It is basically the same thing as the sede vacante thesis, in my opinion. It is simply more deeply worked out.

The belgian flag does indeed look similar to that of Germany. It has the same colours but the belgian one has vertical stripes, while the german flag has horizontal ones.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: MyrnaM on March 20, 2011, 08:46:43 AM
I know I am not the sharpest pencil in the drawer but I don't get this:
Quote
The C-thesis actually holds that a 'papa materialiter' is no Pope at all, because the form is lacking. It simply means that he can become a Pope if the obex (in this case heresy and doubtful episcopal consecration) is removed. Until that happens, the designated person simply has the appearances (accidentes) of the papacy, but is not a Pope in reality (realiter). It is basically the same thing as the sede vacante thesis, in my opinion. It is simply more deeply worked out.


When it comes to "Pope" either he is or isn't, and if someday this person converts from his heresy, and should move up to the papacy, in good conscience and humility, he should resign as a result of his past Modernism, that is if he is what he should be.  Personally I think this position is a cop out!    
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on March 20, 2011, 08:47:40 AM
Quote from: Raoul76
I find the Cassiciacuм thesis to be well-nigh incomprehensible...I am absolutely certain that it is wrong...


Not to hammer, but these two ideas are incompatible.

Daly once made a stink, publicly throwing many people under/out of the ecclesiastical bus.  Then, years later, he modified his take.  Then, a few years back, he said that a better grasp of the ideas of matter and form was affecting his understanding of it all.  IOW, his initial reaction was poorly informed and wrong, and, like many young and intelligent men, he decided to share his 'wisdom' with the world.

Anyway, it is not about having one's cake and eating it, too.  That is a knee-jerk impression coming from a man who admits he does not even understand the thesis.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: gladius_veritatis on March 20, 2011, 08:53:16 AM
Quote from: MyrnaM
I think this position is a cop out!    


It is clear from your comment that you do not understand it.  No biggie, as it has not been explained at length, in detail, etc.

If you come to understand it, you may still disagree with it, but I doubt you would call it a cop out.

Do you really think the man who wrote the Ottaviani Intervention was the kind to cop out?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: stevusmagnus on March 20, 2011, 03:49:59 PM
A commission under ABL wrote it. Which thelogian are you speaking of in particular?

Also, does anyone edit wikipedia here?

This is the most horrendously biased history of the Ottaviani Intervention I've ever read....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-0
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Exilenomore on March 20, 2011, 04:16:19 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
A commission under ABL wrote it. Which thelogian are you speaking of in particular?

Also, does anyone edit wikipedia here?

This is the most horrendously biased history of the Ottaviani Intervention I've ever read....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-0


Bishop (then Father) Guérard des Lauriers was the main author of the Ottaviani Intervention. A fact which is often forgotten.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on December 10, 2011, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Assuming he did, he merely created another form of Mass separate from the Mass of Pius V. Thus he did not "change" the Mass. He created a watered down ambiguous Rite that kept bits and pieces of the TLM.


Wrong. The NO is an entirely different Mass, and Paul VI did in fact change it.

Quote
The NO contains no explicit heresy.


There are SOME heresies in the NO that ABL has detailed before, though mostly the NO contains many blasphemies.

Quote
The Sede arguments keep failing because of indefectability. God will not allow His Church to fail. In this crisis He is allowing it to come as close to the line as possible but She never crosses it because She cannot cross it.


That is a rather confusing and jumbled argument.

Quote
No dogma or doctrine has been changed no matter how much non-infallible rambling bloviation comes from Rome.


That is not correct either. Look at the Vatican II docuмents, stevus.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: s2srea on December 11, 2011, 07:13:10 AM
This is all the way back from page 8. I think it needs to go into that 'Best of the Best' Matt keeps referring to!

Quote from: Matthew

I might have said this (to you) before --

I don't attend the NOVUS ORDO. I am a fellow Resister. I am just (in my opinion) more prudent -- less drastic -- in how I carry out my resistance.

And I'm not "embracing" OR "rejecting" the pope -- I'm merely staying put and doing nothing as regards the pope -- and since Catholics aren't normally given a choice upon joining the Church "Pope or non-Pope?" (like restaurants ask you "smoking or non-smoking?") -- I "recognize" the pope because that's the default position for a Catholic. Catholics aren't supposed to decide if they want a Pope in their life or not!

How much guidance I get from him on a daily basis is another story.

I think that's one point you miss.

If Catholics WERE normally given a choice (say, for the last 500 years) to follow a Pope or not, then your choice would simply be the inverse of mine, with no other nuances.

But that's NOT the case, because my choice also happens to be the DEFAULT position for a Catholic. A Catholic who just wants to "hold to what he knows to be true" and stay put until this mess is sorted out will acknowledge the pope, even if he's a bad one in fact.

I think the SSPX reaction to the crisis is more prudent, even if yours is more psychologically satisfying (and is easier for people to grasp).

Here is my take: In the Catholic Church today, there are (bishops, priests, laymen) who have lost the Faith, those who have mostly lost it, some who are losing it, and some who have almost miraculously kept it. Where each man stands I try not to worry about, unless it affects me and my family. I'll "let" God judge each person in His own good time. I have enough to worry about regarding my own soul and raising my children Catholic.

If I bother to discuss my Faith with a nonbeliever, I usually have to mention the Crisis in some way.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: s2srea on December 11, 2011, 07:19:34 AM
And another great one. Matthew- you were on a roll! Now all we get is Tea Party-tickles you forward from your e-mail inbox... can we get some more of these posts instead?!

Quote from: Matthew
Yes, I do, but not because I insist that I know there's no Catholic in there. I just don't want myself (and my family) to be influenced by modernism.

As I said above, in that hypothetical Conciliar church building, most people there will have had massive damage done to their faith by years of Communion in the hand, vernacular liturgy, downplaying of purgatory, the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Rosary, etc. There might be some Catholics of good will there, but they are rare.

Even the GOOD Catholic you might meet will likely be ignorant (or mistaught) about many things, through none of his fault. But that doesn't affect his status as a Catholic, or his salvation.

But saying there are NO Catholics in there seems wrong in my estimation.

As I see it, Sedevacantism is the proverbial "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

If John's house was bombed, he could either walk away and tell people he's homeless "my house was destroyed!", or he could try to find a less-damaged room, salvage some of the goods from the rubble, and do his best.

Sure, it would be easier psychologically to not see his precious house all destroyed, and just move on and find somewhere else "on the street" to stay. But it would be safer, and a bit more prudent, to stay put and deal with the ugly reality. Who knows, he might be able to rebuild part of his house, and maybe the whole thing someday! Better than being a homeless man.

Yes, he might have to bury one or more of his family members (who died in the bombing) if he stays there... It might be easier to run away.

Matthew
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: s2srea on December 11, 2011, 07:57:14 AM
This is also an excellent article from TKGS.

Though some of his concerns are addressed by Matt's quotes above, and I just so happen agree with the latter more often than not on positions in the Crisis in the Church, this is an excellent post and worth reading if you have time:

Quote from: TKGS
Dear Matthew, et. al.,

First of all, I would like to point out that I never “decided to become” sedevacantist.  Even now, I do not claim to be a sedevacantist though I suppose the label is a fairly accurate representation of my beliefs on the matter according to the definition provided:  “believing that the man commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI is not the pope.”  On the other hand, I would suggest a better definition, at least for my part, would be, “not knowing or understanding how the man commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI could be the pope.”

Secondly, before I begin to attempt to answer your questions, I want to note that the questions were originally posted before I found the Catholic Info Forum.  After reading through the original post it seemed that the questions were asked in good faith; an attempt by a faithful Catholic to understand the thoughts and reasons that has led other faithful Catholics to come to completely disparate conclusions.  However, after seeing some of the other topics that seem to have their genesis in the resurfacing of the original  post and some of the consequences that have resulted, I am a little puzzled as to the reason the questions were even asked.

There have been comments on this forum critical of what has been called, “dogmatic sedevacantism”.  It is my understanding that this term used here essentially means that one holds the opinion that one must be a sedevacantist in order to be a member of the Catholic Church.  I’ve noticed that there is another notion that has been expressed on this forum which could be termed, “dogmatic anti-sedevacantism” or “dogmatic sedeplenism”; in other words, the idea that if one does not accept a particular claimant to the papacy, one is outside the Church.  The very idea that neither one of these concepts is required for salvation seems to be lost on many.

The reason I had joined the Catholic Info forum was because the forum seemed to allow for the free discussion of the sedevacantist issue.  For the most part, this still seems to be true as I write this, though the freedom to defend the sedevacantist thesis may be waning.  I hope that the freedom does not because for people (including myself) explore the truth in the matter, arguments in defense of the thesis must be permitted without fear of retribution.  On another traditional Catholic forum to which I belong, members are free to condemn any person whose comments merely question and the forum’s programming itself is designed to ridicule the very word “sedevacantism”.  As a result, legitimate questions cannot be asked or answered and, if I am wrong on the question, I cannot be righted.

The biggest problem is that there is no forum I know of that one can truly debate the issue of sedevacantism.  Ultimately, the discussion breaks down with one side or the other making ad hominem arguments rather than addressing the issue.  I understand this problem as passions run deep in favor of each side of the argument, both arguments have valid considerations, and, often enough, proponents of both sides seem to misunderstand, intentionally or otherwise, the opposing arguments.  Frankly, I believe the misunderstanding is more prevalent on the anti-sedevacantist side since most sedevacantists started out fully accepting the claims of the papacy by the Conciliar claimants.  The only forum that I’ve ever been acquainted with that truly allowed full and open debate of the issue was the now closed St. Belarmine Forum run by Mr. John Lane.

The most curious thing I have noticed about traditional Catholic forums is that members feel absolutely free to condemn, as non-Catholic, nearly anyone for any reason with one, and only one, exception.  The only person that cannot be condemned is the person commonly accepted by world to be the pope in the Vatican.  Even bishops and cardinals are not exempt.  Cardinal Kasper has been condemned as non-Catholic on this and other forums for his recent comments about his greatest “regret” being the lack of shared communion between Catholics and Protestants.  Yet one cannot even question the pope who maintains Cardinal Kasper in office and in good standing.  Before his election, even Cardinal Ratzinger was subject to the wrath of internet forum scribes.

The Vatican will discipline, on those rare occasions, people only for their actions (e.g., Bishop Malingo was disciplined only after he married) but never, it seems, for their proudly proclaimed heretical beliefs.  Cardinal Kasper and other cardinals, bishops, and famous theologians routinely make declarations that any Catholic with even the slightest knowledge of the Catholic Faith can recognize as heresy with only the slightest, if any, peep from Rome.  The Faith and Doctrine seem to be unimportant to Roman officials from the lowliest bureaucrat to the Holy Father himself.

Of course, nothing I’ve written or will write is going to prove anything, nor will this essay truly answer anything.  It will not be my attempt, yet, prove any thesis but only to give, somewhat, a background of some of my thoughts on the matter and directly answer the questions asked about what I think.  When I was merely a “conservative Catholic” I knew something was wrong.  I wondered what would finally “break the camel’s back” for the conservative Catholic press.  Once I thought it might be the official acceptance of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the priesthood but the Vatican abrogated the law that forbid such ordinations without nary a word from the “peanut gallery”.  Recent news seems to indicate that some agitators are calling for “gender equality laws” to force the Church to ordain women and, in one forum, I’ve already seen a comment about the power of Peter to bind and loose.  How many traditional Catholics, should the Vatican cave on this one, will continue to go along with the New Church and continue to condemn sedevacantists?  I know, I know…it’s an hypothetical question that an anti-sedevacantists will deny can happen; but I had been told that the Vatican could never officially sanction altar girls, Communion in the hand, or the ordination of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

I will attempt to answer the questions Matthew asked in order.  I do not intend to restate each question, however, and some questions will be answered together since they are intimately interlinked.  These answers are my own and should not be construed as speaking for others.  Even that often seems to be a major problem.  All too often, the remarks of one individual is posited as being absolutely representative of everyone who is perceived to be in that “group”, and this is especially true of anti-sedevacantists.  I reject that idea.  I do not speak for the Dimond Brothers, nor do they speak for me.  I do not attribute the statements by Conciliar Catholics as being representative of the beliefs of all people “attached” to the Novus Ordo.  Indeed, I do not attribute the actions of Benedict XVI to everyone who believes his claims to the papacy.  On the other hand, if one declares an heretical belief and refuses to listen to correction, I will consider one an heretic, and therefore a non-Catholic, whether a formal declaration has been made by some authority or not.  
*
I have been attending the traditional Mass for just over five years.  Prior to my realization that I could no longer attend the Novus Ordo, I attended only the Novus Ordo.  At that time I really believed that, whatever the problem was, it could be solved, or at least greatly mitigated, for me and my family by simply finding “the right” parish.  I would search for a “conservative” parish with a priest who wasn’t “too liberal” or take “too many” liberties with the Mass.  For a long time I reflexively believed the pope was the man commonly known as the pope.  Today, I don’t understand how he can be the pope after I have seen him, with my own eyes, live on network television, commit an act of apostasy, praying to Allah with the Muslims in a mosque.  I’ve heard all the excuses but none of them are compelling, let alone reasonable.

This realization did not grow over time.  It came upon me like a ton of bricks.  Since 2000, the Archbishop of Indianapolis has hosted an “Interfaith Thanksgiving Service” the Tuesday evening prior to the American Thanksgiving Day holiday in November.  The year I attended to observe the “celebration”, there were representatives from a variety of “Indianapolis Faith Communities”:  a female Jєωιѕн cantor, a Hindu minister, a Muslim Imam, Tibetan Buddhist priests (or monks, I’m not sure), a Methodist minister, and Head Granthi of the Sikh Satsung.  The event is not an exercise in “cultural awareness” but is rather a gathering of peoples of many religions giving thanks to their respective gods (though I’m not sure what the Buddhists did since they have no god) and it was, in every sense of the word, a religious event.  Indeed, it was a pan-religious event held in the Cathedral in honor of Satan himself with the Indianapolis Archbishop warmly welcoming him and all his minions.  It reflected the very definition of pantheism.  For a Catholic to participate is apostasy:  There is no other adequate description.

Many years ago, the Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, gave a sermon at Midnight Mass on Christmas Day saying that the Blessed Virgin can not be properly called the Mother of God but only the Mother of Christ.  Even though the Council of Nicea had once and for all condemned the heresy of Arius, Nestorius attempted to reinvigorate that detestable teaching under veiled language.  Ultimately, he was condemned for preaching heresy.  It is inconceivable to me that had Nestorius never given that sermon but instead invited the Pagans into the Cathedral in Constantinople to give thanks to their Pagan gods he would have been remembered in history as a good and faithful servant of God.  While he would not have been remembered as an heresiarch, he would have been remembered as Nestorius the Apostate.  If I am wrong in this assessment then I will willingly reconsider my judgment.  I await the argument.

When the layman, Eusebius, stood up during Nestorius’s sermon to declare that “We have an Emperor but we have no Bishop!” I think it is accurate to guess that not everyone in the Cathedral immediately withdrew their communion with Nestorius.  After all, Nestorius was the bishop and had been properly and legally installed.  He offered the Divine Liturgy according to the Traditions passed on to him from antiquity.  He was the bishop!  By what right does a mere simply layman depose him?  Not every faithful Catholic immediately departed him just as not every faithful Catholic has departed from the bishops (even the bishop of Rome) that have rejected Christ to embrace false teachings, false gods, and promotes or tolerates every imaginable abuse of God in the Blessed Sacrament.
*
I reiterate that I know I have not proven any thesis, nor will I prove any thesis.  It is not my intention to prove a thesis in this essay as I am simply not competent to do so (as many on this forum will heartily agree).  If individuals would like a more scholarly work to review, I suggest they read the essays on Mr. John Lane’s website (www.strobertbellarmine.net/index.htm) or subscribe to The Four Marks (www.thefourmarks.com/) and pick up the back issues in which a very scholarly essay is being serialized entitled “The Church Crucified”.
*
As for which claimants to the papacy in Rome have not been true popes, all I can say is that I am convinced that, at least, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have not been.  I think it is interesting that traditional Catholics who have, for years, rejected the Novus Ordo and have attended a Mass that Paul VI clearly desired to be abandoned, declaring the new Mass to be the Mass of the Roman Rite, willfully disregarded the authority in a matter of sacramental discipline of the man they regard as pope.  On the other hand, I will accept the possibilities that he may have been the true pope, he may have lost his right to the papacy, or he may never have been a true pope.  I simply do not know and at this point of time, I will leave the matter to the future historians and the Church.  It is the here and now that is important as it is the present teaching of the Roman Pontiff that is leading souls to hell.

