Hello
I was reading this article that I found what do you guys think?

http://www.kelopi.net/sedevacantism-rebuked-by-the-baltimore-catechism-3/


Sedevacantism Rebuked by the Baltimore Catechism 3

The highlighted areas are the ones that directly refute or contradict what sedevacantists teach, making sedevacantism  non-Catholic teaching(s).
Q. 520. Can the Church have the four marks without the three attributes?
A. The Church cannot have the four marks without the three attributes, because the three attributes necessarily come with the marks and without them the marks could not exist.
Q. 521. Why are both marks and attributes necessary in the Church?
A. Both marks and attributes are necessary in the Church, for the marks teach us its external or visible qualities, while the attributes teach us its internal or invisible qualities. It is easier to discover the marks than the attributes; for it is easier to see that the Church is one than that it is infallible.
Q. 522. Which are the attributes of the Church?
A. The attributes of the Church are three: 1.authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.
Where is the authority in sedevacantism??? There is no one!
Q. 523. What is authority?
A. Authority is the power which one person has over another so as to be able to justly exact obedience. Rulers have authority over their subjects, parents over their children, and teachers over their scholars.
Q. 524. From whom must all persons derive whatever lawful authority they possess?
A. All persons must derive whatever lawful authority they possess from God Himself, from whom they receive it directly or indirectly. Therefore, to disobey our lawful superiors is to disobey God Himself, and hence such disobedience is always sinful.
Q. 525. What do you mean by the authority of the Church?
A. By the authority of the Church I mean the right and power which the Pope and the Bishops, as the successors of the Apostles, have to teach and to govern the faithful.
Q. 526. What do you mean by the infallibility of the Church?
A. By the infallibility of the Church I mean that the Church can not err when it teaches a doctrine of faith or morals
Q. 528. How do you know that the Church can not err?
A. I know that the Church can not err because Christ promised that the Holy Ghost would remain with it forever and save it from error. If, therefore, the Church has erred, the Holy Ghost must have abandoned it and Christ has failed to keep His promise, which is a thing impossible.
*Hence, Vatican II Council was valid.
Q. 529. Since the Church can not err, could it ever be reformed in its teaching of faith or morals?
A. Since the Church can not err, it could never be reformed in its teaching of faith or morals. Those who say the Church needed reformation in faith or morals accuse Our Lord of falsehood and deception.
Q. 532. Is the Pope infallible in everything he says and does?
A. The Pope is not infallible in everything he says and does, because the Holy Ghost was not promised to make him infallible in everything, but only in matters of faith and morals for the whole Church. Nevertheless, the Pope’s opinion on any subject deserves our greatest respect on account of his learning, experience and dignity.
Q. 533. Can the Pope commit sin?
A. The Pope can commit sin and he must seek forgiveness in the Sacrament of Penance as others do. Infallibility does not prevent him from sinning, but from teaching falsehood when he speaks ex-cathedra.
Q. 537. What does anti-pope mean, and who were the anti-popes?
A. Anti-pope means a pretended pope. The anti-popes were men who by the aid of faithless Christians or others unlawfully seized and claimed the papal power while the lawful pope was in prison or exile.
Q. 543. What do you mean by the indefectibility of the Church?
A. By the indefectibility of the Church I mean that the Church, as Christ founded it, will last till the end of time.
Q. 544. What is the difference between the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church?
A. When we say the Church is infallible we mean that it can never teach error while it lasts; but when we say the Church is indefectible, we mean that it will last forever and be infallible forever; that it will always remain as Our Lord founded it and never change the doctrines He taught.
Q. 545. Did Our Lord Himself make all the laws of the Church?
A. Our Lord Himself did not make all the laws of the Church. He gave the Church also power to make laws to suit the needs of the times, places or persons as it judged necessary.
Q. 546. Can the Church change its laws?
A. The Church can, when necessary, change the laws it has itself made, but it cannot change the laws that Christ has made. Neither can the Church change any doctrine of faith or morals.
Q. 547. In whom are these attributes found in their fullness?
A. These attributes are found in their fullness in the Pope, the visible Head of the Church, whose infallible authority to teach bishops, priests, and people in matters of faith or morals will last to the end of the world.
Q. 548. Has the Church any marks by which it may be known?
