Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on April 09, 2011, 11:52:20 PM
-
http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm
5.3. Misunderstanding of the true nature of the Church: At this point, I would like to give a diagnosis of the Sedevacantist attitude. "Sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. One may well wonder if in many of them this is not due to some psychological trauma. Their understandable ancestral veneration for the pope seems to unleash a veritable panic at the idea of contrasting their cherished, idealized image of the papacy with such popes as Paul VI and John Paul II. Sedevacantism appears to be more of a psychological than a theological problem… We now see only too well what effects those theological outpourings produce in passionate Catholics. They now have become their own pope. They judge their own priests. No longer do many of them have recourse to the sacrament of Confession. No longer do they hearken to the Church's infallible teachings. They generally bring moral ruin on their own families."26 Such cherished, idealized image of papacy is leading them to act in practice as if the Church was only a divine institution. On the contrary, the Church, as founded by Jesus-Christ, is both divine and human. It is divine in its origin, its founder and its invisible head… but it is human in its members, in particular in the visible head, the pope. As being divine, the Church is the unspotted and unblemished spouse of Christ… but, as human, the Church is composed of men who, like you and I are sinners. Then, we should not be surprised if the present pope can betray his master, as did St. Peter. Along with Sedevacantism, we see a revival of some of the old errors of John Wycliffe and John Hus, who pretended that sinners are no more members of the Church. Let me quote some of the propositions condemned by the Council of Constance (1414-1418): "if the pope is foreknown and evil, and consequently a member of the devil, he does not have the power over the faithful given to him by anyone, unless perchance by Caesar."27 and: "If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is from the devil… and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it."28
5.4. Subjectivism: No matter how they try to justify their position, we have to admit that the Sedevacantist thesis is not based on objective facts, but rather on subjectivism. The objective criterion required by Catholic theology for recognizing who is a true pope is the recognition of the one elected by the Cardinals, Bishops and by the Whole Church. In the Sedevacantist mind, such criterion cannot any longer be objective, but will necessarily make appeal to a fundamentally subjective source, even if an effort is made to make it appear as objective. Because the Sedevacantist attitude is not based on safe and objective principles of Catholic theology, we should not be surprised to witness some astounding reversals and turnabouts. Let me give one example among others: back in the 1980's, Father Olivier de Blignières, then an outspoken supporter of the Sedevacantist thesis of Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, had founded in France a religious community. Then, in the wake of the 1988 Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta of Pope John-Paul II, the same Father de Blignières flipped over and put himself under the Ecclesia Dei commission. His community, called the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer, was immediately recognized by the Roman authorities, and granted the status of Pontifical Right. In the doctrinal field, back in the 1980's, Fr. de Blignières thought that Religious Liberty was heretical. Now, he is writing books to justify Vatican II' Religious Liberty.
6. Judgement on Sedevacantism: Could we say that the Sedevacantist thesis is simply a wrong thesis, but that we should tolerate it in a spirit of charity? No, I think that Sedevacantism is very dangerous. It leads to an attitude which is not Catholic, but schismatic.
6.1. Schism: "It is consequently true that there can be some theological discussion as to whether Sedevacantists are formally schismatic or not. The answer to this depends on the degree of Sedevacantism. There are radical Sedevacantists that call us heretics since we are in communion with a heretic (Wojtyla), so they say. These are certainly schismatic, for they clearly reject communion with true Catholics, who are in no way modernist. By making their Sedevacantism a quasi-article of faith they certainly fall into the second category of persons that canon 1325, §2 declares to be schismatic: "He is a schismatic who rejects communion with members of the Church subject to him (i.e., the Sovereign Pontiff)." It is consequently by their refusal to be a part of the Church, and effectively making the "church" as they see it consist only in Sedevacantists that they are certainly schismatic."29 This is exactly the case of the CMRI (Mount St. Michael, Spokane), which states: "Are traditional Catholics subject to the local hierarchy and ultimately to Rome?... He (the Sedevacantist) recognizes that he is actually not subject and obedient to John Paul II." (30) Some other Sedevacantists claim that, on account of the failure of the hierarchy of Vatican II, they can now elect their own pope. Such theory is called Conclavism. This is the most radical brand, but somehow the most logical consequence of Sedevacantism. There are now about 20 'popes' in the world, for example 'Gregory XVII' from Palmar de Troya, Spain; another 'Gregory XVII' from St. Jovite, Québec; 'Pius XIII', in the USA… Certainly, Conclavism is schismatic. Does it mean that every Sedevacantist is a formal schismatic? No, I would not go that far. Among the people who follow the Sedevacantists theories, there are a number of confused Catholics who are being attracted by these 'simple' and 'clear' answers to the problems of the situation of the Church coming from the masters of Sedevacantism. It is mostly to these confused Catholics that this study is addressed: beware of the mirages of Sedevacantism. It will lead you astray from the Church and the Sacraments!