In his series entitled, “The Church Crucified”, that has appeared in The Four Marks, John Lane wrote something that shows that the issue of sedevacantism isn’t brand new and it must be taken seriously.  This short passage, of course, does not prove the thesis, but it does indicate that the faithful, and not the “lunatic fringe” faithful, were beginning to ask questions concerning the papacy and the pope as early as the mid-1960s.  Was Paul VI a true pope (or John Paul I, for that matter)?  I am not prepared to answer at this time, but I will not condemn the questioners.  They had legitimate concerns at the time which were not answered just as the concerns of questioners today are not answered.  This is what Mr. Lane wrote:
Quote
On December 7, 1965 the most controversial of all the docuмents of Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanæ, was promulgated by Paul VI.  In that very same month, an arresting question was raised at the American Ecclesiastical Review.  “What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church?”  Rev. Francis J. Connell, CSSR, the theologian who responded, gave the standard answer from the theology manuals, as one would expect.  But this was a case in which the answer was not the point of interest—the question was.

The same question has been popping up, with greater and greater frequency and with increasing insistence, ever since.

*
I do not accept the claims of any of the various “popes” around the world.  The papacy is not an office in and of itself.  That is, the Bishop of Phoenix cannot be declared the pope unless he relinquish the Diocese of Phoenix and assume the See of Rome.  A claimant to the Holy See who has no clergy in Rome can not, by that very fact, be the pope.  I am not personally aware of any claimant to the Holy See, except Benedict XVI, who commands any allegiance of any of the clergy of Rome.  And frankly, given the state of the Church today, I wonder how much allegiance even Benedict XVI commands other than the applause he is given when he appears.  Since Paul VI issued Humana Vitæ papal commands have pretty much become worthless.
*
The Church is, by definition, a visible society on earth along with the invisible society in Purgatory and in Heaven.  I am not sure whether or not a denial of this fact would constitute heresy, but it would certainly be in error.  That said, I believe the faithful Catholic, whether he mistakenly believes that Benedict XVI is the pope or not, is part of that visible society.  While Jesus Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of days, he never promised that it will be large or that it would control a city-state in the middle of Rome.  As Saint Athanasius famously penned during the Arian Crisis, “What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside.  It is a fact that they have the premises—but you have the Apostolic Faith.  They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith.  You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you....  Even if Catholics who are faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”  The Church is visible even if it is reduced to a mere handful.  I find it amusing that members of this and other traditional Catholic forums can, and often do, anathematize various theologians (Father Andrew Greely and Father Hans Kung who are both priests in “good standing” in their respective dioceses, for example), bishops and cardinals (e.g., Cardinals Kasper and Mahony) but refuse to anathematize Benedict XVI who says and does many of the very same things.
*
In the recent past, a few priests of the Society of Saint Pius X have been expelled because of their outspoken criticism of the ongoing talks between the Society and Rome.  (I will not debate the utility of these talks since I’ve not really been privy to all that has been discussed.  Though I will say that if the Society holds firm to what the leaders have been saying I don’t see a problem even as others do see a problem.)  When I am asked if there is any priest or bishop I would currently trust or follow in matters of faith without judging his every move, I have to answer that there are several priests that I know whom I would follow.  On the other hand, just as a layman who attends Society parishes would have to make a judgment if his priest were expelled from the Society, I would have to make a judgment if a priest begins to stray from my understanding of the Catholic Faith without adequately explaining, teaching, and defending his actions and doctrine.  If his teaching is shown to be according to the Catholic Faith I would modify my understanding and if his teaching was not shown to be according to the Catholic Faith, I would depart from him.

People who are comfortable with their current priest (as are most lay faithful of the Society) overly criticize sedevacantists as people who personally judge every move and parse every sentence of every sermon delivered by a priest to make sure he’s not uttering some sort of heretical doctrine or, heaven forbid, accept the pope!.  All, I daresay even most, sedevacantists are not akin to the Dimond Brothers.  Some sedevacantists do indeed unjustly anathematize those in communion with Benedict XVI, but most, I think, remember the time they also believed the occupier in Rome was the pope and understand that one can sincerely believe in one of the various theories that allows for a legitimate pope who can hold, teach, and countenance  the heresies rampant throughout the Conciliar Church and clearly taught by its ordinary magisterium.  In fact, I have generally found that it is traditional Catholics who accept the claims to the papacy of Benedict XVI who are more prone to be judging every statement of priests (and suspected sedevacantists) for signs of that scourge of sedevacantism.  I wonder if the question is asked out of a genuine desire to understand the thinking of sedevacantists or if it is asked as part of some sort of psychological projection.

This topic was introduced with a most curious statement:  “The list covers the various opinions, or ‘what things you have to pick a position on’, to illustrate how complicated Sedevacantism actually is.”  There is one glaring problem with that sentence.  Even though there are a number of questions that really do not have anything to do with sedevacantism, they are all issues about which even the non-sedevacantist must “pick a position on”.  Indeed, there is great disagreement in traditional Catholic circles over the issue of so-called Natural Family Planning (NFP), an issue which is raised later.  I know sedevacantists, anti-sedevacantists, traditional Catholics, non-traditional Catholics, and even liberal Catholics who say that NFP is most certainly sinful and an abomination, and others of each persuasion who say otherwise.  The same can be said for Baptism of Desire (except that I know of no liberal Catholics who deny it).  It is not sedevacantism that is especially complicated, it is the lack of a pope who teaches the faith unambiguously and in conformity with the constant teaching of the Church’s magisterium since her beginning that is complicated.
*
The next question asked is, quite frankly, mysterious.  It does not seem to have any relevance to the sedevacantist thesis, so I will restate this question verbatim:  “How do you reconcile the fact that the world is VERY dangerous as an influence, and that we need Mass and the sacraments (and to a lesser degree, the moral support of fellow Catholics) to save our souls?”  Since the fall of Adam, I can think of no time that the world was not a very dangerous influence.  Since the foundation of the Church, I can think of no time that Catholics have not needed the Mass and the sacraments.  Even though I am not convinced, and in fact positively doubt, the claim of Benedict XVI as pope, I have not been deprived of the sacraments nor of the moral support of fellow Catholics either personally or through traditional Catholic forums such as Catholic Info.

While there are indeed those “home alone” Catholics who do not accept that any priests today may lawfully provide the sacraments; I do not subscribe to the theory.  I have not yet seen any credible arguments for this thesis, but I can not consider those who hold them, at this time, to necessarily be heretics or schismatics.  There have been numerous times when some Catholics have been deprived of most of the sacraments, the generations of Japanese after the emperor had expelled all priests from Japan is the most striking example.  Though the hierarchal Church had completely disappeared from Japan, the Catholic population was able to continue and even thrive.  The Japanese Catholics surely suffered many difficulties but they also certainly did survive and there is no reason to assume that all of them suffered eternally due to their depravation of the sacraments.
*
I was not aware that only a future council can judge the pope.  In fact, I thought that Vatican I definitively declared that a council is not superior to a pope.  Thus, the proposition that a council can judge a pope is objectively material heresy.  On the other hand, if Benedict XVI (and before him, John Paul II and possibly others) are not actually popes, then a future council can indeed judge one or more of these men to have been imposters or usurpers of the Holy See and, since they are/were not popes, I, as a layman, am not judging the pope.

I realize that this sounds a bit like sophistry but the Church has already given us historical examples in order to judge other Catholics’ status within the Church.  The first case is that of Nestorius which I previously mentioned.  Just as in the case of the pope, the Church grants no authority to laymen to depose or deny the bishopric of any given bishop, but this is not what the layman, Eusubius, did.  He merely observed the clearly manifest truth that the See was vacant as the properly and legally installed bishop had fallen from office due to heresy.  The second case can be found in the Church’s reaction to the Great Western Schism.  Ultimately, the Church did not judge any person who, with good conscience and reason, accepted the claims to the papacy of the various anti-popes.  There were cities in western Europe in which each claimant to the papacy appointed a bishop who, in turn, had clergy who was loyal to him and condemned his rivals.  The faithful had to choose and, what made things more confusing, they had to choose between priests, bishops, and popes who were all teaching essentially sound Catholic doctrine.  When the crisis was finally resolved, the Church did not condemn the faithful who ended up on “the wrong side” and even canonized as saints men who actively supported an anti-pope.  The main difference between then and now is that today the usurpers are generally teaching heresy:  religious indifferentism, religious liberty, universal salvation, pantheism, etc.

The problem with the idea that no one can judge the current situation is that it requires the faithful to resort to a legal positivism and ignore what is plainly obvious to all—the fruits of the doctrinal and liturgical revolution and the fact that the present claimant to the papal throne once noted that Vatican II represents the 1789 of the Church and is a counter-Syllabus.  What, pray tell, is counter to a Syllabus of Errors?  If the consistent teaching of popes, bishops, and theologians prior to Vatican II were wrong, why should we believe the consistent teaching of popes, bishops, and theologians since Vatican II?  Sedevacantists are constantly accused of “picking and choosing” what doctrines to follow, yet I contend that sedevacantists are generally faithful to Catholic doctrines that have been consistently and traditionally taught for centuries.  It seems to me that the people who “pick and choose” what to follow are Conciliar Catholics and traditional Catholics who accept Benedict XVI as pope.  Again, it is legal sophistry that suggests that the traditional Mass was not, for all intents and purposes, outlawed in the Conciliar Church in the 1970s.  The only reason it has continued to this day is through the clear (and admitted) disobedience to Paul VI and John Paul II by a great many traditional priests and bishops, including Archbishop Lefebvre.  Just as the Conciliar Church conceded to disobedience by allowing Communion in the hand and altar girls, the Conciliar Church has conceded to disobedience by declaring that the traditional Mass really is acceptable—all the while intending to use this greater acquiescence to help move traditional Catholics closer to the Conciliar religion, though this intention may be is backfiring.  Only time will tell.
*
Clearly, sedevacantism is not a dogma of the faith.  It is merely a point of fact.  The Chair of Peter is either legitimately occupied by a Catholic prelate or it is not.  I will point out again that there are some sedevacantists who consider any person who is not a sedevacantist outside the Church, but that itself is a schismatic attitude and they forget that there truly are just reasons for someone to have not come to the conclusion that the Holy See is occupied by a usurper.  Just as the existence of the Vatican City-State is not a dogma of the Church—remember that there was a time in Church history that the Vatican Hill was merely a cemetery and not a political entity—there are times when the See of Peter is vacant.  Since the man commonly held to be the pope has been condemned of heresy (by many Catholics before his election) he cannot be considered a legitimate pope today.  This idea is not dogma or even doctrine.  It merely is what is.  
*
Church history shows that a great number of “less-than-saintly” popes have occupied the Holy See.  Once again, a question is asked that has no real relevance to the issue of sedevacantism.  Any faithful history of the Church will be straightforward about those popes, especially those in Medieval times, who made the Vatican a veritable brothel.  Concubines, illegitimate children, Simony, wars of conquest, and all manner of moral depravity has found a place in Rome under the tutelage of the pope.  All mortal sins, however, are not equal.  While ignoring moral precepts with impunity, how many of these popes proposed heretical doctrines to the universal Church for belief or freely participated in Pagan worship?  If any did, their actions were certainly not notorious as their actions were unknown to almost everyone at the time and are completely unknown today.  On the other hand, the last two commonly accepted popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI) have indeed declared heretical beliefs and have freely participated in worship of false gods with adherents of false religions.  Their actions are notorious because they have proudly publicized their apostasy going so far as to have their exploits broadcast worldwide on television and published in their own newspaper and website.  I am indeed familiar with Church history.
*
Once again, I must quote the question asked:  “How do you reconcile the notion that, in your estimation, the Catholic Church hasn’t provided us laymen with any means of dealing with this crisis?  No Epikeia, no ability to disobey a lawful pope, no supplied jurisdiction, etc.”  I believe that if one has carefully read this essay to this point he would instantly see that this question has already been answered.  The Church has indeed provided us laymen with a means, through precedent, of dealing with the crisis.  Additional examples of how the Church teaches us to deal with the crisis include Elizabethan England, Roman persecutions, and underground Churches in communist countries.  I remind the reader that I am not even attempting to prove anything, for to prove a thesis requires evidence and sources, both theological and historical.  On the other hand, I do claim that anyone who is casually familiar with history can see the parallels, at least remotely, if he just considers the matter; and if he still cannot see any comparison it is because he refuses to see.  Finally, I don’t know how one has the right to disobey a lawful pope in matters of faith and morals or in liturgical matters though I do accept the concept of supplied jurisdiction, as do many, if not most, sedevacantists, so I am not sure why this has been asked.
*
I have attended Masses at five chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X.  I have found their Masses to be the very same Mass found in all the old Missals.  The priests’ preaching have been exemplary.  The independent chapel to which I belong is currently considering whether to align itself with the SSPX  and I have publicly stated that I have no intention of withdrawing from the chapel should the Society be invited to the chapel.  I do not consider the Society of Saint Pius X to be the enemy, unless they were to abandon everything they say they stand for and, like Bishop Rifan of Campos, Brazil, concelebrate just one Novus Ordo as a sign of “unity” with the Conciliar religion.  I just don’t know where they are going but I hope to learn something of the future at the Society’s conference in October in Kansas City.

I do not really personally know many priests.  I live quite distant from the church at which I and my family attend Mass.  Of the few I know, or with whom I have personal knowledge and experience, I do indeed know some who are very holy.  Though I don’t personally know any Society priests, I am sure that many of them are holy priests as well.  Sedevacantism or the lack thereof does not indicate holiness.  One does not determine the holiness of an individual based on matters unrelated to his faith and actions.  Saint Vincent was a holy priest even though he recognized an anti-pope as the legitimate pope.  Saint John Fisher was a holy bishop who refused to recognize the claims of the English King over the Church.

One holy bishop whom I believe will one day be canonized as a saint is Archbishop Lefebvre.  I also think that some of the Thuc-line bishops may eventually be raised to the altar because the Church will have been preserved and perpetuated through their efforts.  On the other hand, those who have declared themselves popes or who anathematize anyone who does not follow them and them alone I cannot consider holy or saintly.  There is an attitude that I find particularly troubling and that attitude can be found in some sedevacantists and also in some non-sedevacantists.  That attitude is that they, and they alone, represent the true Church and outside that group there is no salvation.  Officially, the Society does not, in any way, present that teaching.  Where I seem to find it is in some of the laity who frequent Society chapels.  I am not sure why some of the faithful seem to have this point of view as I have not seen it displayed by the Society bishops or priests, but some certainly do exhibit it.  It is too bad that all of the Society faithful did not follow the Society’s founder a little more closely in understanding that that crisis in the Church is not quite as cut and dry as today’s lay theologians would have it believed.

On a side note, I find it interesting that the Conciliar Church specifically denies that outside its communion there is no salvation.  Conservatives and anti-sedevacantists, meanwhile, cling to the doctrine and insist that the Conciliar Church really does teach that outside its communion salvation is impossible by appealing to Catholic doctrines uttered before the Conciliar Church usurped the real estate and titles of Catholicism.  Then, even on those occasions when “officialdom” declares them in schism, they simply insist that it is not so and seek “official” status and decrees that they are not any longer in schism until, in a truly ecuмenical spirit, the Conciliar Church welcomes them “home”.
*
For the most part, I am not personally enthusiastic about the “Rome-approved” traditional Mass societies such as, for example, the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, diocesan approved indults, etc.  Of course, we tend to forget that these “approved” Masses no longer use the 1962 Missal since the Missal was recently changed by Benedict XVI to completely re-write one of the oldest and most traditional prayers of the Roman Rite:  The Good Friday prayer for the Jєωs.  We should now be referring to the 2008 Missal, which, I understand, the SSPX does not use.  I am not enthusiastic about them because they tend to trap souls within the Conciliar structures.  Every person I know who attends Mass at the archdiocesan approved traditional Mass parish (there are some infrequent traditional Masses offered by various priests by the authority of the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificuм, but there has been no “explosion” of traditional Masses offered around me) has a very skewed view of the Faith.  They place “obedience” on a pedestal and consider it more important than the faith itself saying that they can filter out heresy for themselves and their children and they can reconcile differences in the faith they and their children see in the traditional Mass community and the Novus Ordo community around them.