A. The Church has four marks by which it may be known: it is One; it is Holy; it is Catholic; it is Apostolic.
Q. 549. How is the Church One?
A. The Church is One because all its members agree in one faith, are all in one communion, and are all under one head.
Q. 550. How is it evident that the Church is one in government?
A. It is evident that the Church is one in government, for the faithful in a parish are subject to their pastors, the pastors are subject to the bishops of their dioceses, and the bishops of the world are subject to the Pope.
Q. 551. What is meant by the Hierarchy of the Church?
A. By the Hierarchy of the Church is meant the sacred body of clerical rules who govern the Church.
Q. 552. How is it evident that the Church is one in worship?
A. It is evident that the Church is one in worship because all its members make use of the same sacrifice and receive the same Sacraments.
Q. 553. How is it evident that the Church is one in faith?
A. It is evident the Church is one in faith because all Catholics throughout the world believe each and every article of faith proposed by the Church.
Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.
*Hence, we must accept Vatican II docuмents.
Q. 561. Must we ourselves seek in the Scriptures and traditions for what we are to believe?
A. We ourselves need not seek in the Scriptures and traditions for what we are to believe. God has appointed the Church to be our guide to salvation and we must accept its teaching us our infallible rule of faith.
Q. 562. How do we show that the Holy Scriptures alone could not be our guide to salvation and infallible rule of faith?
A. We show that the Holy Scripture alone could not be our guide to salvation and infallible rule of faith:
1. Because all men cannot examine or understand the Holy Scripture; but all can listen to the teaching of the Church;
2. Because the New Testament or Christian part of the Scripture was not written at the beginning of the Church’s existence, and, therefore, could not have been used as the rule of faith by the first Christians;
3. Because there are many things in the Holy Scripture that cannot be understood without the explanation given by tradition, and hence those who take the Scripture alone for their rule of faith are constantly disputing about its meaning and what they are to believe.
Q. 563. How is the Church Holy?
A. The Church is Holy because its founder, Jesus Christ, is holy; because it teaches a holy doctrine; invites all to a holy life; and because of the eminent holiness of so many thousands of its children.
Q. 564. How is the Church Catholic or universal?
A. The Church is Catholic or universal because it subsists in all ages, teaches all nations, and maintains all truth.
Q. 567. How is the Church Apostolic?
A. The Church is Apostolic because it was founded by Christ on His Apostles, and is governed by their lawful successors, and because it has never ceased, and never will cease, to teach their doctrine.
Q. 568. Does the Church, by defining certain truths, thereby make new doctrines?
A. The Church, by defining, that is, by proclaiming certain truths, articles of faith, does not make new doctrines, but simply teaches more clearly and with greater effort truths that have always been believed and held by the Church.
*Oh, that’s what they did at Vatican II Council…
Q. 569. What, then, is the use of defining or declaring a truth an article of faith if it has always been believed?
A. The use of defining or declaring a truth an article of faith, even when it has always been believed, is: (1) To clearly contradict those who deny it and show their teaching false; (2) To remove all doubt about the exact teaching of the Church, and to put an end to all discussion about the truth defined.
Q. 570. In which Church are these attributes and marks found?
A. These attributes and marks are found in the Holy Roman Catholic Church alone.
Q. 571. How do you show that Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church?
A. Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church, because:
1. They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no chief head, and they profess different beliefs; (hmm, sounds like sedes)
2. They are not holy, because their doctrines are founded on error and lead to evil consequences;
3. They are not catholic or universal in time, place or doctrine. They have not existed in all ages nor in all places, and their doctrines do not suit all classes;
4. They are not apostolic, for they were not established for hundreds of years after the Apostles, and they do not teach the doctrines of the Apostles.
Q. 572. From whom does the Church derive its undying life and infallible authority?
A. The Church derives its undying life and infallible authority from the Holy Ghost, the spirit of truth, who abides with it forever.
Q. 573. By whom is the Church made and kept One, Holy, and Catholic?
A. The Church is made and kept One, Holy, and Catholic by the Holy Ghost, the spirit of love and holiness, who unites and sanctifies its members throughout the world.