6.2. Spiritual illness of Sedevacantism:
1. Intellectual desolation: How could we understand the state of a Sedevacantist mind? I think it is characterised by a fixed idea, which is almost an obsession. Their mind seems to freeze on the problem of the pope, which appears to them as being very serious and urgent. This is a typical case of Intellectual Desolation, by which their soul is being disturbed as long as a 'clear answer' has not been found for such a serious problem. Sedevacantists claim that it is urgently needed to make a judgment on the Vatican II popes. For them, it appears to be THE fundamental problem all Traditional Catholics should focus on. For example, let me quote Bishop Pivarunas: "As unpleasant as this subject may be, traditional Catholics are confronted by the terrible and burning questions: Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church? Is John-Paul II, as the head of the Conciliar Church, a true pope?…Suffice it to say, the issue of the pope is a difficult one, and unpleasant one, and a frightful one; yet it is a necessary and important issue which cannot be avoided."31 Let me summarize how Sedevacantists approach the question of the pope: #1 it is a question they have at heart; #2 they want to get a final answer with absolute certainty; #3 such problem is so urgent that it becomes the focus of their attention, up to the point that they cannot see anything else. Thus, they direct their arguments not much against the Modern Church, for which they care less, but against those fellow Traditional Catholics who do not share their conclusions. St. Francis de Sales suffered similar Intellectual Desolation. It was on the matter of predestination. His intellect froze on that question, and his heart was filled with the anguish that he may be damned no matter what. The more he was studying, the more he was finding serious objections against predestination. This was driving him nuts. How did St. Francis manage to free himself from that intellectual prison? One day, he fell on his knees before a statue of Our Lady and said: "O Holy Virgin, I think that I am going to be damned. If I have to curse God for all eternity, let me at least offer you this day in honor of God." When St. Francis de Sales got up, he was healed, being able to relocate his 'problem' at the second place, which is after the humble fulfillment of his daily duty. Let me apply that example to the sedevacantist bug: "Who knows if John-Paul II is pope? Who knows if the Society of St. Pius X is schismatic, as they recognize the pope, and don't obey to him?" In a Sedevacantist mind, such questions are producing deep emotional reactions, which lead to anger and panic: the Sedevacantist is looking for a final answer right now. This kind of Intellectual Desolation is very dangerous. It is threatening pious souls, who are being convinced that they would betray their consciences if they were to ignore these fundamental issues. Such problem affects persons tempted to intellectual pride, and having a tendency to look for the most extreme and desperate solutions, like Brother Michael Diamond, from Most Holy Family Monastery.
2. Remedy: In the book of the Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius of Loyola gives some rules for Discerning the Spirits. Here are the ones that should be used to deal with the Intellectual Desolation of Sedevacantists: do not make any change to your previous resolutions (5th rule); counter attack the temptation, by prayer and penance (6th rule); make an act of will by which you will refuse to be locked in a controversy that you are not qualified to settle (12th rule). You need to practice intellectual self-discipline and mortification of the will, in other words humility. In our daily life, there are many problems which we are unable to settle, because we do not have the tools. Let us humbly recognize it. Moreover, I think it is important to de-passionate and de-dramatize the problem of the pope: when you will appear before him, do you think that St. Peter will ask you for your opinion on one of his successors? Let me be clear: I do not want to evacuate the real problem of the Church since Vatican II, but to give some simple rules of intellectual self-discipline in order to de-dramatize the Sedevacantist issue, which appears very clearly to be a case of Intellectual Desolation. Always remember that the devil is a liar. He is using the Sedevacantist bug to draw some pious souls away from the means of sanctification, the Mass and the Sacraments. Beware!
-
6.2.1 is exactly what Caminus was saying.
-
This kind of psychological mind games always weird me out. It is funny and weird at the same time how they try to diagnose us with some kind of mental disease.
The thing is, the papacy is a very important aspect of our faith, despite the writer's denial of this importance. The Pope is the rock which keeps the Church together. The error of the gallicans is being renewed once again.
And of course, the article bears the classical lack of distinction between a merely evil Pope and a heretical 'pope', as usual.
-
Maybe I should write a treatise about the spiritual illness of SSPX-ism, etc...
Do you think any SSPX-ers would take it seriously? Well...
From some page in A Manual of Tactics: "When theological arguments are unassailable, claim that the issue is more psychological than theological."
-
Stevus- Great post- thank you.
Oh- btw- don't forget I'm one of those people whom the SSPX paid to post on forums their agenda :roll-laugh1: yep- even though I don't attend SSPX while they are closer to me than my spiritual director is!
-
6.2.1 is exactly what Caminus was saying.
6.2.1 is exactly describing you the past few days.
-
6.2.1 is exactly what Caminus was saying.
6.2.1 is exactly describing you the past few days.