On the other hand, I can see the time when I was at that same point in my “faith journey”, to borrow one of those favorite Modernist terms.  If it hadn’t been for the indult Mass, it would have taken me much longer to find tradition.  I believe I would have still found tradition since it was the Rosary and the “Luminous Mysteries” that was the impetus in my search for Truth, but it was the indult Mass that gave me familiarity with a Rite I had never before experienced while, at the same time, being so familiarly in conformity with the “new” books written so long ago that I was reading to finally learn something about the Catholic Faith.  Any person who continually seeks the Lord will not stop in the indult communities because he must, in the end, compromise the faith on some fine point at some time when the Conciliar authorities decide to speak.

Another problem I have with the indult communities is the question of Orders.  Father Pulvermacher, who used to edit The Angelus Magazine for the Society of Saint Pius X famously used to say that the Conciliar Church would free the traditional Mass only when there were no more priests left to offer it.  Archbishop Lefebvre, at one time, questioned the validity of the new Rites of Ordination of priests and Consecration of bishops.  And frankly, if he were ever convinced of these new rites’ intrinsic validity he would not have consecrated four bishops for the Society.  I am not convinced that the new rites are invalid, but I have doubts and I will not visit a priest for the administration of the sacraments if I have doubts about his Orders.  The Society seems to be of two minds on the matter.  I have read both defenses of the new rites in The Angelus as well as calls for the conditional ordination of any priest ordained in the new rite or by a bishop consecrated in the new rite if he wishes to offer Masses for the Society.  The current “policy” seems to be that the Society will conditionally ordain a priests who wishes it but does not conditionally ordain priests who do not.  This seems to be another aspect of the “pick and choose” mentality that is prevalent amongst anti-sedevacantists.
*
Which edition of the Missal does my ideal priest use?  Frankly, I am not really that concerned.  I use the SSPX hand-Missal to follow the Mass in English though I have crossed out the change in the Canon.  The chapel I usually attend currently uses the pre-1962 Missal with the in Bugnini-inspired changes in Holy Week.  Another chapel I attend uses the Missal in effect before the Holy Week changes.  If my chapel becomes affiliated with the SSPX, I understand the chapel will have to use the 1962 Missal (but thankfully not the 2008 Missal).  Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with a priest who wanted to use the Missal that was in effect in 1600.  I don’t think most sedevacantists are truly that concerned though many reject all things Bugnini, which is completely understandable and hardly makes one a non-Catholic.  What I don’t understand is why the SSPX, if they truly believe Benedict XVI is the pope, do not use the 2008 Missal in obedience to the Holy Father since this is still the traditional Missal with the traditional rubrics—with just one tiny, little difference.
*
I do not know how may true priests, bishops, or cardinals exist.  I believe the Thuc-line bishops are valid bishops and many of them, along with the Society bishops, are perpetuating the True Faith.  Unfortunately, some of these traditional bishops have fallen into schism by refusing communion with faithful Catholics who do not share their doctrines (such as those concerning Baptism of Desire), in some cases, or their understanding of the facts—such as whether or not the See of Peter is vacant.
*
I have attended and will gladly attend Masses offered by priests of the SSPX, the CMRI, the SSPV, and by independent priests.  While I do not make a thorough investigation into the validity of Orders of each and every priest, I do make a cursory examination to ensure that I can be reasonably assured of the priest’s valid orders.  When I visit a chapel where I am not known, I do not demand the right to receive Holy Communion until I have discussed the issue in the chapel and understand the chapel’s policy.  I think this answer also answers all of the questions concerning the “home-alone” Catholics.  I do not understand their thought process but I also do not consider them to be, by that criterion alone, to be non-Catholics.
*
It is interesting that the issue of fraudulent independent priests should come up since the Conciliar Church recently had a well-publicized case in Germany in which a man who had some seminary training but was never ordained was arrested for impersonating a priest and had fooled at least one diocese with forged docuмents.  He had been saying Mass (Novus Ordo), hearing confessions, and acting as an assistant pastor in a parish when he was discovered.  In any event, I am aware that there are frauds out there though I think most of the frauds are in the Conciliar establishment.  This is the nature of the crisis.
*
Once again, I am compelled to quote the question:  “Do you realize that some independent priests are simply weak in the virtue of obedience?  That is, while professing to be ‘fighting for the truth’ and all, they merely couldn’t follow orders in the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, etc. and left so they could ‘be their own boss’?”  This sounds like calumny against a whole class of priests rather than a genuine inquiry.  While I will admit that it is possible that there exists independent priests who might be described in this way, I would like to know how the questioner knows there are priests who are simply disobedient and egotistical men.  Actually, I can think of a few independent priests who may fit this description based solely on news reports I have read.  But I would say that the description of “some independent priests” is pretty much the standard description of most Conciliar priests and bishops who have made disobedience to the law, liturgy, morals, and superiors the rule rather than the exception, and none of them are sedevacantists.
*
I do believe the Modernist Crisis will be resolved one day.  When that will be is unknown.  Hopefully, the crisis will end before the end of the world.  The possibility does exist that the end of the crisis will be at the second coming of Jesus Christ and the Final Judgment.  I, for one, do not pray for this to come soon as I want as much time as possible to try to adequately repent of my sins.  There are many theories about how the Church can have a new pope, but the bottom line is that the pope is the Bishop of Rome.  Once we know we have a Catholic Bishop of Rome, we will have a pope.

I also realize, unlike some sedevacantists, conservative Catholics, and even flaming liberals, that the pope cannot simply wave is arm and restore the Church to her former glory.  It will take time and during that interim we may have a true pope who is not recognized as such by many people.  When we have a true pope, I believe—and this is my personal belief alone—that pope will recognize the fact that the validity of the new Rites of Orders was questioned almost immediately upon their promulgation.  In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre believed for a time that the new Rite of Consecration of a bishop was most certainly invalid while the new Rite of Ordination of a priest was questionable.  The pope will establish a commission to study those Rites and that commission will either present a compelling logical argument (one that has not yet truly been made) that the new Rites are certainly and intrinsically valid or will recommend that all Catholic bishops be conditionally consecrated by traditional bishops and all priests be, in turn, conditionally ordained.  This will remove all doubts in the minds of the faithful that the Orders of the priests and bishops may not be valid.

Over time, the new rites for the other sacraments will be slowly abrogated and the use of Latin will be prescribed for them.  While the pope will not immediately suppress the Novus Ordo he will not use it and his example will inspire priests and bishops throughout the world and that new rite will gradually fall into disuse until such time it is so rare that it is virtually unknown in the world.

The first evidence, however, that we have a valid pope will come in the first weeks and months of his pontificate when he uses his writings, sermons, and speeches to promote traditional Catholic teaching, condemn error, and—most especially—call for Protestants, Orthodox, Jєωs, Muslims, and Pagans to be converted to the Catholic Faith so that they can be saved.  He will eschew the new ecuмenism and will call upon countries to restore Christ to their lands to the exclusion of false and malicious religions.  And he will be hated for it.

Of course, the crisis may be resolved some other way.  Everyone reading this essay knows there is a crisis; the only question is how deep the crisis really is.  One thing I am sure of is that none of this will happen until such time those priests, bishops, and theologians who are so wedded to Vatican II have died off.  As long as they remain in the Conciliar Structures of the Church, they will nurture their offspring and keep it safe from God.
*
The problem remains, what can a person, be he priest, religious, or layman, do toward ending the crisis.  The only thing we can do is to offer our prayers and sacrifices towards that end.  Sedevacantists do understand, I am sure, that the pope is what binds Catholics and keeps them unified.  The reason there is so much apparent disunity in the Church, both in the Conciliar Church and in various traditional enclaves, is that there is no binding force currently present.  The Church has the priests and bishops she deserves and because so many in the Church have fallen so far from God and have turned to man as the ultimate source of spirituality.  Our Lord has given the Church Modernists with only a few traditional priests and bishops to care for the few faithful Catholics who never stop seeking the Face of the Lord.

That being said, this faithful remnant cannot simply elect a pope.  As I noted above, the pope is the Bishop of Rome; he is not some one who can be elected by just anyone and have absolutely no connection with the city of Rome.  If there is no clergy of Rome who accepts a man’s claims to the papacy, he can certainly not be the pope.
*
There is little, if any real faith, in the average Novus Ordo attending Catholic.  I know because I was one of them.  They have not been taught the Catholic Faith.  They are taught, and they believe, that it really doesn’t matter what religion one is, as long as one is faithful to that religion.  Recall Mother Theresa’s famous quip that it doesn’t matter if one is a Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu as long as he is a good Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu, or something like that.  I recall comments from fellow parishioners complaining about priests who don’t offer “the wine” for communion because “when you only get the bread it feels like you’ve only been to half a Mass.”  Then there are all the mixed marriages where the family goes to the (Conciliar) Catholic parish one week and to the Baptist (or ####ian, or Methodist, etc.) church the next and the kids are taught that they will have to make their own choice about religion when they grow up only to lament that the kids don’t seem interested in any religion!  The truth be told, the average Evangelical Protestant is closer to the Catholic Faith than the average Novus Ordo attending Catholic.

There can be found, however, True Faith even there though it is rare and in constant danger.  Sometimes the Faith can be found among Conciliar priests who, for one reason or another, never quite take the step to tradition.  These priests are usually found in those thriving parishes where heresy (other than the fiction that Christ’s Blood was shed for “you and for all”) is not preached.  Of course, these are also the priests who never stay in one place very long before someone complains to the chancery that the priest is just “too exclusive” or “too rigid” and he finds himself transferred to another parish where he must take years to rebuild the faith amongst the few people who are willing to listen while the faith is undermined in his prior parish by the new priest in a matter of a few short weeks or months.  I hear these same complaints from non-sedevacantist, conservative Catholics.

I think, also, that I have already clearly and unmistakably answered all the questions concerning my thoughts about the various “factions” within the sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist traditional communities.  Catholics, no matter what they have discerned concerning the identity of the pope should be accepted as fellow Catholics and should not be excommunicated or treated as one would treat the publican and the Pagans.  In return, others should treat me with the same compassion and, if they truly believe I am wrong, refute, with evidence, that what I plainly see with my eyes and hear with my ears is not what really is.  Wasn’t it Saint Augustine who noted that charity covers a multitude of sins?

I think it now opportune to discuss the Society of Saint Pius X directly since Bishop Williamson is specifically mentioned as one of many priests and bishops who “seem to be fearless in their defense of the Faith, though are not sedevacantist.”  The Society actually puzzles me in this regard.  When writing about the “doctrinal discussions” between the Society and Rome, Bishop Williamson and others of the Society always emphasize that they are not “negotiating” and have no intention of changing their views in order to come to some agreement and be granted some sort of official “status”, but that the purpose of the discussions is to “convert Rome.”  I have read these exact words numerous times.  My question then is simply, to what does Rome need to be converted if Rome is Catholic?  It does no good to say, “to tradition” for tradition is not a faith, it is the expression of a faith.  For this reason, I have believed that the Society actually is sedevacantist in a way though they absolutely refuse to apply the term to themselves.  I have never seen an adequate explanation of this other than Benedict XVI (and before him John Paul II) are true popes who can exercise true papal authority but the Society is exempt from obeying the pope when the Society judges that authority has been misused or is not in accordance with the Tradition.  While I will grant that, as the current crisis is unprecedented, this might just be the correct answer (in which case the Society holds to a practical sedevacantism) and they should be much less critical of those who willingly accept the label.

The way the Society and other anti-sedevacantist traditional Catholics who are in “irregular situations” speak of Rome, that is, they both publicly declare the authority of the claimant to the papal throne and publicly declare that the claimant to the papal throne may be disobeyed, reminds me of when Christ was asked about John’s baptism.  The pope’s authority, they are asked, does is come from God or from men.  It seems that they say within themselves, if we say from God, we will be asked why we don’t obey him.  If we say from men we will then be asked how he can be thought to be a true pope.  
*
Christ does not call upon any one to hate others.  We should not actually hate the claimant to the papal throne nor his cardinals, bishops, and priests.  We should not hate Modernists or other heretics nor should we hate Catholics who have not reached the same conclusions on the facts that we have.  Catholics should actively pray for Benedict XVI, for his conversion to the Catholic Faith and his protection from the evil one.  In old Catholic prayer books I’ve noticed many prayers for the pope.  The prayers were for their protection against heresy, evil influences, strength to rule, etc.  I’ve even seen a prayer card that was produced in the early 1960s asking God for the success of the upcoming Vatican Council.  I sometimes wonder if Catholics just became complaisant, assuming that whatever the pope did would be great and wonderful.  How many Catholics prayed for the success of the second Vatican Council?  How many Catholics actually prayed for the pope and how many pray for Benedict XVI?  I suspect the prayers that went to heaven in the early 20th Century were few and I doubt many more are uttered by self-professed Catholics today.  Catholics seem to have an unshakable belief that the leaders of the Church can do no wrong and are dismayed when that belief is proven over and over again to be unfounded.
*
What follows is a series of questions seeking, I think, short and concise answers about a sedevacantist’s personal opinions in a variety of unrelated but contentious issues.  I will therefore answer them in short complete bullet sentences.  Again these are my own opinions; I do not answer for others nor am I fully explaining my answers.  This is simply what I think and I believe these to be acceptable positions for faithful Catholics to believe:

•   The current law of the western Church forbids a married clergy.  There is no tradition in the Church, Eastern or Western, to allow for ministers, once ordained, to marry at all.  I do not think that Church can grant priests the right to marry.

•   I believe Fatima was an authentic apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

•   I don’t know enough about Padre Pio to form an opinion other than that he was a holy man and is likely a saint in heaven.

•   I believe Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire (neither of which are sedevacantist issues) are doctrines of the Catholic Church though not as they are almost always taught so as to include nearly every human that has ever lived and ever will live.

•   Mutually agreed upon abstinence in marriage is not a sin.

•   The “separation of Church and State” is something that the Church must tolerate in Pagan lands but it is not the ideal state and is not what the Catholic Church teaches as God’s will; though John Paul II and Benedict XVI clearly teach that it is doctrinally required.

•   Saint Thomas Aquinas was a great theologian and his teachings and method of logical reasoning is one of the foundations of the Church’s theology.

•   Limbo is a theological possibility, the “outskirts of hell”, if you will, where the unbaptized who have no personal sin will reside for eternity.  Unbaptized babies cannot go to heaven.  This is the de fide teaching of the Church.

•   The United States of America is the greatest country currently in the world, though we are falling fast.  Though it was not founded on Catholic principles, it’s constitution (if only we followed it) was about as close as it could be without this nation actually being a Catholic nation.

•   The Jєωs must be converted to the Catholic Faith or suffer eternally in hell.  I do not subscribe to the theory that every evil in the world is a Jєωιѕн conspiracy though it is curious that secular Jєωs do figure prominently in many of the evils of today.

•   The United States of America circa 1940 was a better and safer place than the America of today.  Unfortunately, the Church in the 1940s clearly did not take the warnings of Pope Saint Pius X seriously.

•   At Vatican II commands and directives were certainly issued.  Many statements were asserted that give the appearance of doctrinal teaching, but I know of nothing that the Council actually does teach.  On the other hand, the priests, bishops, and theologians who have worked to put the directives of the Council into effect have certainly taught many things that they say presents the teaching of the Council and binds their followers, so much so that 75% of the non-scriptural footnotes in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church are references to Vatican II docuмents.  Virtually nothing that emanated from the Council is truly Catholic, thus no Catholic is bound by it.

•   I do indeed acknowledge that the Catholic Church normally has a pope and that Catholics must, not just normally but at all times, docilely submit to the teachings and liturgical requirements of the pope or be in schism.  