Slam dunk, finn.

You really changed me.. I mean ..what was I thinking??  Heresies taught and condoned by the men seated in Rome? Novus ordo mass in line with protestant theology? Vatican II docuмents teaching error and/or heresy? NA!!! It was all my imagination..

Seems ridiculous. But if you want to provide examples of HERESIES taught by Popes since Pius X, I'm eager to be educated.

Well, you're going to have to educate yourself then, because this argument has been going on for decades and I don't think anyone is going to pause to help you take babysteps and take it from the beginning.

Canute, not that I necessarily agree or disagree with finn, but if you read carefully, you'll see small portions of commentary pre-marked by an asterix as for example "*Oh, that’s what they did at Vatican II Council… " after Q.568

See, finn, that's what the highlighting and size fonts are there for. :rolleyes:

Got it. But I think that if these were really valid objections to sedevacantism, they would have been brought up already and at least answered by sedes. Take the answer to 528, that the Church cannot err. That's obvious and sedevacantists have probably answered this as an "objection" a thousand times, so merely repeating Catholic teaching that the "Church cannot err" does not "refute" anything or add to the discussion.

I have trouble with the sizes, too. :smile:

Lighthouse and PartyIsOver,

I realized that this is something that many people believe, nobody seems to be able to identify specific heresies taught by supposed anti-popes since Pius X. I understand where the sentiment comes from, that V2 was damaging and all, but it is just that heresy is a very strong charge to level against someone. Am I to believe the Dimonds of MHFM?

And what would be a good starting point? (Yes, I am rather new to this way of thinking). I'll look into this more.

I agree, Canute, that that probably isn't the best argument against sedevacantism, but I'll leave Finn to elaborate on that if he wants to.

Well, Jacob, if no sedevacantist wants to venture an answer, I a non-sedevacantist will give a brief description, probably getting a torrent of downthumbs for it! of some of the reasons why many SSPX and other Catholics reject altogether the notion of a 50 year or a 100 year sede vacante. For one, it compromises Apostolicity, one of the four marks of the Church.

Ordinary jurisdiction only passes to new Bishops through the Pope. This is Catholic doctrine. So if there is no Pope, new Bishops consecrated cannot receive ordinary jurisdiction but only operate under supplied jurisdiction. The problem is that the Apostolicity of the Church requires at least some of her Bishops to always possess ordinary jurisdiction, for this is the form of Apostolicity along with the material succession, whereas an extended sede vacante would clearly eventually lead to its total depletion, which Catholic faith says is not possible. Hence for these reasons and several others some Catholics feel compelled to reject sedevacantism while other more learned sedevacantists than the Dimonds come up with some speculative theories to try and maintain Apostolicity.

Such matters need to be treated of with the greatest care and precision and only a few sedevacantist laymen and priests have demonstrated this, like the great traditional Catholic theologians of the past used to do.

Quote from: finn

Hello
I was reading this article that I found what do you guys think?

http://www.kelopi.net/sedevacantism-rebuked-by-the-baltimore-catechism-3/


Sedevacantism Rebuked by the Baltimore Catechism 3

The highlighted areas are the ones that directly refute or contradict what sedevacantists teach, making sedevacantism  non-Catholic teaching(s).

Nothing is highlighted, so I guess sedevacantism can't be directly refuted or contradicted by the Baltimore 3!

Thanks for letting us know. :dancing:

Go and click the link to the website

I agree, Canute, that that probably isn't the best argument against sedevacantism, but I'll leave Finn to elaborate on that if he wants to.

Well, Jacob, if no sedevacantist wants to venture an answer, I a non-sedevacantist will give a brief description, probably getting a torrent of downthumbs for it!

No one thumbed you down so far...but apparently my post gets a thumb down. I dont thumb people down unless they are absurd like roscoe or santo subito.

Regardless doesnt matter but just pointing it out since it seems people give credence to thumb down on posts