Am I a sede?
Believe me, I'm not obsessed over whether BXVI is Pope. I think that is obvious.
I am fascinated, however, by those who could actually truly believe God has allowed a universal deception for 50 years and left His Church headless, defectible, and invisible.
Yes, I know the typical sede responses to these claims, but they are not reasonable nor beilevable. I'm truly fascinated that this position could be held by otherwise rational adults. I'm also beginning to see that sede-ism is typically coupled with belief in other conspiracy theories such as h0Ɩ0cαųst denial, denial of moon landings, denial Obama is president, the world being controlled by Jєωιѕн bankers, etc. It seems there is an underlying cynical, delusional and paranoid worldview that must fuel such perceptions which are so at odds with reality. Sorry if these words are offensive, but I see no other way to describe this outlook, even if those who hold it are sincere and otherwise sane. I think this article raises some good explanations.
-
Stevus- Great post- thank you.
Oh- btw- don't forget I'm one of those people whom the SSPX paid to post on forums their agenda :roll-laugh1: yep- even though I don't attend SSPX while they are closer to me than my spiritual director is!
s2srea,
This conclusion comes from a skeptical, paranoid, cynical wordlview that I believe Sede-ism produces or else attracts. Think about it. If God could allow an almost universal deception about the Church He founded in perpetuity and promised He would be with us until the end of the age, what else is up for grabs??
If a Divine Institution can apparently disappear and then its evil replacement cause mass deception, how much more must human institutions be able to perpetrate mass fraud? This mindset seems to create mistrust and paranoia. One sede poster on here thought I was a secret agent sent from the Vatican to post on this board to deceive people! :laugh1:
-
6.2.1 is exactly what Caminus was saying.
6.2.1 is exactly describing you the past few days.
Yes, I know the typical sede responses to these claims, but they are not reasonable nor beilevable. I'm truly fascinated that this position could be held by otherwise rational adults. I'm also beginning to see that sede-ism is typically coupled with belief in other conspiracy theories such as h0Ɩ0cαųst denial, denial of moon landings, denial Obama is president, the world being controlled by Jєωιѕн bankers, etc. It seems there is an underlying cynical, delusional and paranoid worldview that must fuel such perceptions which are so at odds with reality. Sorry if these words are offensive, but I see no other way to describe this outlook, even if those who hold it are sincere and otherwise sane. I think this article raises some good explanations.
A good post up until this paragraph. First of all, no one here actually denies the h0Ɩ0cαųst. However, chances are it likely wasn't as deadly as it made out to be. Bishop Williamson said the same thing, as did Matthew. I don't deny moon landings, but what I DO deny is Obama having been validy elected. If he doesn't have anything to hide, then why doesn't he show us his birth certificate? Come on, stevus, if this man has the nerve to try to pass a health care bill that a majority of people in America didn't want, don't you think he'd be willing to lie about where he was born? It isn't just the sedes who think Obama was in-validly elected. Heck, you have a Protestant minister (who is also a black!) saying that Obama is a criminal because he wasn't born in America.
Really, Obama mainly got elected because about 99% of blacks voted for him ONLY because he's black. Talk about coming off as racist. Even Christian blacks (or so-called Christians, anyway) who knew he was for abortion and gαy marriage voted for him not caring about his views. You put someone who the shadow govnerment knows is popular in there, and chances are he will get elected. Why do you think Obama wants to allow illegal immigrants into this country? It's all about votes. Because he knows that even with alot of blacks voting for him he wouldn't get re-elected unless he reached out to another majority.
-
I. VATICAN COUNCIL II: Convoked by John XXIII for the purpose of “updating” the Church, this council (held from 1962-65) decreed and implemented teachings which had been previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. The Second Vatican Council’s heretical teachings were primarily in the areas of religious liberty and false ecuмenism. These were previously condemned by:
Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832)
Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864)
Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1865) and Libertas Humana (1888)
Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) and Mortalium Animos (1928)
Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (1943)
THEREFORE, the Second Vatican Council is to be rejected as a false council because it has erred in its teachings on faith and morals.
II. NOVUS ORDO MISSAE: Following the Second Vatican Council, various commissions were established to modernize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the traditional rites of the Sacraments. The particular commission established to modernize the Mass included well-known Protestant theologians. To use the words of a well-known Cardinal, Alfredo Ottaviani, in 1969: “(The Novus Ordo Missae) represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” The results of this modernization were a new definition of the Mass (reflecting Luther’s concept of the Last Supper), the alteration of the Offertory prayers to delete the concept of propitiatory Sacrifice, and the substantial alteration of the very words of Consecration (this alteration occurs in the vernacular translations). This new mass, known as the Novus Ordo Missae, contradicts previous infallible teachings and decrees of the Catholic Church, such as:
Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum and De Defectibus,
the Council of Trent’s decree on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Session XXII),
Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae (1896),
Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei (1947),
Pope Pius XII’s Sacramentum Ordinis (1948).