The questions continue:  “With the foregoing statement in mind, do you realize that Sedevacantism is a positive (in the sense that you’re doing something) action, not a neutral one or a lack of action? That is, an SSPX Traditionalist isn’t ‘making a choice’ in the same way you’re ‘making a choice’.”  Indeed.  The sedevacantist makes one choice:  To face the facts and accept the deplorable situation that there is no pope at this time; the Church is experiencing an extended interregnum.  Yes, indeed.  The SSPX traditional Catholic, on the other hand is likewise not making a “neutral choice.”  He is making positive choices in determining which commands and teachings of his pope he is going to obey and which commands and teachings of his pope he is going to disregard.  I have made one choice.  The anti-sedevacantist traditional Catholic has to make many choices nearly every time the pope speaks and every time a docuмent is issued from the Vatican.  And, of course, the average Novus Ordo Catholic just does and believes as he wishes, remaining intentionally ignorant of Catholic doctrines.
*
God has not abandoned His people or His Church.  His people have abandoned Him.  His Church continues even though she is much smaller than she was in the past.  We are, however, in a much better position than the Catholics of Japan were for generations and we are in a much more comfortable position that the Catholics were in ancient Rome or are in Red China or Muslim and Hindu countries.  We are not hunted down and beaten and murdered as Arians (who, by the way, considered themselves the “true” Catholics in their day) did to Catholics who refused communion with Arian bishops.  True Catholics in that era oftentimes held priestless, worship services at local cemeteries.  Faithful Catholics today do indeed have the means of salvation.
*
I do have a family.  I have a wife and five children.  I do not stay at home and our chapel is quite as large (population wise) as many SSPX chapels and larger than some chapels.  I would not object to attending an SSPX chapel though I doubt I would move as I have developed many friendships at the chapel I attend, which is, by the way, officially not a sedevacantist chapel.  The nearest SSPX chapel is at least 3 hours distant while the “small” independent Chapel at which I usually attend Mass is about 45 minutes from home.  I am not averse to driving a distance to attend Mass, and if the SSPX had a chapel in central Indiana I may very well have started going there when we escaped the Novus Ordo.  I agree that the priest mentioning Benedict’s name in the Canon is not going to damage my faith or my family’s faith.  I know a priest who is a sedevacantist though it is not generally known that he is.  The non-sedevacantists that I’ve seen attend his Masses also do not seem to have their faith damaged because the priest does not mention Benedict’s name in the Canon.

I truly believe this is because both the priests, the sedevacantist and the non-sedevacantist, are good and faithful servants of God.  Both are Catholics.  Both are imperfect but both are trying to lead souls to Christ and teach the True Faith that has come down to us from the Apostles rather than the faith that has been cleared through the feminist camps and focus-group tested amongst the Protestants and infidels.
*  *  *
This answers the questions put to the sedevacantist on the forum.  While I do not speak for all sedevacantists, I dislike the term greatly, most of my comments could be echoed by not a few Catholics who either doubt or deny that Benedict XVI is truly the pope.  It is unfortunate that those who have raised their opinion to the level of dogma are the most vocal.  The rest of us are always searching for the Truth and seeking to try to live our lives in fear and trembling.  

It is likewise unfortunate that there are enclaves of sedevacantists who have become more a cult (in the negative sense of the word) and less traditional Catholic.  I hasten to add, however, that this same cultish behavior is found in many locales in Conciliarist circles including at least one FSSP parish of which I am familiar.  The cult-like following is not generally found at SSPX chapels or at the CMRI chapels I have visited, though it does seem to find a place on traditional Catholic forums on the internet.

The simple faithful among traditional Catholic laymen are not evangelists trying to “convert” other Catholics to one particular “brand” of Catholicism.  The simple faithful are trying to save our souls and we do much more listening than preaching, more asking than answering, more reading than writing.  I expect there may be some replies or comments to my screed.  If what I have seen on other topics is a useful guide, most of the comments will either be irrelevant or designed to ridicule and berate rather than offer useful criticism.  The title of the thread is, “So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist.”  As I noted at the beginning of this essay, I never decided upon this; the realization simply hit me.  I will listen to all who attempt to demonstrate how Benedict XVI can be pope and at the same time lead a religion that believes all religions, including the Catholic one, are simply the outward expressions of the religious experience that wells up inside each of us.  The Catholic religion is not simply one of many “faith traditions”; it is not a synthesis resulting from a clash between thesis and antithesis (which becomes the new thesis which will conflict with its antithesis, and so on); it is not one truth among many or one way to God amongst countless ways.  I will not entertain such notions.  

Likely, I will remain silent if anyone comments.  Please do not take my silence as consent.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on July 01, 2013, 06:01:55 PM
Bump-a-saurus Rex!
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 01, 2013, 11:33:01 PM
Hi Matthew,

I am happy to answer your questions.  Sedevacantism, when properly understood is logical, consistent and is thoroughly Catholic.  As there are so many questions I will answer them in several posts.

Quote
* Does the Catholic Church have a pope right now?
* For how long has the commonly-held pope (in Rome) not been the real pope


1.  No, the Catholic Church most certainly does not have a Pope.  This can be proved in two ways.  The antipopes are public heretics, as they are public heretics, they have lost their membership in the Church, and with that any office that they held.

2.  Pope Pius XII was a certain Pope.  The trouble begins during the time of John XXIII, but, I do not believe a strong case can be made against him.  He was not a public heretic.  Paul VI taught public heresy to the Church on December 7, 1965.  I believe this date is a certain line in the sand.  Whether or not Paul VI was a Pope or not prior to that point, he could not have been a pope from that day forward.  

To answer your question, a future Pope may determine the date of sedevacante, we need only be concerned with what we can determine with moral certainty.  We need not go beyond that.

We can have moral certainty that these claimants are not Popes, as they have taught public heresy, they have taught grave errors against the Faith, they have given evil universal laws, they have promulgated evil and impious sacramental rites.   If they were Popes, the Church would have defected.  The Church would lack Apostolicity in its Doctrine.  The Church would also no longer be the guarantor of the Apostolic Succession, as Paul VI promulgated a doubtful rite.  The Church would no longer be holy as its sacramental rites and laws have allowed evil and impiety.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 01, 2013, 11:39:52 PM
Quote
* Is the Catholic Church currently visible or invisible?


The Catholic Church is visible, but it is less visible than it existed in former times.  The Church is made up of both the Pastors (the Hierarchy) and the laity.  The Church must always maintain some level of visibility, but it can vary in its degree of visibility.

When the Church began it was made up of only the Apostles, and they at one point were in hiding.  Yet, the Church remained visible.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 12:06:53 AM
Quote
* Is there any priest/bishop/pope you would currently trust now, or follow in matters of faith without judging his every move?


Well, there are two types of bishops and priests in the world today.  Those with a mission and those without (traditional bishops and priests).

I know with certainty that there are bishops in the world who are members of the hierarchy, and who have kept the faith.  Whether or not they err on who the pope is, I would trust their doctrine, as long as the have kept the faith.  The same applies to the priests sent by the Church.

Regarding the traditional clergy, there are many whom I trust.  This would apply to sedevacantist and non sedevacantist clergy.  The essential elements that I have in trusting the traditional clergy are whether they have the Faith, that they remain in communion with all Catholics, and are not the cause of scandal.

There are many that fit this description, and I do trust them.  At the same time, however, I remain aware that the traditional clergy are not the lawful pastors of the Church.  I am not bound to them in justice as a pre-Vatican II Catholic was to his Pastor and to his local bishop.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 12:19:06 AM
Quote
* How do you reconcile the fact that the world is VERY dangerous as an influence, and that we need Mass and the sacraments (and to a lesser degree, the moral support of fellow Catholics) to save our souls?


I agree with this completely, and would urge Catholics to frequent the Sacraments, to pray the Rosary, read spiritual books, avoid bad company, etc.

Sedevacantism if understood properly, should never be a reason for abandoning the sacraments.  For myself, I have attended and would continue to attend Masses said by any validly ordained priest who has kept the Faith and is not a schismatic, and those who are not the cause of scandal.

For myself, I would attend masses of the CMRI, SSPX, Resistance, many independent chapels, and some eastern rite Catholic Churches.


Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 12:32:14 AM
Quote
* How do you reconcile the fact that only a future council can formally judge a Pope? Do you have any evidence that the Church makes it possible for laymen to depose, or deny the papacy of, a given pope?


The answer to this can be found in the word, "depose."  We cannot depose any pope.  A public heretic loses his membership in the Church, and therefore his office (if he had it to begin with), from the moment that he professes public heresy, by operation of law.  

We are witnesses to the fact, we have no power, therefore, we cannot bind any else to what we see and comprehend.  That is why Catholics who believe the claims of the anti-popes cannot be guilty of schism.  Until a future Pope authoritatively makes a judgment on this, the determination we form based on the public evidence binds only our only conscience, not the Church.  

As laymen, we have a duty to profess the Faith, to keep the Faith, and to avoid heretics.  But, how can we avoid our head?  Archbishop Lefebvre understood this and explained this point ver well in his 1986 Address to Seminarians.  The Pope cannot be ignored.  If the man claiming to be pope is professing heresy, promulgating evil laws, impious sacramental rites, engaging in public sins against the First Commandment, he is forcing us to make a judgment about him in order for us to keep the Faith.  He is the aggressor, we are merely reacting to the public evidence we are witnessing.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 12:44:39 AM
Quote
* How do you reconcile Church indefectibility with the fact (as you hold it) that the current, putative Pope isn't actually a Pope? And the fact that the entire Church structure believes that he is the Pope?


I would argue that many within the Conciliar structure from the days of Paul VI on do not truly accept the claims of the antipopes.

What does it mean to accept a Pope?  If you were alive during the time of Pius XII, would you simply say " he is pope," and that is the end of it?  No, as a Catholic your affirmation of who the Pope is means that you are his subject, that you are ready to be taught by him, believe him, not just in his infallible pronouncements, but even in his non-infallible teaching given to the universal Church, to believe him in his moral teachings, to obey his laws, and to submit to you local ordinary who remains in communion with him.

From the time of Paul VI Catholics who have kept the Faith have not accepted the Pope as the rule of Faith, they no longer learn from him, they know they cannot trust his universal laws, that they cannot follow his public example, etc.

The Catholics who say these men are popes not are not accepting them as popes in the manner that Catholics accept a true pope.  Therefore there is no acceptance of these men among those who have kept the Faith.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 01:20:31 AM
Quote
* Do you believe that Sedevacantism is a dogma of the Faith? When was it added to the Deposit of the Faith? What authority added it?


Sedevacantism is not a dogma.  It is a judgment of the status of men claiming to be pope who are publicly profession heresy and grave errors against the Faith.  As I mentioned above, Archbishop Lefebvre believed such a judgment was possible prior to the judgment of the Church, and he was forming this view based on the Code.  St Robert Bellarmine and the majority of theologians who have written on the case of a heretical pope all say that he would lose his office prior to a declaration.  

As Catholics we are recognizing a fact, we are not creating a dogma.  

If you came home one night and saw a prominent member of your town dressed in black, climbing out a window of your home with a crowbar in one hand, and a bag full of money and other valuables in his other hand.  You yell at him to stop, he drops the bag, and flees.  There is no evidence except you testimony, as he wore gloves.  

The police arrest him, but the town is divided.  Many say, he would never do that, you are mistaken, etc.  Do these people have to believe you?  It is your word against his.  One thing that cannot be denied is that you are certain of what you saw regardless of whether anyone believes you.  The truth in this instance binds you, but not others.

Many Catholics have very carefully looked at the evidence of the public crime of heresy committed by Paul VI and his successors.  Many of us, myself included wish that there was some innocent way of explaining this.  We have seen the evidence of what these men have done. We have formed the judgment that these men could not have been popes, but the judgments binds no one else to it.  We have no authority in the Church.

Some books providing evidence that I have read:

1.  Peter Lovest Thou Me? Fr. Daniel Le Roux
http://www.carmel-books.org/peter-lovest-thou-me-p-986.html

2.  Iota Unum, Romano Amerio
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0963903217

3.  John Paul II's Theological Journey, all volumes, Fr. Dormann
http://www.amazon.com/Theological-Journey-Prayer-Meeting-Religions/dp/0935952527/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372745285&sr=1-2-spell&keywords=John+Paul%27s+theolical+journey

4.  The Books of Accusation of Heresy against Paul VI, John Paul II, and the Alleged Catechism of the Catholic Church, Fr. George's de Nantes.
http://www.crc-internet.org/1097-books-of-accusation.html

5. Paul VI Beatified, Fr Villa
http://www.padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Paul_VI.._beatified_english.pdf

I could continue but all that I have presented already is very strong evidence of public heresy.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 01:35:04 AM
Quote
* If you consider Sedevacantism to be a prerequisite for salvation, how do you expect that all men arrive at that conclusion? Are we to take it on authority (WHAT authority?), or must we all become theologians individually?


It is not a pre-requisite to salvation.  No man is bound to this conclusion.  Those who are bound to this are those who have formed the judgment based on public evidence that these men could not have been popes.  We cannot deny a truth that is clear to us, even if ourselves and others are not bound by authority.

Regarding this point, the question is not what is the truth, it is what is the status of the truth.

Those who are not convinced because they have either not viewed the evidence, do not grasp the theology involved or perhaps other reasons are not bound to this truth.  

Only those who are morally certain of the evidence and the relevant theology applied to the evidence are bound, as we are all bound to what we are certain is true.  

But whether one sees the truth of this or not, the Pope has not bound any Catholic to this.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 01:48:17 AM
Quote
* Do you believe it's possible to have a less-than-saintly pope on Peter's throne? How about a man who has committed, or who commits, sin? How about a Pope who commits grave sin(s)? How about a man who personally holds some errors? Are you familiar with many Popes throughout Church history? How about Popes that lived before the 18th century?


Yes, it is possible to have a very bad pope, even a public sinner.  History demonstrates this as well.  There is no arguing against a fact.

A pope could hold a private error or perhaps innocently err on a matter of faith.  What he could not do, however is teach heresy or grave error to the universal Church.  we know this from the case of Pope John XXII, who erred but recanted.  He never taught his error to the universal Church.

Catholics are bound to receive the teaching as given by the Pope to the universal Church with docility.  The Pope's teaching on matters of Faith and morals, even if it is non-infallible must be believed under pain of mortal sin.  The Pope's non-infallible universal teaching is guaranteed to be safe.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 02:01:59 AM
Quote
* How do you reconcile the notion that, in your estimation, the Catholic Church hasn't provided us laymen with any means of dealing with this unprecedented Crisis? Because as you see it, there is no Epikeia, no ability to disobey a lawful pope, no supplied jurisdiction, etc.


As laymen, we are the sheep of the Church, and other prayer and giving support to those who can end this crisis, we must wait.

There are some who from the beginning of the crisis to our present day, who have the power of ending this crisis.  In the absence of the Cardinals, the power of election of the Pope falls to the hierarchy and the Roman clergy.  

Both bodies must exist at all times within the Church.  The hierarchy cannot totally defect, nor the diocese of Rome.  This means that it is an impossibility that all members of the hierarchy have fallen into heresy, and likewise, some clergy of Rome must have kept the Faith, at a minimum, at least one.

Adherence to an anti-pope would not mean that any of these men would have lost their offices.  So long as they have kept the Faith, and have not fallen into heresy, the are members of the Church, and maintain their offices.

Sedevacantism does not deny the valid Catholic principles of epikeia or supplied jurisdiction.  

There are instances in which a Catholic could is obey a true Pope, or any authority for that matter.  But, in our discussion, we are not talking about a bad pope, rather a public heretic claiming to be pope.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 02:11:11 AM
Quote
* What do you think of SSPX masses?

* If the answer to the above question was in any way negative, please answer: How many SSPX priests have you met? How many SSPX Mass centers have you visited?


I believe that SSPX masses are the Mass.  The celebrant's attachment to SSPX is irrelevant.  

As I said in a previous post, the criteria that I use in deciding if I would go to a chapel are whether the priest has kept the Faith, is he schismatic, and is there any grave scandal from the priest or others at the chapel, especially to protect the children.

The fact that the SSPX continues to "accept" these men as pope, still does not change the facts involved.  

I would to this day go to most "SSPX" masses.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 02:15:33 AM
Quote
* Do you know of any holy independent/sedevacantist priests? If so, do you realize there are just as many holy SSPX priests? In general, priests are flawed men with a great office bestowed on them by God, and sanctity is always the exception rather than the rule. It has always been thus in the Catholic Church. That is why the Church declares who IS a saint, rather than who IS NOT a saint.


Yes, I know of some priests who are CMRI and independent that I believe are holy.  I may add that I know of some SSPX clergy who I also believe are holy.  I can also add that I know some Byzantine Catholic priests who I believe are holy.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 02:22:04 AM
Quote
What do you think of Archbishop Lefebvre?


I have always had the greatest respect and admiration for Archbishop Lefebvre.  He and Bp. De Castro Mayer were the only two members of the hierarchy that publicly stood up and actively resisted the anti-popes, and all of the heresy, grave errors, impious sacramental rites, evil laws, and scandals that came from them and those in league with them.