THEREFORE, the Novus Ordo Missae, when offered with the altered words of Consecration, is an invalid Mass and in all other cases it is of doubtful validity. It always is a clear danger to one’s faith. For all these reasons, active participation in it would be a grave sin.
III. NEW RITES OF THE SACRAMENTS: That which has been said of the Novus Ordo Missae can, in the same respect, be said of the new Vatican II rites for the seven sacraments. To the degree that the matter, form and intention of each of the sacraments has been substantially altered, to that degree their validity must be questioned. The Catholic Church has, most certainly, always taught what the proper matter, form and intention are in the confecting of the sacraments.
THEREFORE, where the new rites have been employed, traditional priests should administer the Sacraments sub conditione as the situation may demand.
IV. MODERN VATICAN II CHURCH: The Catholic Church is identified as the true Church of Christ by her four marks (Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity). Since the heretical teachings of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, and the new rites of the sacraments have manifestly been a departure from the Catholic Church’s traditional teachings, it must be concluded that this modern so-called “Catholic” Church no longer possesses the first two marks of the true Church — namely, Unity and Holiness. Its obvious departure over the past twenty-five years from what the Catholic Church has always held can lead to only one conclusion: a new ecuмenical Church has been established which stands in contradiction to the true Catholic Church.
V. MODERN HIERARCHY OF THE VATICAN II CHURCH: In the light of the above, it must be concluded that the modern hierarchy who have approved and implemented the errors of Vatican II no longer represent the Catholic Church and her lawful authority. This most certainly includes the one who confirmed, approved, decreed, and implemented these heretical teachings, namely Paul VI (Montini). Likewise included are his successors, namely, John Paul II (Wojtyla) and Benedict XVI (Ratzinger), who have continued to implement these heretical teachings. Despite the lack of canonical warning and formal declaration of loss of office, their repeated acts of ecuмenism and their enforcement of the heresies of Vatican II and the new code of Canon Law, which are injurious to faith and morals, are manifestations of their pertinacity in heresy.
THEREFORE, as the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches: “‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these words are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted...the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord.” Further, since John Paul II has manifestly taught heresy, promoted ecuмenism and fostered interfaith worship, he clearly cannot be recognized as a successor of St. Peter in the primacy.
VI. THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW: In order to implement the teachings of Vatican II, it was necessary that the modernists change the Code of Canon Law (1917), as it contradicted their designs by reflecting the mind of the Church in her past doctrine and discipline. The new code contains a matter which should be most disturbing to the informed Catholic. According to the new law of the Modern Church, non-Catholics can, under certain circuмstances, petition the “sacraments” from a Catholic priest (without the non-Catholic abjuring his heretical beliefs), and the priests must administer them. The Council of Florence, as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 731), strictly forbids this.
THEREFORE, as the universal laws of the Church are protected by her infallibility and cannot impose obligations opposed to faith and morals, the New Code must be considered as lacking all force of law. Moreover, it has been promulgated by those who no longer represent Catholic authority.
VII. COURSE FOR TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC PRIESTS: Due to the unprecedented situation in the Catholic Church and the moral responsibility of the faithful to receive certainly valid sacraments, traditional priests most certainly can and must continue the mission of the Catholic Church by sanctifying the faithful through the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the administration of the Sacraments, and other pastoral works. The mind of the Church is that “the salvation of the people is the supreme law.” The 1917 Code of Canon Law will continue to be the priests’ guideline.
-
I am fascinated, however, by those who could actually truly believe God has allowed a universal deception for 50 years and left His Church headless, defectible, and invisible.
Here we go again...
No one who rejects the V2 anti-Church believes what you are here attributing. SV-ism and SSPX-ism, if you will, are simply TWO attempts to 'save' the ONE principle of indefectibility. Same principle, different angle. If you do not grasp that, you do not understand the basics.
I know the typical sede responses to these claims, but they are not reasonable nor believable.
The typical SV response is not what you have a problem with, stevus. Your main problem in this instance is that you do not know what the hell you are talking about when you try to say what we do or do not believe. When we tell you, you ignore/twist it, blah blah blah...
Sorry if these words are offensive, but I see no other way to describe this outlook, even if those who hold it are sincere and otherwise sane.
FWIW, your list of cօռspιʀαcιҽs is telling -- but not in the way that you think.
Sorry to offend, but it is clear you, like most of us, were brought up within the Matrix and still imbibe way too much kewl aid.
-
StevusMagnus said:
I'm also beginning to see that sede-ism is typically coupled with belief in other conspiracy theories such as h0Ɩ0cαųst denial, denial of moon landings, denial Obama is president, the world being controlled by Jєωιѕн bankers,
Oh, I see. You're one of those guys. There are no cօռspιʀαcιҽs, everything is hunky-dory, 9/11 was done by Muslims with boxcutters, etc. There are no connections anywhere, Vatican II has nothing to do with a Masonic plot or with Judaiziation, it's about a couple well-meaning guys who just have some flaws in their faith-life...
It must also be in my imagination that, for over a thousand years, all governments were Catholic, and now none of them are. Hm, must be an accident! As I said before, though you denied it, to someone who thinks like you, the Anti-Christ is just a "conspiracy theory." You are pooh-poohing the whole idea of a vicious attack of the devil on the Church, simply because this attack goes further than you're comfortable with.
Have you heard of a little something called the "mystery of iniquity," or do you just think that everything runs smoothly and there is no evil in the world? That is what you sound like.
Your position is not very convincing. Well, you could always post another laughing face and hope people think you're really onto something :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
Let me just remind you -- he who laughs last, laughs best. Although frankly the fact that, at this late stage, you're still playing the "Conspiracy people are tinfoil hatters" game doesn't fill me with mirth, but rather pity for you. Not even most pagans have such a simplistic worldview anymore.
-
Oh, I forgot the 9/11 conspiracy. Does sedevacantism lend itself to EVERY conspiracy? Raoul, do you believe any popular conspiracy NOT to be true?
-
GV,
Of course nobody who rejects the "V2 anti-church" believes that this means the Church is defectible and invisible. This fascinates me since it so obviously does.
SV-ism and the Society position are not two attempts to save indefectability. Rigorist sedes throw it out the window, Plenists dance around it with technicalities. The Society position is the only one of the three which preserves it.
If I'm missing something you believe that you think is relevant please educate me. You keep carping I'm not understanding your position and then you never explain what exactly I'm not seeing. Is this just a diversionary tactic? If not, by all means, you have the floor. Explain away and correct my understanding once and for all.
So my "list of cօռspιʀαcιҽs is telling" - but not in the way that I think? Do you normally speak in riddles? I prefer you being direct and simply telling me why this is "telling" instead of alluding to some cryptic revelation.
Yes, I'M in the Matrix drinking the kool-aid while you and the elite few with secret knowledge (Gnosticism anyone?) have had your eyes opened to the fact that the h0Ɩ0cαųst was a hoax, the moon landing was staged, 9/11 was an international fraud, Obama is not president, Jєωιѕн bankers run the world, oh..AND God rigged it so we haven't had a pope for 50 years and let His Church turn into a heretical whorehouse of iniquity. Got it.
By the way, have you ever thought the Bishops and Priests of the Sede movement just might have a little self-interest in perpetuating the idea that we have no pope?
-
stevus, please address this post I made.
A good post up until this paragraph. First of all, no one here actually denies the h0Ɩ0cαųst. However, chances are it likely wasn't as deadly as it made out to be. Bishop Williamson said the same thing, as did Matthew. I don't deny moon landings, but what I DO deny is Obama having been validy elected. If he doesn't have anything to hide, then why doesn't he show us his birth certificate? Come on, stevus, if this man has the nerve to try to pass a health care bill that a majority of people in America didn't want, don't you think he'd be willing to lie about where he was born? It isn't just the sedes who think Obama was in-validly elected. Heck, you have a Protestant minister (who is also a black!) saying that Obama is a criminal because he wasn't born in America.
Really, Obama mainly got elected because about 99% of blacks voted for him ONLY because he's black. Talk about coming off as racist. Even Christian blacks (or so-called Christians, anyway) who knew he was for abortion and gαy marriage voted for him not caring about his views. You put someone who the shadow govnerment knows is popular in there, and chances are he will get elected. Why do you think Obama wants to allow illegal immigrants into this country? It's all about votes. Because he knows that even with alot of blacks voting for him he wouldn't get re-elected unless he reached out to another majority.
-
A good post up until this paragraph. First of all, no one here actually denies the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
Really? How do you know this?
In any case, I think you should examine more of the evidence on the birth issue.
Here is another link.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/#
-
SV-ism and the Society position are not two attempts to save indefectability. Rigorist sedes throw it out the window, Plenists dance around it with technicalities. The Society position is the only one of the three which preserves it.
While I understand that you believe the SSPX position is the only one that successfully preserves indefectibility, you seem to be oblivious to the monumentally-obvious fact that ALL of the respective 'solutions' are trying to address the same problem. This is the exact reason I hammered you before. Yes, your tone here seems to be notably better, but you do not accurately present (or even grasp?) what your 'opponents' are saying/claiming.
Explain away and correct my understanding once and for all.
That is too great an unlikelihood for me to invest the necessary time.
Exhibit A is immediately above.