I am in agreement with John Daly's thought s about Archbishop Lefebvre and sedevacantism given in this radio interview:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2012/09/09/archbishop-lefebvre
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 02:31:03 AM
Quote
* What do you think of Rome-approved 1962 Masses? (FSSP, ICK, Indult, etc.)


If the priest is validly ordained and if he believes the Catholic Faith, the the mass is a Catholic Mass.  The principles do not change.

There are issues to consider before going to these masses, however.  Is there a risk of scandal if you are bringing your children?  Even if the priest has the faith, could he scandalize your children by citing modern fasting rules, praising the "pope," etc.

Secondly, are you certain the hosts in the tabernacle are consecrated by the certainly valid priest, or is there a chance that the hosts were consecrated by a priest ordained either in the Paul VI rite or by a bishop consecrated in the Paul VI rite or both.

As a general rule, I would not go to churches run by these groups.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 02:41:11 AM
Quote
* What edition of the Missale Romanum does your ideal priest use? (1962, 1957, 1913, etc.)


Ideally, the mass with the revisions of Pius XII.  But, as John XXIII was liberal, but not a public heretic, like Paul VI, the 1962 missal might be the law of the CHurch.

This is a murky issue, as John XXIII may one day be declared an antipope for his numerous actions against the Faith.  

In the absence of authority, I would rather retreat to the absolutely safe ground a Pope who not only believed the Faith, but loved the Faith.  John XXIII may not have been a public heretic, but he was scandalous and it was under him that the revolution began.

With that said, however, any argument against his claim to be pope is not air tight, and for that reason, I would happily go to a mass with the 1962 missal.

Archbishop Lefebvre kept to the 1962 missal, it was the last revision before the crisis took hold, and more importantly prior to Paul VI.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 02:45:24 AM
Quote
* How many true priests/bishops/cardinals exist? A handful? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?


Cardinals:  none
Bishops:  some, but I don't know how many
Priests:  I believe thousands of priests have kept the Faith.

In the above I am speaking only of bishops and priests with a mission, not the traditional clergy.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 03:03:57 AM
Quote
* What kind of priest is needed to say the Mass you would attend? One from CMRI? SSPV? Indpendent? One ordained before 1962? Are there no priests left?


I would go to any priest who was certainly validly ordained, who has kept the Faith, is not schismatic, and in which there was not risk of scandal especially in regard to children.

To be more specific:

1.  CMRI
2.  Most SSPX masses
3.  Many independent chapels
4.  Some Eastern Rite chapels
5.  Roman Rite clergy ordained prior to the Paul VI Rite, with the conditions above kept in mind.

I would avoid

1.  SSPV, mostly due to their schismatic usurpation of authority by denying Catholics Holy Communion for attending masses at certain other chapels.  There are other reasons but I think the one I mentioned is sufficient.
2.  Masses said by priests with lineages that I am uncertain of.
3.  SSPX chapels that are overly attached to the antipopes, due to risk of scandal to the children.
4.  SSPX chapels that use priests who were ordained in the Paul VI rite, or ordained in the Catholic rite, but by a bishop of the Paul VI rite.
5.  Any chapel that is dominated by cultish behavior.
6.  Any chapel that prohibits Catholics from attending other masses, by a false claim of authority by the priest.
7.  Chapels in which other Catholics, not necessarily myself are unjustly denied Holy Communion, or kicked out.  What you do to my brother you do to me.

Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 03:12:56 AM
Quote
* Do you realize that it is easy for independent priests to be  actual frauds (with no priestly orders) and that this has happened in the past several times?


Yes, I am aware of many instances of this.  Catholics must always be aware that the hierarchy is not watching out or them, and for a long time has not sent priests.

Catholics have the right and duty to question any priest about his orders, that he may consider suspect or about a priest that no one knows about.

Due to the SSPX using priests of the Paul VI rite, Catholics should not automatically trust SSPX on this either, and should enquire if there is any doubt.

Catholics should avoid any mass until they are certain that the priest is validly ordained.  

With the CMRI, they never allow priests of the Paul VI rite to say mass at their chapels without conditional ordination, so I do not believe it is necessary to question them, as they stand by their policy, with no exceptions.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 02, 2013, 03:15:16 AM
I will finish the questions tomorrow.  I am out of energy and it is late.  I Hope the answers I gave were clear and adequate.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Pius IX on July 02, 2013, 03:52:59 AM
Quote from: Matthew

* Does the Catholic Church have a pope right now?


No

Quote from: Matthew

* For how long has the commonly-held pope (in Rome) not been the real pope?


A few months.

Quote from: Matthew

* If we have a Pope, who is he (name and place of residence)?


No, we don't.

Quote from: Matthew

* Is the Catholic Church currently visible or invisible?


It's visible. De fide.

Quote from: Matthew

* Is there any priest/bishop/pope you would currently trust now, or follow in matters of faith without judging his every move?


I trust my confessor with my soul, but I would never follow a cleric blindly.

Quote from: Matthew

* How do you reconcile the fact that the world is VERY dangerous as an influence, and that we need Mass and the sacraments (and to a lesser degree, the moral support of fellow Catholics) to save our souls?


I agree with this in toto. Nothing to reconcile.

Quote from: Matthew

* How do you reconcile the fact that only a future council can formally judge a Pope?


Only if the deceased pope lost his office. No power on earth can judge a pope.

Quote from: Matthew

Do you have any evidence that the Church makes it possible for laymen to depose, or deny the papacy of, a given pope?


No laymen ever depose a pope. The actions of the conciliar popes speak for themselves. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, they are anti-Christ. Any Catholic who sees heresy is bound to avoid it, and any manifest heretic places himself outside of the Church. It is rather airtight, and can be seen throughout history, theology, and Church docuмents.

Quote from: Matthew

* How do you reconcile Church indefectibility with the fact (as you hold it) that the current, putative Pope isn't actually a Pope? And the fact that the entire Church structure believes that he is the Pope?


That does not have to do with indefectibility. Indefectibility means that the Church cannot give error. If the new popes are true popes, that means she has given the faithful a bastard Mass, bastard disciplines, canon law which promotes error, and has beatified men who have not lived holy lives. As the Great Western Schism and the Arian crisis illustrate, it is possible for many clergymen and lay Catholics to be mistaken. Finally, the entire Church structure does not believe him to be pope. We don't.

Quote from: Matthew

* Do you believe that Sedevacantism is a dogma of the Faith? When was it added to the Deposit of the Faith? What authority added it?


No.

Quote from: Matthew

* If you consider Sedevacantism to be a prerequisite for salvation, how do you expect that all men arrive at that conclusion? Are we to take it on authority (WHAT authority?), or must we all become theologians individually?


N/A.

Quote from: Matthew

* Do you believe it's possible to have a less-than-saintly pope on Peter's throne? How about a man who has committed, or who commits, sin? How about a Pope who commits grave sin(s)? How about a man who personally holds some errors? Are you familiar with many Popes throughout Church history? How about Popes that lived before the 18th century?


I am very aware, and as a formally trained historian, could even give some examples of debauched pontiffs. John X comes to mind, as he turned St. Peter's into a brother and lived a life of iniquity. However, none of these men ever committed grace sins against faith, being pertinacious heretics. The worst renaissance pope, with all of his cardinal-nephews, mistresses, and exploits would never push a bastard Mass and a poisoned faith.

Quote from: Matthew

* How do you reconcile the notion that, in your estimation, the Catholic Church hasn't provided us laymen with any means of dealing with this unprecedented Crisis? Because as you see it, there is no Epikeia, no ability to disobey a lawful pope, no supplied jurisdiction, etc.


There is supplied jurisdiction, and I think the Church has provided us with a means to deal with this crisis, although it is unprecedented. Receive the sacraments and save our souls.

Quote from: Matthew

* What do you think of SSPX masses?


They are valid and licit.

Quote from: Matthew

* If the answer to the above question was in any way negative, please answer: How many SSPX priests have you met? How many SSPX Mass centers have you visited?


N/A.

Quote from: Matthew

* Do you know of any holy independent/sedevacantist priests? If so, do you realize there are just as many holy SSPX priests? In general, priests are flawed men with a great office bestowed on them by God, and sanctity is always the exception rather than the rule. It has always been thus in the Catholic Church. That is why the Church declares who IS a saint, rather than who IS NOT a saint.


Yes, I do on both counts.

Quote from: Matthew

* What do you think of Archbishop Lefebvre?


The man is a saint in my opinion.

Quote from: Matthew

* What do you think of Rome-approved 1962 Masses? (FSSP, ICK, Indult, etc.)


If the priest is trying his best, is not a modernist, and is a validly ordained priest, I would attend said Mass if I had no choice.

Quote from: Matthew

* What edition of the Missale Romanum does your ideal priest use? (1962, 1957, 1913, etc.)


Pre-1955

Quote from: Matthew

* How many true priests/bishops/cardinals exist? A handful? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?


I don't know how many cardinals and bishops there are, but the trad clergy probably number a thousand, give or take a few hundred.

Quote from: Matthew

* What kind of priest is needed to say the Mass you would attend? One from CMRI? SSPV? Indpendent? One ordained before 1962? Are there no priests left?


A Catholic priest.

Quote from: Matthew

* Do you realize that it is easy for independent priests to be  actual frauds (with no priestly orders) and that this has happened in the past several times?


Absolutely. Sub soli nihil novi est.

Quote from: Matthew

* Do you realize that some independent priests are simply weak in the virtue of obedience? That is, while professing to be "fighting for the truth" and all, they merely couldn't follow orders in the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, etc. and left so they could "be their own boss".


I don't know. The indie priests I know remind me of the parson from Canterbury Tales. 100% caring and dedicated. It's not like they went to a Mickey Mouse seminary and are just doing there own thing.

Quote from: Matthew

* Should you attend some Traditional Latin Mass, or just stay at home?


If there is a Catholic Mass available, go. If not, what can one do?

Quote from: Matthew

* If you advocate "staying at home", is that for fundamental/dogmatic reasons, or would you like to move closer to an independent (sede) chapel someday if you could?


N/A.

Quote from: Matthew

* If you advocate "staying at home", how do you plan to teach the Faith to your children? How do you expect to maintain that faith, especially as your children grow older and start asserting their own identity? (At a certain age, children stop doing things simply because mom & dad do them -- if the Faith isn't an extra-familial phenomenon, it is often dropped at that point)


N/A.

Quote from: Matthew

* Can the crisis/lack of pope situation be resolved ever? How will you know a new legitimate Pope has been elected? Will Our Lord, Our Lady, St. Michael, Sts. Peter and Paul, etc. do something personally to appoint a Pope and/or cardinals? Are we waiting for something in the very short-term future such as   the Three Days of Darkness or The End of Time?


God will intervene somehow. There will be another pope.

Quote from: Matthew

* Is there anything a person (priest, religious, or layman) can do to help end or ameliorate this Crisis? If so, what?


Penance and prayer.

Quote from: Matthew

* Should a new pope be elected by "the remnant"? Should you help elect a pope (or become pope yourself? cf. Pope Michael of Kansas, or Pope Augustine who dresses and works as a layman)


No.

Quote from: Matthew

* What do you think of the average (novus ordo attending) Catholic? Will any of them save their soul? Is it possible for some to be of good will?


Many within the conciliar church are at least material heretics, but there are some who do have the faith, are pious, but cannot see the crisis. I know some pious souls who only attend the NO, but don't know any better.

Quote from: Matthew

* What do you think of other traditional Catholics? (Defined as "Those trying to oppose error and keep the Faith during this crisis")


God bless 'em. We all get in the same line for the confessional.

Quote from: Matthew

* Do you think those who don't support your preferred sedevacantist group can save their souls? How about those who don't attend your chapel? Should they be formally denounced? In writing?


Yes, they can. N/A to second part.

Quote from: Matthew

* Should some, many, or all non-sedevacantist Catholics be declared, or treated as, Vitandi (persons to be avoided) like those who are excommunicated? How about other sedevacantists whom you don't agree with?


No.

Quote from: Matthew

* If you advocate being harsh with non sede-Catholics, A) how do you reconcile the fact that normally it is a praiseworthy thing for Catholics to love and pray for the pope? How about the fact that this crisis is not normal, and is, in fact, unprecedented? B) How do you reconcile violating an integral part of Catholicism (Charity) in favor of a much lesser "doctrine" (what you consider the "fact" of Sedevacantism)?


N/A.

Quote from: Matthew

* Are you aware of the actions of past popes throughout Church history? The Great Schism? The fact that St. Vincent Ferrer was on "the wrong side" in that crisis?


Absolutely. I studied the G.W.S. in depth.

Quote from: Matthew

* What do you think of the various priests/bishops who seem to be fearless in their defense of the Faith, though they are not sedevacantist? For example: Bishop Williamson, and many SSPX priests (though there are countless others!)


I respect Bishop Williamson and pray for him. His works have immensely helped me.

Quote from: Matthew

* Should we actually hate the pope? The modernist (or all) cardinals? Bishops? Catholics who are not sedevacantist?


St. Pius X pretty much settled the question. I can dislike a pope's moral failings, but never hate him, for he is the Vicar of Christ on earth. I can hate heretics, but I will not hate Catholics with whom I disagree.

Quote from: Matthew

* Can married men be deacons? Priests? (Don't laugh; I know an independent priest who had himself consecrated bishop, and ordained one married man a deacon. He also wants to ordain at least one married man a priest!)


No.

Quote from: Matthew

* What do you think of Fatima? Padre Pio? Baptism of Desire? "Natural Family Planning"? Separation of Church and State? St. Thomas Aquinas? Limbo? America? The Jєωs?


Fatima is very important for all of us. Padre Pio was a holy man. Baptism of Desire is de fide. NFP is licit. The Church and State should not be separated. Aquinas is the Angelic Doctor. Limbo is real. I love my country but despise the anti-Catholic, Enlightenment principles on which it rests. Most Jєωs are secular and completely oblivious like modern pagans, but the few who are into their Christ denying religion are working for Hell. It is a false sect, and it is no secret that many Jєωs exert an large influence over many facets in society.

Quote from: Matthew

* How do you feel about the United States of America? Circa 1940? Circa 1850?


Things were better at those times, but it was rotten since 1776.

Quote from: Matthew

* How would you compare an average Lutheran with an average Novus Ordo Catholic?


Both heretics, on avg.

Quote from: Matthew

* Do you believe that Vatican II taught anything binding on Catholics?


It attempted to, but failed.

Quote from: Matthew

* Do you acknowledge that normally the Catholic Church has a Pope, the spiritual leader of all Catholics? Do you believe that all Catholics must normally submit to this pope, or be in schism?


Yes and yes.

Quote from: Matthew

* With the foregoing statement in mind, do you realize that Sedevacantism is a positive (in the sense that you're doing something) action, not a neutral one or a lack of action? That is, an SSPX-supporting Traditionalist isn't "making a choice" in the same way you're "making a choice".


Perhaps. Many simply misunderstand it or think it means being a Home Alone Dimondite.

Quote from: Matthew

* Especially if you deny the validity of 1962 masses, you have to ask yourself "Why would God abandon His people and His Church for 51 years, with no means of salvation available to the vast majority of people?"


I could put this on its head and ask why would God abandon His people and His Church for 51 years with crazy popes, liberal heretic popes, and lead most of the work to a small group of priest known simply as the Resistance.

Quote from: Matthew

* Do you have a family? Do you honestly believe that staying at home (or attending a small chapel of 10 people) will be more beneficial to your children than attending, say, an SSPX chapel?


I am currently single, but unless I sensed problems at an SSPX chapel I would have no problems availing myself there. I am friendly with SSPX priests.

Quote from: Matthew

After all, it's not like the Novus Ordo is said in the latter, and aside from mentioning the Pope's name during the canon (quietly), nothing else goes on that a Sede could complain about. Do you honestly think mentioning the Pope's name during Mass will destroy your child's faith?


No, but the Recognize and Resist position is untenable, and I would tell them so.

Quote from: Matthew

Those last two points are important ones. I know personally that attending an SSPX Mass center takes some effort -- usually an hour drive (or more) and many live too far away to attend weekly Mass. How much worse would it be if you couldn't attend any TLM except that offered by an independent sedevacantist priest? You'd pretty much be a "home-aloner" -- one who reads their missal at home on Sunday. With my knowledge of the world (and having attended an independent chapel for 24 years), I know how dangerous this is for the children especially. Usually they give up the Faith -- it seems too much like a cult. Just for starters, they end up marrying non-Catholics, which leads to problems that can't possibly be over-stated!