I'M in the Matrix drinking the kool-aid while you and the elite few with secret knowledge (Gnosticism anyone?) have had your eyes opened to the fact that the h0Ɩ0cαųst was a hoax, the moon landing was staged, 9/11 was an international fraud, Obama is not president, Jєωιѕн bankers run the world, oh..AND God rigged it so we haven't had a pope for 50 years and let His Church turn into a heretical whorehouse of iniquity. Got it.
Denial is not a pretty thing to behold. BTW, have you ever read about what God allowed during the OT era? You might be surprised.
By the way, have you ever thought the Bishops and Priests of the Sede movement just might have a little self-interest in perpetuating the idea that we have no pope?
Of course -- I know some of the most self-serving far better than I would like. What do you think the Ode to Reality was all about?
-
Oh, I forgot the 9/11 conspiracy. Does sedevacantism lend itself to EVERY conspiracy?
SVs are far from alone in believing there are myriad cօռspιʀαcιҽs. Many within and outside Traddieland also do so.
FWIW, Our Lord was executed as the result of a conspiracy.
Do you believe we're in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya merely to do wonderful, humanitarian work? Do you believe the economic booms and busts are just a natural, accidental thing? Do you know anything about the private nature of the Federal Reserve Bank, the manner in which USDs are created, etc?
The reason various ideas have gained currency is...the evidence to support them. Sure, most people are still more worried about iphones, sports, t&a, whatever, but more and more are seeking the truth as each day passes.
-
I have a lot of empathy with sedevacantists. I've been heading in that direction myself lately. But is sedevacantism from hell? This is my worry.
-
But is sedevacantism from hell? This is my worry.
The only question is: Is it true? If so, it is clearly NOT from hell, etc.
Can Holy Church devour her own children? Can she, through binding or non-binding things, ruin the Faith of millions? If so, why does she exist and what good are the divine safeguards?
-
A good post up until this paragraph. First of all, no one here actually denies the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
Really? How do you know this?
In any case, I think you should examine more of the evidence on the birth issue.
Here is another link.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/#
No one here that I know of denies it. In any case, you didn't say why you think Obama was validly elected.
-
I have a lot of empathy with sedevacantists. I've been heading in that direction myself lately. But is sedevacantism from hell? This is my worry.
I also have empathy for sedes. Sedevacantism isn't from hell, although there are a few errors with it that need to be ironed out. In any case, I may one day find myself taking the sede position. Archbishop LeFebvre almost did, it's certainly possible the time may come when we must declare that the man in Peter's Chair is not Pope. I have already come to the conclusion that Paul VI was an anti-pope. Chances are he was a freemason, and a freemson cannot be Pope. He even went to the United Nations, a place with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr written all over it. Not to mention that if there was indeed a second Paul VI, that would make him an anti-pope since he wasn't even elected. Either way, there is absolutely no way I can say Paul VI was a legit Pope. I have given it much thought, and I just can't do it.
-
He eschews all conspiracy theories, despite the fact that nothing in the world happens by accident and all the major events of history were the result of men working together.
-
Stevus I take it that you being on a Traditional Catholic forum consider yourself a traditional Catholic and thus you must see that Rome has been infected with many errors particularly modernism. So you believe that this could happen to the Church but you don't believe that there could be people or organisations in the outside world conspiring for more power and control?
You really must live in some fairy land if you think this could not happen in this world which is the playground of the devil.
So the Church can be corrupted but the secular world is hunky dory?
What will be next for you? The devil doesn't exist?
Wake up and smell the roses or stench more accurately!
-
6.2.1 is exactly what Caminus was saying.
6.2.1 is exactly describing you the past few days.
Am I a sede?
Believe me, I'm not obsessed over whether BXVI is Pope. I think that is obvious.
I am fascinated, however, by those who could actually truly believe God has allowed a universal deception for 50 years and left His Church headless, defectible, and invisible.
Yes, I know the typical sede responses to these claims, but they are not reasonable nor beilevable. I'm truly fascinated that this position could be held by otherwise rational adults. I'm also beginning to see that sede-ism is typically coupled with belief in other conspiracy theories such as h0Ɩ0cαųst denial, denial of moon landings, denial Obama is president, the world being controlled by Jєωιѕн bankers, etc. It seems there is an underlying cynical, delusional and paranoid worldview that must fuel such perceptions which are so at odds with reality. Sorry if these words are offensive, but I see no other way to describe this outlook, even if those who hold it are sincere and otherwise sane. I think this article raises some good explanations.
You are a worldling, stevus.
God will make due with you in time. Don't delude yourself and try to lead others to perdition as well.
-
I have a lot of empathy with sedevacantists. I've been heading in that direction myself lately. But is sedevacantism from hell? This is my worry.
It is indeed from the bowels of Hell. It is a trick that plays on your anger at the NO. It uses it as fuel to have you fly past all logical barriers into the pit of cynicism, hatred, and despair that is Sede-ism. Pretty soon you'll be cursing BXVI as the sinners in Hell curse God and asking how He could have put you on this Hellish earth ruled by a myriad of secret cօռspιʀαcιҽs with no visible Church and 99% of Catholics ruled by anti-Christ. But in reality you would have put yourself in this false reality by letting your anger overcome your intellect until you can no longer think clearly. Just like how sinners become damned. Your Bishops and priests will more than likely have doubtful orders, offer you doubtful sacraments, in some cases use access to the sacraments as a weapon, steal church property, brag about it, cause scandal. This all leads to despair and a complete lack of Faith. All because you didn't take the time to pray humbly and ask for the grace to see clearly that there are logical distinctions to be made and not all Popes are saints or necessarily good. But as St. Catherine of Siena said, they are our "sweet Christ on earth".
Turn away now, while there is still time.
-
I have a lot of empathy with sedevacantists. I've been heading in that direction myself lately. But is sedevacantism from hell? This is my worry.
It is indeed from the bowels of Hell. It is a trick that plays on your anger at the NO. It uses it as fuel to have you fly past all logical barriers into the pit of cynicism, hatred, and despair that is Sede-ism. Pretty soon you'll be cursing BXVI as the sinners in Hell curse God and asking how He could have put you on this Hellish earth ruled by a myriad of secret cօռspιʀαcιҽs with no visible Church and 99% of Catholics ruled by anti-Christ. But in reality you would have put yourself in this false reality by letting your anger overcome your intellect until you can no longer think clearly. Just like how sinners become damned. Your Bishops and priests will more than likely have doubtful orders, offer you doubtful sacraments, in some cases use access to the sacraments as a weapon, steal church property, brag about it, cause scandal. This all leads to despair and a complete lack of Faith. All because you didn't take the time to pray humbly and ask for the grace to see clearly that there are logical distinctions to be made and not all Popes are saints or necessarily good. But as St. Catherine of Siena said, they are our "sweet Christ on earth".
Turn away now, while there is still time.
Sorry to see that you've fallen off the wagon.
-
Indeed not. I'm criticizing Sede-ism, not individuals.
-
I have a lot of empathy with sedevacantists. I've been heading in that direction myself lately. But is sedevacantism from hell? This is my worry.
It is indeed from the bowels of Hell. It is a trick that plays on your anger at the NO. It uses it as fuel to have you fly past all logical barriers into the pit of cynicism, hatred, and despair that is Sede-ism. Pretty soon you'll be cursing BXVI as the sinners in Hell curse God and asking how He could have put you on this Hellish earth ruled by a myriad of secret cօռspιʀαcιҽs with no visible Church and 99% of Catholics ruled by anti-Christ. But in reality you would have put yourself in this false reality by letting your anger overcome your intellect until you can no longer think clearly. Just like how sinners become damned. Your Bishops and priests will more than likely have doubtful orders, offer you doubtful sacraments, in some cases use access to the sacraments as a weapon, steal church property, brag about it, cause scandal. This all leads to despair and a complete lack of Faith. All because you didn't take the time to pray humbly and ask for the grace to see clearly that there are logical distinctions to be made and not all Popes are saints or necessarily good. But as St. Catherine of Siena said, they are our "sweet Christ on earth".
Turn away now, while there is still time.
Does the above mean you regret the apology of a few days ago to the sede???
-
I never apologized to sede-ism.
-
It is indeed from the bowels of Hell. It is a trick that plays on your anger at the NO.
FWIW, one week I was at the NOM; the next I went to an Indult; the next I was at the Mass of an independent priest. There was no "anger", etc. Save the Jedi-esque nonsense for your next anti-seddie children's rally...
It uses it as fuel to have you fly past all logical barriers into the pit of cynicism, hatred, and despair that is Sede-ism.
You are simply proving that you have stunningly incorrect ideas about the entire matter, the real people involved, etc.
-
Why is stevusmagnus so obsessed with trying to refute sedevacantism? :really-mad2:
Some complain about the many people who hold the sedevacantist position in this "Crisis in the Church" forum, but thread after thread on sedevacantism is started by stevusmagnus!
Could these threads be a last act of desperation to convince the conscience that it is a error? Stevus buddy, I was where you are now but the Truth is so liberating, don't be afraid, join us! :cheers:
-
Yes, I know the typical sede responses to these claims, but they are not reasonable nor beilevable. I'm truly fascinated that this position could be held by otherwise rational adults. I'm also beginning to see that sede-ism is typically coupled with belief in other conspiracy theories such as h0Ɩ0cαųst denial, denial of moon landings, denial Obama is president, the world being controlled by Jєωιѕн bankers, etc. It seems there is an underlying cynical, delusional and paranoid worldview that must fuel such perceptions which are so at odds with reality.
Um... you believe in the h0Ɩ0h0αx?
I'd believe in the moon landing if it happened -- but the widely-believed one in the 1960's, unfortunately, did not.