Matthew


N/A.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: TKGS on July 02, 2013, 07:54:55 AM
This poster, Pius XI, has done a very good job at answering all of Matthew's objections.  The topic has been fully resolved.  It can and should be locked as no further commentary is needed nor would any further commentary be useful.

Very good job, Pius XI.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Emerentiana on July 02, 2013, 10:43:33 AM
 :applause: :applause:

The above poster tells it like it is. This interview should be poted with a permanent thread on the forum, so all can refer to it.  Thanks so much!
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on July 02, 2013, 10:44:04 AM
Quote from: TKGS
This poster, Pius XI, has done a very good job at answering all of Matthew's objections.  The topic has been fully resolved.  It can and should be locked as no further commentary is needed nor would any further commentary be useful.

Very good job, Pius XI.


Is this post joking or serious?

The Original Post was about appreciating the complexity of the Sedevacantist position, not "so many objections why you shouldn't become a Sedevacantist".

If you took it that way, you completely missed the point.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Emerentiana on July 02, 2013, 10:44:48 AM
the correction to the above is the word POSTED  (not poted)   :facepalm:
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: TKGS on July 02, 2013, 12:07:44 PM
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: TKGS
This poster, Pius XI, has done a very good job at answering all of Matthew's objections.  The topic has been fully resolved.  It can and should be locked as no further commentary is needed nor would any further commentary be useful.

Very good job, Pius XI.


Is this post joking or serious?

The Original Post was about appreciating the complexity of the Sedevacantist position, not "so many objections why you shouldn't become a Sedevacantist".

If you took it that way, you completely missed the point.


No.  I was absolutely serious.  The "complexity of the Sedevacantist position" is incredibly simple compared to the absolute morass of contradiction and doctrinal gymnastics (not to mention liturgical abuses and sacrileges) one must endure to be a Conciliarist or a "Recognize and Resister".

I think you are the one who "completely missed the point."
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 03, 2013, 12:18:41 AM
I will now keep answering the questions.  I hope the answers can clear up myths and misconceptions about sedevacantists.   I have no intention of clogging up this thread, But Matthew has asked serious questions and he deserves a thoughtful response.  I think each of these questions could be its own thread.  There is a lot of ground to cover.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 03, 2013, 12:26:36 AM
Quote
* Do you realize that some independent priests are simply weak in the virtue of obedience? That is, while professing to be "fighting for the truth" and all, they merely couldn't follow orders in the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, etc. and left so they could "be their own boss".


There are many independent priests and there are many reasons why they are independent.  It could be for the reason that you put forward, "to be their own boss," but it could also be a sincere belief that the organization that they work with is compromising the Faith in some way.  

Since we do not know the reason, as we cannot read their soul, it is not worth speculating about.  

In this time of crisis in the Church, these groups have no real power to force priests to remain anyway.  All traditional clergy, whether part of a group or not, have no mission or assignment from the Church.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 03, 2013, 12:55:45 AM
Quote
* Should you attend some Traditional Latin Mass, or just stay at home?
* If you advocate "staying at home", is that for fundamental/dogmatic reasons, or would you like to move closer to an independent (sede) chapel someday if you could?
* If you advocate "staying at home", how do you plan to teach the Faith to your children? How do you expect to maintain that faith, especially as your children grow older and start asserting their own identity? (At a certain age, children stop doing things simply because mom & dad do them -- if the Faith isn't an extra-familial phenomenon, it is often dropped at that point)


I do not advocate staying home, and certainly do not recommend it, but I do not condemn it either.  Only the lawful pastors of the Church can bind us, and we are bound to attend the Sunday and Holyday masses at our parish in which we have domicile.

The traditional clergy have not been sent to us by a bishop of our diocese, they have not been trained in an approved seminary or by approved professors, nor recommended for ordination by an approved rector.  They are ordained without dimmissorial letters, and do not have a mission from the Church.

There are grave risks to staying home, but I do not believe a Catholic is compelled by law to attend the masses of traditionalist priests.  Whether or not one stays home or not would rather be under the virtue of prudence.  I believe a Catholic is acting imprudently if he fails to attend a mass of a certainly valid priest, who has kept the Faith, is not a schismatic, and there is no risk of scandal involved.

If a Catholic parent does stay home either by choice or by having no Mass available, they still have a grave obligation to instruct their children in the Faith, and should be developing a prayer life in the home.  They must also teach their children that when the hierarchy is once again fully present in the world, that they must submit to them.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 03, 2013, 01:16:31 AM
Quote
* Can the crisis/lack of pope situation be resolved ever? How will you know a new legitimate Pope has been elected? Will Our Lord, Our Lady, St. Michael, Sts. Peter and Paul, etc. do something personally to appoint a Pope and/or cardinals? Are we waiting for something in the very short-term future such as  the Three Days of Darkness or The End of Time?


Yes, the crisis can end at any time.  A pope can be elected by the hierarchy and/or the clergy of Rome in the absence of the cardinals.  

This would haver been so much easier if Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp de Castro Mayer were alive, as they, being members of the hierarchy could have called an imperfect council, denounced the public heretic claimant, and proceeded to elect a pope.  This would have been a lawful act and the election would have been valid.

Without them, this problem is far more difficult to resolve, but not impossible. God could directly intervene, or he could grant graces to the remaining members of the hierarchy and the Roman Clergy to act and elect a pope.

We will know that we have a pope as the election will be valid, as the electors have the right to elect.  The electors must be the hierarchy or the Roman clergy.  No other men or group has the power to elect a pope, in the absence of the cardinals.

Secondly, in my opinion, God will give the faithful certainty through a miracle or perhaps many miracles, so there will be no doubt who the pope is.  Our Lady has already reserved a miracle for a pope who united with the bishops consecrate Russia, which will convert the country.  Perhaps the future Pope will do this' and all will see the miracle of Russia's conversion, and be certain of his claim as Pope.

Regarding the three days of darkness, or the end of the world, your guess is as good as mine. It seems clear that evil is getting exponentially worse, and in my opinion, something major is going to happen.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 03, 2013, 01:27:31 AM
Quote
* Is there anything a person (priest, religious, or layman) can do to help end or ameliorate this Crisis? If so, what?


Yes, first of all pray, stay in the state of grace, and do the duties of your state.  This will be pleasing to God and will obtain graces.  God showed us the value of the just man, when He would have spared the kingdom of Sodom if there were only 10 just men, and he warned Lot and his family to leave prior to the its destruction.

Beyond that, we must pray for the remaining members of the hierarchy and the clergy of Rome that they will have graces and strength to act to end this crisis.  

The only organized body that I know if that has the resources to locate and approach the hierarchy and the Roman clergy and urge them to act would be the SSPX. But, as of now, they do not seem to see this as the solution.  I do not see any other group, especially the sedevacantist groups having the means or the ability to pursue such a massive undertaking.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 03, 2013, 01:35:48 AM
Quote
* Should a new pope be elected by "the remnant"? Should you help elect a pope (or become pope yourself? cf. Pope Michael of Kansas, or Pope Augustine who dresses and works as a layman)


Any election by those who are not lawful electors is illegal and schismatic.  We must wait for those God has sent to us through his Church to act.  

The only lawful electors, as I have said previously are the hierarchy and the Roman clergy.  It is up to them to end this.  We should pray for them daily that they will have the fortitude and the graces to act.

God could also end this crisis by His direct involvement.  Either way, we must wait or God or for those He has sent to end this.  We cannot end it on our own.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on July 03, 2013, 01:38:15 AM
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: TKGS
This poster, Pius XI, has done a very good job at answering all of Matthew's objections.  The topic has been fully resolved.  It can and should be locked as no further commentary is needed nor would any further commentary be useful.

Very good job, Pius XI.


Is this post joking or serious?

The Original Post was about appreciating the complexity of the Sedevacantist position, not "so many objections why you shouldn't become a Sedevacantist".

If you took it that way, you completely missed the point.


No.  I was absolutely serious.  The "complexity of the Sedevacantist position" is incredibly simple compared to the absolute morass of contradiction and doctrinal gymnastics (not to mention liturgical abuses and sacrileges) one must endure to be a Conciliarist or a "Recognize and Resister".


That is completely not true.

Liturgical abuses and sacrileges are part of the R&R position? That's ridiculous. You obviously don't know much about the position.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 03, 2013, 01:59:14 AM
Quote
* What do you think of the average (novus ordo attending) Catholic? Will any of them save their soul? Is it possible for some to be of good will?
* What do you think of other traditional Catholics? (Defined as "Those trying to oppose error and keep the Faith during this crisis")


I think we must first define what a Catholic is:  One who is baptized, believes and professes the Faith, and remains in communion and submission to the pope and the bishops in union with him.

Those in the Novus Ordo who have kept the Faith, are Catholic, there can be no disputing this.  They cannot lose their membership in the Church by erroneously adhering to an antipope who they think is a pope.  They may even lack any guilt for holding erroneous positions, due to a lack comprehension of the Church's teaching.

Those in the Novus Ordo, who profess heretical ideas, while understanding the conflict between their ideas and the teaching of the Church, are heretics and have lost their membership in the Church.

Those who remain in the Novus Ordo and are Catholic are in a gravely dangerous predicament, as they have invalid sacraments, and are surrounded by heresy, error and impiety.  

The traditional Catholics, are in a much better situation, as they have identified the Conciliar Church for what it truly is.  The more accurate the identification of the Conciliar church the safer a Catholic becomes to remain immunized from it.  

The danger that traditional Catholics must face, in my opinion, is to resist schism and usurpation of authority.  Traditional Catholics must not in any way create a parallel church, or allow themselves to form a sectarian group that exercises an illegal authority over the flock.  

Until lawful authority is present again through the pope and the hierarchy, we, the sheep, must remain leaderless and humble.  Any leader that steps forward among traditionalists must only be regarded as a natural leader, not as one who has authority over Catholics.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: TKGS on July 03, 2013, 08:19:54 AM
Quote from: Matthew
That is completely not true.

Liturgical abuses and sacrileges are part of the R&R position? That's ridiculous. You obviously don't know much about the position.


C'mon, Matthew.  You're picking nits.

I said, "...a Conciliarist or a "Recognize and Resister"."  

But, having noted that, I will absolutely declare that sacrileges and liturgical abuses do occur at some FSSP parishes, especially in those parishes that are multi-rite parishes.  The clear-cut sacrileges and abuses may not frequently occur during the celebration of the traditional Mass, but they are occurring in those parishes and they are occurring while traditional Catholics are present.

Now, if you don't consider the FSSP as part of the "Recognize and Resist" community, then you would be correct.  Since I consider the FSSP as part of that group, my comments stand and you, Matthew, are evidently ignorant of what that "position" fully entails.  Hopefully, however, we now have our definitions clear on the matter so that you can see from what angle I am approaching this question.  


P.S.  I have found that one of the most positive aspects of CathInfo is that one can have a profound disagreement with the Owner/Moderator and discuss the issue like gentlemen without fear of being banned or having your posts deleted willy-nilly.  When I was active on Angelqueen, especially in later times, I noticed that the Owner/Moderator there (don't remember his name) began purging anyone who disagreed with his ideas to the point that no discussion of any issue could really be made.  I reduced my visibility there about the same time I found CathInfo and, frankly, I haven't even visited Angelqueen in months.  Thanks for the opportunity to have open and honest discussion.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Emitte Lucem Tuam on July 03, 2013, 07:01:04 PM
To be honest, I really don't see the crisis in the Church as all that complicated.  You are either a heretic or you are not (there is no such thing as a "sort of heretic" or a heretic with a lot of "quotes" around them). Period.  End of story.  You are a heretic or you are not.

A heretic can be anyone from a Pope down to a layman.  A Pope (or a bishop, priest or layman) ceases to be Catholic when he embraces heresy, preaches heresy and teaches heresy.  Simple enough and easy to understand.

If you cease to be a Catholic, you automatically (ipso facto) lose your office (clergy) within the Church along with your jurisdiction and your immortal soul to Satan if you go unrepentant.  No council, court or judge (other than God) is needed for this to happen.  Simple and easy enough to comprehend and understand plus this is quoted by numerous Saints and Doctors of the Church.

Those clergy who do not adhere to heresy and have been ordained according to the Rites of the Holy Roman Church still retain their jurisdiction (bishops & priests).  Simple, easy to understand.  No problem there.

The last pope who was not publicly a heretic and who died, has now caused the Church to become "sedevacante".  Most authorities who consider the Church currently "sedevacante", claim Pius XII to be the last Pope.  Simple, easy to understand and embrace if you compare him to the conciliar "popes".  Pius XII, the last Catholic Pope is dead - thus the Church is currently (and still) sedevacante.

The Church's material wealth and public face, i.e. the churches, cathedrals, the Vatican, etc. has been stolen by heretics.  There is plenty of precedent for this to  happen - look at the English Reformation and the Arian crisis.  English churches, cathedrals, monetary wealth, land, etc. were stolen by heretics yet they claim to be Catholic (even today they still claim to be "Catholic").  What true Roman Catholic today would go to an Anglican "clergyman" for the Sacraments and help toward their salvation?  None (I hope).  They are heretics.  No different from the heretics occupying the Vatican all the way down to your parish church.

I just don't see the complication in the current crisis in the Church.  It is as black and white as it gets.  As to when a new pope will be elected or the current heretics are thrown out of Holy Church's possessions, only God knows and I'll leave that in God's hands.  As for now, I seek out true Catholic priests and bishops -  and they are the Catholic Church VISIBLE today.    



Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: eddiearent on July 03, 2013, 09:14:01 PM
"You can have your pope and eat him, too!"
-(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/7196_10102141368167872_492491350_n.jpg)
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Emerentiana on July 03, 2013, 10:34:48 PM
Quote from: Emitte Lucem Tuam
To be honest, I really don't see the crisis in the Church as all that complicated.  You are either a heretic or you are not (there is no such thing as a "sort of heretic" or a heretic with a lot of "quotes" around them). Period.  End of story.  You are a heretic or you are not.

A heretic can be anyone from a Pope down to a layman.  A Pope (or a bishop, priest or layman) ceases to be Catholic when he embraces heresy, preaches heresy and teaches heresy.  Simple enough and easy to understand.

If you cease to be a Catholic, you automatically (ipso facto) lose your office (clergy) within the Church along with your jurisdiction and your immortal soul to Satan if you go unrepentant.  No council, court or judge (other than God) is needed for this to happen.  Simple and easy enough to comprehend and understand plus this is quoted by numerous Saints and Doctors of the Church.

Those clergy who do not adhere to heresy and have been ordained according to the Rites of the Holy Roman Church still retain their jurisdiction (bishops & priests).  Simple, easy to understand.  No problem there.

The last pope who was not publicly a heretic and who died, has now caused the Church to become "sedevacante".  Most authorities who consider the Church currently "sedevacante", claim Pius XII to be the last Pope.  Simple, easy to understand and embrace if you compare him to the conciliar "popes".  Pius XII, the last Catholic Pope is dead - thus the Church is currently (and still) sedevacante.

The Church's material wealth and public face, i.e. the churches, cathedrals, the Vatican, etc. has been stolen by heretics.  There is plenty of precedent for this to  happen - look at the English Reformation and the Arian crisis.  English churches, cathedrals, monetary wealth, land, etc. were stolen by heretics yet they claim to be Catholic (even today they still claim to be "Catholic").  What true Roman Catholic today would go to an Anglican "clergyman" for the Sacraments and help toward their salvation?  None (I hope).  They are heretics.  No different from the heretics occupying the Vatican all the way down to your parish church.

I just don't see the complication in the current crisis in the Church.  It is as black and white as it gets.  As to when a new pope will be elected or the current heretics are thrown out of Holy Church's possessions, only God knows and I'll leave that in God's hands.  As for now, I seek out true Catholic priests and bishops -  and they are the Catholic Church VISIBLE today.    






 :applause: Sounds simple to me too........but not for some people, unfortunately.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 03, 2013, 11:33:56 PM
Sedevacantism is simple and complex at the same time.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Mithrandylan on July 03, 2013, 11:56:02 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Sedevacantism is simple and complex at the same time.  


Indeed.

I think the complexity is mainly highlighted by it's opponents.