Obama is not a natural-born citizen, so he is disqualified to be president. Of course, everyone accepts him to be such, so it's the same as being president. Just like there's no constitutional or legal force for the act which brought about a national Income Tax -- but if you don't pay it, you'll still have tanks on your front lawn and you'll go to prison just the same.
And I only believe the world is controlled by Jєωιѕн bankers because the world IS controlled by Jєωιѕн bankers. "Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amsched Rothchild. And every country in the world has a Central Bank, except for a few "rogue" nations which are are being attacked by the United States or WILL be attacked in the near future.
Stevus, don't you think it odd that EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH has a huge national debt? Who the hell is that money owed to?
I appreciate your efforts to keep the Sedes honest, but man! If you think reality is at odds with reality, it's YOU that has a big problem in your worldview!
-
I have a lot of empathy with sedevacantists. I've been heading in that direction myself lately. But is sedevacantism from hell? This is my worry.
It is indeed from the bowels of Hell. It is a trick that plays on your anger at the NO. It uses it as fuel to have you fly past all logical barriers into the pit of cynicism, hatred, and despair that is Sede-ism. Pretty soon you'll be cursing BXVI as the sinners in Hell curse God and asking how He could have put you on this Hellish earth ruled by a myriad of secret cօռspιʀαcιҽs with no visible Church and 99% of Catholics ruled by anti-Christ. But in reality you would have put yourself in this false reality by letting your anger overcome your intellect until you can no longer think clearly. Just like how sinners become damned. Your Bishops and priests will more than likely have doubtful orders, offer you doubtful sacraments, in some cases use access to the sacraments as a weapon, steal church property, brag about it, cause scandal. This all leads to despair and a complete lack of Faith. All because you didn't take the time to pray humbly and ask for the grace to see clearly that there are logical distinctions to be made and not all Popes are saints or necessarily good. But as St. Catherine of Siena said, they are our "sweet Christ on earth".
Turn away now, while there is still time.
It's not from hell, stevus. There are a few problems with the sede stance as of right now that need to be worked out, but to say it's from hell is crazy. Modernism is from hell, as is extremism (a form of heresy that people such as the Dimond Brothers are in).
-
Stevus is more of a pain than the most rabid of sedevacantists as you would think it would be them constantly trying ram the point home but no its stevus. I'm surprised he hasn't turned every discussion in this forum into a sede discussion by now!
Also stevus I think you need to cut down on your mainstream media intake and start studying some Catholic history, economics, ect...
Fr. Denis Fahey would be a good start.
-
FWIW, one week I was at the NOM;
So you go to the NOM? Sort of odd for a sede, don't you think?
You are simply proving that you have stunningly incorrect ideas about the entire matter, the real people involved, etc.
I have it nailed. You prove my point by posts like this. You are in denial. Afraid ot grasp with the true reality of the "thesis" to which you cling to at the risk of your eternal soul.
-
Stevus buddy, I was where you are now but the Truth is so liberating, don't be afraid, join us! :cheers:
You mean liberated from the Truth, rational thought, and a firm grounding in reality? No thanks! :laugh1:
-
Yes, I know the typical sede responses to these claims, but they are not reasonable nor beilevable. I'm truly fascinated that this position could be held by otherwise rational adults. I'm also beginning to see that sede-ism is typically coupled with belief in other conspiracy theories such as h0Ɩ0cαųst denial, denial of moon landings, denial Obama is president, the world being controlled by Jєωιѕн bankers, etc. It seems there is an underlying cynical, delusional and paranoid worldview that must fuel such perceptions which are so at odds with reality.
Um... you believe in the h0Ɩ0h0αx?
I'd believe in the moon landing if it happened -- but the widely-believed one in the 1960's, unfortunately, did not.
Obama is not a natural-born citizen, so he is disqualified to be president. Of course, everyone accepts him to be such, so it's the same as being president. Just like there's no constitutional or legal force for the act which brought about a national Income Tax -- but if you don't pay it, you'll still have tanks on your front lawn and you'll go to prison just the same.
And I only believe the world is controlled by Jєωιѕн bankers because the world IS controlled by Jєωιѕн bankers. "Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amsched Rothchild. And every country in the world has a Central Bank, except for a few "rogue" nations which are are being attacked by the United States or WILL be attacked in the near future.
Stevus, don't you think it odd that EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH has a huge national debt? Who the hell is that money owed to?
I appreciate your efforts to keep the Sedes honest, but man! If you think reality is at odds with reality, it's YOU that has a big problem in your worldview!
WOO MATTHEW!!
:nunchaku:
-
Not to be rude, stevus, but you are the one in denial. You didn't respond to Matthew's post which stated that you shouldn't believe that Obama was validly elected and that the h0Ɩ0cαųst was a hoax. These are more than just "conspiracy theories" stevus.