It's very, very basic Catholicism that a heretic is not a member of the Church.  It's basic logic that one cannot be a head of what one is not a member of.  Sedeoccupantists objections generally arise from the common implications that follow along with the sedevacantist position; what does that say about the indefectability of the Church, papal infallibility, the gates of Hell not prevailing, perpetual succession, the visibility of the Church, &c.  The confusion and complexity is found (though, in my experience, this confusion and complexity is exaggerated and need not be as confusing or as complex as it often seems in discussion) among these implications and understanding how the position deals with them more than there is confusion on how one uses simple logic and facts of the faith to arrive at the bare bones conclusion that a given conciliar pope could not possibly be a Catholic pope.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Archangel on July 04, 2013, 09:34:13 PM
I am new to this forum, but think it is probably the most important thread on CI.  Thank you especially to TKGS (for your original post in 2010) and to Ambrose for your detailed explanations.  Your writings exhibit a very high level of charity toward all of us trying to remain Catholic in these times.

I have been Catholic since birth, attended Masses of the SSPX in my youth (confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre), followed the independent (ordained pre Vat II) priests until they mostly died off, been home alone for a stint for lack of a priest, and presently adhere to the sedevacantist theory.  When I travel, I seek out the CMRI for Mass.  Unfortunately living in northern IL, I am not very near to a Catholic parish that recognizes the sede theory as valid.

Does anyone have a suggestion for Mass in the Chicago area?  Also, if you don't mind the question Ambrose, are you a priest?  And, TKGS, did you intend your original post to coincide with the feastday of St. Pius X (Sept 3rd) when you made it, or was that just a coincidence?

I plan to refer everyone I know who still wants to be Catholic to this information.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 05, 2013, 03:53:32 PM
Quote from: Archangel
I am new to this forum, but think it is probably the most important thread on CI.  Thank you especially to TKGS (for your original post in 2010) and to Ambrose for your detailed explanations.  Your writings exhibit a very high level of charity toward all of us trying to remain Catholic in these times.

I have been Catholic since birth, attended Masses of the SSPX in my youth (confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre), followed the independent (ordained pre Vat II) priests until they mostly died off, been home alone for a stint for lack of a priest, and presently adhere to the sedevacantist theory.  When I travel, I seek out the CMRI for Mass.  Unfortunately living in northern IL, I am not very near to a Catholic parish that recognizes the sede theory as valid.

Does anyone have a suggestion for Mass in the Chicago area?  Also, if you don't mind the question Ambrose, are you a priest?  And, TKGS, did you intend your original post to coincide with the feastday of St. Pius X (Sept 3rd) when you made it, or was that just a coincidence?

I plan to refer everyone I know who still wants to be Catholic to this information.


Hi Archangel,

Welcome to the forum.

I do know that if you contact CMRI and let them know your situation, they may  try to set up a mass center in your area if there are enough people to support it.  

I am not a priest.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 05, 2013, 04:04:35 PM
I will now finish the questions put forth by Matthew.
Quote

* Do you think those who don't support your preferred sedevacantist group can save their souls? How about those who don't attend your chapel? Should they be formally denounced? In writing?


For myself, I am not part of any group.  All groups that exist today have no claim on Catholics.  The Church is bigger than all of them.  

A Catholic is not bound to any group.  If all of the groups failed, the Church would go on without them.  A Catholic need not align himself with any group to save his soul.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 05, 2013, 04:23:09 PM
Quote
* Should some, many, or all non-sedevacantist Catholics be declared, or treated as, Vitandi (persons to be avoided) like those who are excommunicated? How about other sedevacantists whom you don't agree with?
* If you advocate being harsh with non sede-Catholics, A) how do you reconcile the fact that normally it is a praiseworthy thing for Catholics to love and pray for the pope? How about the fact that this crisis is not normal, and is, in fact, unprecedented? B) How do you reconcile violating an integral part of Catholicism (Charity) in favor of a much lesser "doctrine" (what you consider the "fact" of Sedevacantism)?


As I wrote previously, sedevacantism does not bind Catholics by authority.  A Pope has to declare Paul VI and his successors as heretics and antipopes.  Until that happens Catholics are not bound to by authority to believe this.  

I am not harsh with "non-sede" Catholics.  Such attitudes demonstrate either ignorance or a lack of spiritual maturity, or both.

Regarding sedevacantists that I do not agree agree with, I oppose any that are usurpers, and seek to bind Catholics to on where they must go to Mass, or not go at all, or those to whom they must associate with, etc.  The only authority in the Church are the hierarchy, no one can take their place.

Most sedevacantists that I know do not do such things.  I know that the CMRI does not behave in such a way.  Any Catholic, sedevacantist or not, that behaves as a usurper of the power of the hierarchy should be rebuked and if he does not amend his ways, he should be shunned and reported to the Church authorities when it reforms.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Donachie on July 05, 2013, 04:35:37 PM
I've been reading this from a community computer by the pool in the apartments where i live, and a fag has come in from the pool in flip-flops and bright colored shorts and tank top: and he's eating a large apple at the computer next to me in a faggy sort of way ...

How weird. It's a small room with only two computers --- but the interior design and garden pool view is just fabulous!

Anyway, about this topic, I'm a de facto sede-vacantist at this point. Vatican II is just too creepy and not plain dealing enough.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Donachie on July 05, 2013, 05:11:35 PM
Sede-privationist is what I should say.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 05, 2013, 05:21:05 PM
Quote
* Are you aware of the actions of past popes throughout Church history? The Great Schism? The fact that St. Vincent Ferrer was on "the wrong side" in that cnull (http://null)risis?


Yes, I am very aware of the Great Western Schism, and I also believe that many lessons learned from that schism can be applied to the current crisis.

One lesson that we can learn was the point you brought up.  Catholics do not automatically become schismatic by following the claim of an antipope.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 05, 2013, 05:26:59 PM
Quote
* What do you think of the various priests/bishops who seem to be fearless in their defense of the Faith, though they are not sedevacantist? For example: Bishop Williamson, and many SSPX priests (though there are countless others!)


I respect all of the traditionalist clergy who defend the faith, and who have sacrificed their life to bring the sacraments to those in need.

Many of these clergy travel long distances on a regular basis I to say mass for Catholics who would otherwise not have the sacraments.

They deserve our respect and support.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 05, 2013, 05:32:20 PM
Quote
* Should we actually hate the pope? The modernist (or all) cardinals? Bishops? Catholics who are not sedevacantist?


No, we must not hate the antipope, the conciliar cardinals and bishops.  What good would that do?  

Our Lord said to love our enemies, not hate them.  We should pray for their conversion, and leave them to their final judge, Our Lord, who will judge them with justice and eternal consequences.
 
I hope for their sakes, that the repent and die as Catholics.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 05, 2013, 06:18:45 PM
Quote
* Can married men be deacons? Priests? (Don't laugh; I know an independent priest who had himself consecrated bishop, and ordained one married man a deacon. He also wants to ordain at least one married man a priest!)


A married man could be validly ordained, but it would be illicit.  I am familiar with some cases as well, but, in my opinion, it is an abuse.

Some sedevacantists may justify married clergy as they may say that the law has become harmful as there are not enough priests.  

In my opinion, such a rationale is dangerous and I do not believe that this is a lawful use of epikeia, rather it is an abuse.  

Even in the pre-Vatican II Church, many Catholics were in rural areas of the world, or in anti-Catholic or communist countries, and lived with irregular sacraments, and the Church never allowed local married priests as a remedy.  

It is true that Eastern rite priests can marry, but even in those cases, the priest must marry prior
to being ordained, cannot remarry if his wife passes, and cannot become a bishop.

In addition to the above reasons, there is a grave risk of scandal, and this is increased among children.  This could also scandalize seminarians who may "why must I choose the between the priesthood or the married life, when I can have both?"

For myself, I would not go to masses of married Roman Rite traditional priests, and I would urge Catholics to do the same.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Mabel on July 05, 2013, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: Archangel
I am new to this forum, but think it is probably the most important thread on CI.  Thank you especially to TKGS (for your original post in 2010) and to Ambrose for your detailed explanations.  Your writings exhibit a very high level of charity toward all of us trying to remain Catholic in these times.

I have been Catholic since birth, attended Masses of the SSPX in my youth (confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre), followed the independent (ordained pre Vat II) priests until they mostly died off, been home alone for a stint for lack of a priest, and presently adhere to the sedevacantist theory.  When I travel, I seek out the CMRI for Mass.  Unfortunately living in northern IL, I am not very near to a Catholic parish that recognizes the sede theory as valid.

Does anyone have a suggestion for Mass in the Chicago area?  Also, if you don't mind the question Ambrose, are you a priest?  And, TKGS, did you intend your original post to coincide with the feastday of St. Pius X (Sept 3rd) when you made it, or was that just a coincidence?


I plan to refer everyone I know who still wants to be Catholic to this information.


I would also urge you to contact CMRI, I believe at one point they almost set up a chapel in the Chicago area, they certainly might be able to connect you with like-minded individuals.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 05, 2013, 08:03:53 PM
Quote
* What do you think of Fatima? Padre Pio? Baptism of Desire? "Natural Family Planning"? Separation of Church and State? St. Thomas Aquinas? Limbo? America? The Jєωs?


Fatima:  I believe that the message of Fatima is God's gift to our time.  The public miracle is a constant reminder to us that God is I control, despite appearances to the contrary.  Our Lady already too us the end of this crisis, "Russia will be converted, and a reign of peace will be given."

Padre Pio:  I have no doubt that he was a saintly man.  He never said the Novus Ordo.  He has all of the appearances of being a saint.

Baptism of Desire:  It is the teaching of the Church, not much more can be said.  St. Alphonsus, using the Council of Trent as his source states: " Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it". "  http://www.sedevacantist.com/baptism.html

"Natural Family Planning"?.   I do not like the term, "natural family palming."  The term gives the false impression that Catholics are permitted to plan their families having children or avoiding having them at will.  

Pope Pius XII, taught that Catholics due to specific grave reasons may use the rhythm method.  This teaching, while only given in a private speech, was then published in the Acta, which makes the teaching a universal teaching of the pope on a matter of morals.

If a Catholic fails to assent to this teaching, it is the objective matter of a serious (mortal) sin.  With that said, let me say it is adherence to the Pope's teaching that is required, not adherence to abuses of the teaching.  

Quote
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circuмstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
. Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, October 29, 1951. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm

Separation of Church and State:
. This made up idea is a modern novelty.  Christ is King over all nations whether they realize it or not.  

St. Thomas Aquinas? Pope Pius XII taught:  
Quote
if we are to avoid the errors which are the source and fountain-head of all the miseries of our time, the teaching of Aquinas must be adhered to more religiously than ever...Thomas refutes the theories propounded by Modernists in every sphere...
. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11STUDI.HTM

America? . America has until modern times been an imperfect but relatively stable home for Catholics.  Catholics have been able to their Faith in relative peace in America, and countless conversions from Protestantism happened in America prior to Vatican II.  

Due to Protestant persecution of Catholics beginning in the mid-1800s, American Catholic identity was very strong.  Catholics in America were very involved with their parishes, and many groups were formed among the laity.

The American system is flawed, as the ideal Catholic state must be one that recognizes the Catholic Church as the one true religion, and upholds the rights of the Church.

But, the Church has always existed in Catholic lands and places that are hostile.  America, while not a Catholic state, has at least allowed the Church to freely operate, to own Churches, operate schools, to publish, and even to work to bring in converts.  

Limbo. I adhere to what is explained here:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Jєωs. Like all outside the Church, they need our prayers for their conversion.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 05, 2013, 08:09:10 PM
the quote above regarding St. Thomas should have read Pope Pius XI, not Pius XII.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ambrose on July 05, 2013, 08:49:25 PM
For those who may be reading my posts, sorry for the numerous typos.  I no longer have my computer and I am getting used to an ipad, and it is constantly auto spell checking me, leading to confusion.   I will proof my posts more closely.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Archangel on July 05, 2013, 09:25:50 PM
Thank you for the advice.  I know some people in the Detroit area affiliated with the CMRI, so I will contact them.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Lover of Truth on February 05, 2014, 11:20:08 AM
My only thought in regards to accepting the SV reality and how this will effect "parish life" friends, family etc. is that none of that should enter the thought process if such will prevent you from accepting the truth for reasons of convenience.  Seek and find the truth and then live accordingly.  The truth will set you free.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on May 11, 2015, 12:56:08 PM
BUMPing the thread.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ladislaus on May 11, 2015, 12:59:19 PM
Quote from: Matthew
BUMPing the thread.


What inspired you to do this now?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matthew on May 11, 2015, 01:02:22 PM
It came up in another thread.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: TKGS on May 11, 2015, 03:02:12 PM
Quote from: Matthew
You have to choose (quickly or with much thought, it doesn't matter) the answer to about 3 dozen questions.


While you, Matthew, complain that the sedevacantist has to answer about 3 dozen questions, you have to answer multiple questions just about every day you read what your (Conciliar) bishop and pope have said and done.  

If Bergoglio's climate change docuмent declares climate change "deniers" excommunicated as is rumored to be the case, will you refuse communion with any person who denies that man is causing global warming?

When the Conciliar church formally determines that divorce and remarriage and "same-sex unions" aren't so bad after all that they can't be smiled upon and their practitioners given Communion, will you accept that such teaching?

Yes, the sedevacantist needs to answer in his mind a few questions though not most of the questions you pose at the beginning of this topic.  The anti-sedevacantist has to deny what he sees and live a lie.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: PerEvangelicaDicta on May 11, 2015, 03:13:10 PM
TKGS wrote:
Quote
If Bergoglio's climate change docuмent declares climate change "deniers" excommunicated as is rumored to be the case,


Wait, what?  I'd like to read more about this. Can you point to a source of these rumors?  Thanks.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Matto on May 11, 2015, 03:19:32 PM
Quote from: TKGS

If Bergoglio's climate change docuмent declares climate change "deniers" excommunicated as is rumored to be the case, will you refuse communion with any person who denies that man is causing global warming?

Are there any rules for excommunication or can the Pope excommunicate anyone for any reason? It seems strange to have people excommunicated for actions that have nothing to do with the faith.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: songbird on May 11, 2015, 04:24:51 PM
FIrst I proved  that all dioceses are working for the State and Federal.  Which makes them communist.  Reading of Cardinal Manning and Cardinal Mindszenty shows just how the communist are and schemes and take overs.  Once I saw that and the pope is also in that arena and mentality, I knew that Pope Pius XI and XII stated, anyone who aligns themselves with communism, masonry are excommunicated.  So, it is not sedevacantist, it is not wanting to align myself and family with communist, Marxism.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: TKGS on May 11, 2015, 05:25:06 PM
Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta
TKGS wrote:
Quote
If Bergoglio's climate change docuмent declares climate change "deniers" excommunicated as is rumored to be the case,

Wait, what?  I'd like to read more about this. Can you point to a source of these rumors?  Thanks.


I went through my history where I read this and the page has been removed.  The source has retracted the report.  I searched using Google and found a similar report on a "Catholic humor blog" so, evidently, the humor blog was the source for the other news blog and when they discovered the source was a parody site, the report was removed.

So, I retract my comment as well.  But I will note that the article seemed legitimate (Bergoglio wasn't going use the term, excommunication, directly; he was going to say that man-made climate change is an established fact and those who deny it are not Catholics, or words to that effect).  In the end, the report was a work of fiction.

Therein lies the problem.  There is virtually nothing that one cannot, with absolute certainty, be rejected out of hand when it comes to the Modernist Vatican.  After all, I thought that the first report that there was going to be a climate change encyclical was parody until it was confirmed by Vatican Radio.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Amakusa on May 19, 2015, 12:53:03 AM
* Does the Catholic Church have a pope right now?
-> Yes, it is Pope Paul VI, the last Pope acknowledged by the whole Church, and who has exiled from the Vatican in July 12th, 1981.

* For how long has the commonly-held pope (in Rome) not been the real pope?
-> For 37 years.

* If we have a Pope, who is he (name and place of residence)?
-> Pope Paul VI, living in Portugal: "In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved"

* Is the Catholic Church currently visible or invisible?
-> Visible through the traditionalist bishops who have a jurisdiction from Pope Paul VI.

* Is there any priest/bishop/pope you would currently trust now, or follow in matters of faith without judging his every move?
-> Those who consider themselves in communion with the true Holy Father.

* How do you reconcile Church indefectibility with the fact (as you hold it) that the current, putative Pope isn't actually a Pope? And the fact that the entire Church structure believes that he is the Pope?
-> The entire Church structure does not really believe that he is the Pope, because traditionalists do not act as though he were the Pope.

* Do you believe that Sedevacantism is a dogma of the Faith? When was it added to the Deposit of the Faith? What authority added it?
-> No, it is not, because several statements of sedevacantists are wrong. They deny pacific acceptance, the hierarchy of the Church, the Apostolic succession, the fact that bishops cannot teach heresy altogether...

* Do you believe it's possible to have a less-than-saintly pope on Peter's throne? How about a man who has committed, or who commits, sin? How about a Pope who commits grave sin(s)? How about a man who personally holds some errors? Are you familiar with many Popes throughout Church history? How about Popes that lived before the 18th century?
-> It is possible that a Pope be a great sinner, or even in some circuмstances that he teach errors when his teaching is not infallible - but he won't do that wilfully.

* How do you reconcile the notion that, in your estimation, the Catholic Church hasn't provided us laymen with any means of dealing with this unprecedented Crisis? Because as you see it, there is no Epikeia, no ability to disobey a lawful pope, no supplied jurisdiction, etc.
-> Because there is no need.

* What do you think of SSPX masses?
-> The SSPX priests should not name the antipope at Mass, because he has not been ackwnoledged by the whole Church, and he who has to be named is the last Pope who has been acknowledged by the whole Church, Pope Paul VI. There has not been valid elections after him, because he is still in life, and there is no need of any election, no vital necessity: the Church teaches as a dogmatic fact that Pope Paul VI is still in life.
-> However, people must not stay at home, because sedevacantist masses are not better, since the doctrine of priests has also an infuence of the Mass; now, the doctrine of sedevacantist priests is bad.

* What do you think of Archbishop Lefebvre?
-> He should have believed firmly and openly to Paul VI's survival, since it is he who has allowed the Swiss exorcisms.

* How many true priests/bishops/cardinals exist? A handful? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
-> Idk.

* What kind of priest is needed to say the Mass you would attend? One from CMRI? SSPV? Indpendent? One ordained before 1962? Are there no priests left?
-> The priest of my area who celebrates Mass una cuм Paul VI.

* Do you realize that some independent priests are simply weak in the virtue of obedience? That is, while professing to be "fighting for the truth" and all, they merely couldn't follow orders in the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, etc. and left so they could "be their own boss".
-> Sure.

* Should you attend some Traditional Latin Mass, or just stay at home?
-> Staying at home when you can attend mass is a sin.

* Can the crisis/lack of pope situation be resolved ever? How will you know a new legitimate Pope has been elected? Will Our Lord, Our Lady, St. Michael, Sts. Peter and Paul, etc. do something personally to appoint a Pope and/or cardinals? Are we waiting for something in the very short-term future such as  the Three Days of Darkness or The End of Time?
-> It is impossible that a Pope be appointed by a saint without any election, because the Church is Apostolic. It is also impossible that there be no true Pope currently, because there is not effort to provide an election; now, when the Church needs a Pope, the process of election begins, as a vital necessity: the Church is like a pregnant woman.

* Is there anything a person (priest, religious, or layman) can do to help end or ameliorate this Crisis? If so, what?
-> Pope Paul VI, who will soon reappear in Rome, denounce modernism, and reveal the names of his cardinals in pectore, so that the Apostolic succession remain.

* Are you aware of the actions of past popes throughout Church history? The Great Schism? The fact that St. Vincent Ferrer was on "the wrong side" in that crisis?
-> All the saints who were in error did not receive revelations in favor of the false pope, but were in ignorance or simply based their judgment on natural reason, which is feeble - but all the saints who received private revelations were in favor of the Roman Pope. In the same way, today, there is not a single sedevacantist of lefebvrist who has received a revelation telling him that his position was right - whereas several persons have heard the Lord tell them that Pope Paul VI was still alive.

* What do you think of the various priests/bishops who seem to be fearless in their defense of the Faith, though they are not sedevacantist? For example: Bishop Williamson, and many SSPX priests (though there are countless others!)
-> They do not accept the truth.

* Should we actually hate the pope? The modernist (or all) cardinals? Bishops? Catholics who are not sedevacantist?
-> We must love the sinner and pray for his conversion.

* What do you think of Fatima?
-> People do not understand Fatima, because they have despised the prophecy of Jacinta regarding the year 1972, which is the date of Paul VI's replacement with a double. One must add the prophecy regarding Portugal, which refers to the exile of the Pope.

* Do you acknowledge that normally the Catholic Church has a Pope, the spiritual leader of all Catholics? Do you believe that all Catholics must normally submit to this pope, or be in schism?
-> Sure.

* With the foregoing statement in mind, do you realize that Sedevacantism is a positive (in the sense that you're doing something) action, not a neutral one or a lack of action? That is, an SSPX-supporting Traditionalist isn't "making a choice" in the same way you're "making a choice".
-> Sure. Hence so many sedevacantists are proud: their doctrine has a negative influence on their soul.

* Especially if you deny the validity of 1962 masses, you have to ask yourself "Why would God abandon His people and His Church for 51 years, with no means of salvation available to the vast majority of people?"
-> The new mass is valid but does not provide as many blessings as the true Mass.

* Do you have a family? Do you honestly believe that staying at home (or attending a small chapel of 10 people) will be more beneficial to your children than attending, say, an SSPX chapel?
-> Staying at home is sinful.

After all, it's not like the Novus Ordo is said in the latter, and aside from mentioning the Pope's name during the canon (quietly), nothing else goes on that a Sede could complain about. Do you honestly think mentioning the Pope's name during Mass will destroy your child's faith?
-> It will be forbidden to keep naming Francis when it will be have been declared by the Church, that is to say by the true Pope, that Francis is an antipope. But now it is legal. Sedevacantist masses are not better because the doctrine of their priests contradicts Catholic doctrine, and it has a negative influence on the Mass.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: clare on May 19, 2015, 01:39:18 AM
Quote from: Amakusa
* Does the Catholic Church have a pope right now?
-> Yes, it is Pope Paul VI, the last Pope acknowledged by the whole Church, and who has exiled from the Vatican in July 12th, 1981.

* For how long has the commonly-held pope (in Rome) not been the real pope?
-> For 37 years.

* If we have a Pope, who is he (name and place of residence)?
-> Pope Paul VI, living in Portugal: "In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved"
....

He'd be 117 now.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Amakusa on May 19, 2015, 07:47:06 AM
Yes but that's not a problem. Firstly it is the Church herself who teaches that he is still alive, secondly I know a priest who has seen him in 2007 in Fatima, when he was already 110 years old...

Recently, a Japanese woman has died at 117 years old. In my area, there is a religious sister who is 107 years old (she used to assist a famous exorcist, Father Matthieu).
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: BTNYC on May 19, 2015, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: clare
Quote from: Amakusa
* Does the Catholic Church have a pope right now?
-> Yes, it is Pope Paul VI, the last Pope acknowledged by the whole Church, and who has exiled from the Vatican in July 12th, 1981.

* For how long has the commonly-held pope (in Rome) not been the real pope?
-> For 37 years.

* If we have a Pope, who is he (name and place of residence)?
-> Pope Paul VI, living in Portugal: "In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved"
....

He'd be 117 now.


That fact notwithstanding, this person "Amakusa" actually believes he's still alive and will return to Rome at some point in the (one imagines) not too distant future to rectify things in the Church. One wonders why he tarries.

Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI. Presumably, these Freemasons "surrounded" Montini even back in his days as Cardinal and Archbishop of Milan, forcing him to speak and write with the liberal and modernist attitudes he exhibited in matters of ecuмenism and liturgy even then. These Freemasons even proved to be expert ventriloquists, it would seem, as they directed Paul VI (via remote control, one presumes) into the general assembly hall of United Nations in 1965 and forced him to blasphemously refer to that godless proto-NWO as mankind's "last hope for concord and peace."

Indeed, one must wonder, if those "surrounding" Freemasons already had such total, almost perfect control (Humanae Vitae being the sole lapse, presumably) over the "real" Paul VI, what need was there for the imposter?

One wonders many such things when one reads Amakusa's posts, and Amakusa himself does little to assuage the bewildered reader, for he feels no obligation whatsoever to offer a substantive explanation for these (let's be charitable) glaring problems and inconsistencies with his theory. He has, however, made a little chart (bless him) which shows exactly when the "Baysaide Apparitions" became "false" (hint: it was somewhere around 1978). Apart from that, he has contented himself with pious-sounding warnings about "obeying the pope" which don't address any of the complexities of the post-conciliar crisis or of his own outrageously absurd theory.

I, unfortunately, am not content with such a cavalier abandonment of rationality, but I do find his posts to be a good source of amusement. I suggest taking his posts in the same spirit.  
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: BTNYC on May 19, 2015, 08:23:57 AM
Quote from: Amakusa
*
-> People do not understand Fatima, because they have despised the prophecy of Jacinta regarding the year 1972, which is the date of Paul VI's replacement...


So it was 1972... sorry I couldn't be bothered to brave that neck-deep morass of malarchy the first time round.

Amakusa - Presumably you're familiar with Fr. James Wathen's great book The Great Sacrilege? That was written in 1971 - so all of the many and very grave accusations Fr Wathen brought to bear against Paul VI were against the genuine one, and not the "double." How do you address these?

Just thought I'd ask (for fun, if nothing else).
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Heresy Crusher on May 19, 2015, 08:34:57 AM
Amakusa, are you one of those Palmarian "catholic" heretics and schismatics?

Paul VI was a grand enemy of the Catholic Church. He was the chosen one to execute the plans of Satan's attack on the Church.  John XXIII set the foundation upon which Paul VI further built.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: PerEvangelicaDicta on May 19, 2015, 09:18:47 AM
BTNYC said:
Quote
but I do find his posts to be a good source of amusement. I suggest taking his posts in the same spirit.  


and he reads much easier than Glaston.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: BTNYC on May 19, 2015, 09:21:07 AM
Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta
BTNYC said:
Quote
but I do find his posts to be a good source of amusement. I suggest taking his posts in the same spirit.  


and he reads much easier than Glaston.


True, though that might be damning with faint praise, since Glaston's posts were only marginally easier to read than the Zodiac killer's ciphers.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Graham on May 19, 2015, 11:23:19 AM
Quote from: BTNYC
Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.


But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: BTNYC on May 19, 2015, 01:01:06 PM
Quote from: Graham
Quote from: BTNYC
Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.


But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.


Correct. I judge the situation based on what is objectively known. I don't hold to an erroneous conception of papal infallibility which reduces the pope to a divinely animated automaton devoid of free will, so I have no need for absurdly fantastical speculations and conjectures designed to rescue adherents of that error from the conundrum that objective reality puts them in.

I'm not sure that needed "clarification," but thanks for casting light on it all the same.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Graham on May 19, 2015, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: Graham
Quote from: BTNYC
Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.


But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.


Correct. I judge the situation based on what is objectively known. I don't hold to an erroneous conception of papal infallibility which reduces the pope to a divinely animated automaton devoid of free will, so I have no need for absurdly fantastical speculations and conjectures designed to rescue adherents of that error from the conundrum that objective reality puts them in.

I'm not sure that needed "clarification," but thanks for casting light on it all the same.


That specific criticism of yours sounded like it was coming from a sedevacantist point of view, since, bluster aside, that is also a weak point of R&R.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: BTNYC on May 19, 2015, 01:46:48 PM
Quote from: Graham
Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: Graham
Quote from: BTNYC
Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.


But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.


Correct. I judge the situation based on what is objectively known. I don't hold to an erroneous conception of papal infallibility which reduces the pope to a divinely animated automaton devoid of free will, so I have no need for absurdly fantastical speculations and conjectures designed to rescue adherents of that error from the conundrum that objective reality puts them in.

I'm not sure that needed "clarification," but thanks for casting light on it all the same.


That specific criticism of yours sounded like it was coming from a sedevacantist point of view, since, bluster aside, that is also a weak point of R&R.


Only for those who hold to a similarly free-will-destroying conception of papal infallibility.

"Bluster aside?" Never. What do you think the "B" in my moniker stands for?
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Disputaciones on May 20, 2015, 01:21:41 AM
Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: Graham
Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: Graham
Quote from: BTNYC
Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.


But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.


Correct. I judge the situation based on what is objectively known. I don't hold to an erroneous conception of papal infallibility which reduces the pope to a divinely animated automaton devoid of free will, so I have no need for absurdly fantastical speculations and conjectures designed to rescue adherents of that error from the conundrum that objective reality puts them in.

I'm not sure that needed "clarification," but thanks for casting light on it all the same.


That specific criticism of yours sounded like it was coming from a sedevacantist point of view, since, bluster aside, that is also a weak point of R&R.


Only for those who hold to a similarly free-will-destroying conception of papal infallibility.

"Bluster aside?" Never. What do you think the "B" in my moniker stands for?


What does your username mean? Ive always wondered.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Amakusa on May 21, 2015, 05:06:05 AM
Amakusa was a Catholic Japanese warrior.

Vatican II is not infallible, since it would be impossible that all bishops fall in collective heresy, as taught by the Church doctrine. Therefore, if you claim that Paul VI is an antipope because of Vatican II, you deny a doctrine of faith.

Concerning the new mass, there are several testimonies and private revelations which have shown that the Novus Ordo has been falsified, and that the true version was almost the same as the tridentine rite.

What I say is not a theory but a dogmatic fact, as explained previously.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ladislaus on May 21, 2015, 07:52:33 AM
Quote from: Amakusa
Vatican II is not infallible, since it would be impossible that all bishops fall in collective heresy, as taught by the Church doctrine.


That's an absolute logical nonsequitur.  Even if one were to grant that V2 is not infallible, that does not mean the bishops did not themselves EMBRACE heretical doctrine ... whether they taught it infallibly or not.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Amakusa on May 21, 2015, 10:52:31 AM
It is impossible that bishops teach heresy with a moral unanimity. The authentic magisterium is infallible when a doctrine is determined irrevocably, being defined properly speaking. Now, if the doctrine is defined, one can no longer say that it is merely an error, because it is taught as de fide. If an error is taught as de fide, it becomes a heresy, not a mere error.

It is impossible to say that Vatican II was infallible, for this very reason. The SSPX is right on that point. But the sedevacantists are right when they answer that one has to obey the Pope, whereas the SSPX does not obey Francis. If the SSPX does not obey Francis, it means it does not ackwnoledge him.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ladislaus on May 21, 2015, 11:46:53 AM
Amakusa, your logic is hopelessly bungled; there's no point even trying to disentangle the mess.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Amakusa on May 21, 2015, 12:10:00 PM
It is simple...

There is a distinction between error and heresy. An error is a false statement regarding a truth which does not belong to Revelation. A heresy is a false statement regarding a truth which belongs to Revelation.

General councils are protected against collective heresy, but they are not protected against error. Now, when an error is taught as being de fide, it is no longer a mere error, but a heresy, because it is as though the statement corrupted the Revelation itself. Hence it is impossible to say that freedom of religion has been properly defined in Vatican II, when one considers that it is an error.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ladislaus on May 21, 2015, 12:21:11 PM
Quote from: Amakusa
It is simple...

There is a distinction between error and heresy.


You've got this all wrong.  Just because the bishops did not DEFINE any heresy infallibly does not mean that in the docuмents of Vatican II they did not fallibly teach something that's heretical (based on previous definition).  Just because they did not define NEW heresy doesn't mean they didn't "embrace" OLD heresy.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Amakusa on May 21, 2015, 01:23:04 PM
No, it is impossible because bishops in a general council are protected against collective heresy.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ladislaus on May 21, 2015, 01:26:07 PM
Quote from: Amakusa
No, it is impossible because bishops in a general council are protected against collective heresy.


I actually agree with this.  Except that it has nothing to do with infallibility per se.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Amakusa on May 21, 2015, 01:44:55 PM
I don't know if you have understood what I have said.

When a doctrine is taught as something "de fide", it is a heresy, not a mere error. Therefore, if one says that Vatican II has defined freedom of religion, one says that bishops have taught collective heresy...

Even Gallicans admitted that bishops could not teach altogether an error as something "de fide", namely a heresy.
Title: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist
Post by: Ladislaus on May 21, 2015, 01:49:58 PM
Quote from: Amakusa
When a doctrine is taught as something "de fide", it is a heresy, not a mere error.


I know what you are saying, but your logic is completely backwards.  I'll get back to this some other time.