Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9

Author Topic: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...  (Read 11944 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46412
  • Reputation: +27323/-5045
  • Gender: Male
Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2023, 03:59:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 08, 2023, 10:46:05 AM
    The solution is for everyone to be a sede-impoundist (i.e. Fr Chazal) or sede-privationist.

    I agree.  This should satisfy most of the concerns/debates out there.  This position "works" on so many levels, and I was hoping that Father Chazal's position could help bridge the gap between the various factions ... but I was wrong.
    Logged

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11934
    • Reputation: +7292/-500
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #46 on: December 08, 2023, 04:07:14 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote from: 2Vermont on December 08, 2023, 03:53:26 PM
    Because it would be wrong if I had a Resistance priest come to my house every month to offer mass and not tell him I was a sedevacantist.  Don't you think he would have the right to know?
    No. What is the need for him to know? Now if you were an Anglican or a Calathumpian he should be informed, but as you and the resistance priest are both practicing Catholics, there is no need whatsoever. Any more is cultish and sectarian.

    Logged
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    +RIP 2024

    Offline Emile

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2438
    • Reputation: +1866/-135
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #47 on: December 08, 2023, 04:22:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Nadir on December 08, 2023, 04:07:14 PM
    Calathumpian

    Thanks for teaching me a new term, Nadir. :laugh1:
    Logged

    Online Mysterium Fidei

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 149
    • Reputation: +159/-21
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #48 on: December 08, 2023, 07:32:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on December 08, 2023, 06:39:59 AM
    Yeah, I have no idea how R&R can look at this dogmatic teaching from Vatican I.  Another translation I've seen is that the See of Peter remains unBLEMISHED by any error.

    If the R&R view of Vatican II does not entail the See of Peter being blemished/impaired by error, then there's no such thing.  There's no way that R&R does not contradict this teaching.  We've also posted walls of other papal teaching reaffirming over and over again that the papal Magisterium can never be tainted or stained by any error.  I think that they just filter these teaching out and ignore them ... unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, who accepted this teaching, but was unable to definitively resolve the apparent contradiction, leaving it in the realm of a mystery that would one day have to be answered by the Church, but not ruling out sedevacantism, considering it "possible" (except for a few years in the early 1980s).

    Here's a link to the substantial body of papal teaching that also affirms that the Magisterium cannot be stained or blemished by any error:
    https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/the-magisterium/

    If one accepts the position held by modern R&R, there's no coming back from this for the Papacy.  We've gone from Catholics being required to giving internal assent to the Magisterium to, "Hey, there's Pope Francis with another garbage recyclical.  Let's start ripping it to shreds while it's still hot off the presses."
    This link doesn't seem to work.
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1511
    • Reputation: +1238/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #49 on: December 08, 2023, 07:45:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Nadir on December 08, 2023, 04:07:14 PM
    No. What is the need for him to know? Now if you were an Anglican or a Calathumpian he should be informed, but as you and the resistance priest are both practicing Catholics, there is no need whatsoever. Any more is cultish and sectarian.

    Ha. ha. Yes, my father was very fond of that term. Perhaps it is indicative of our geographical location and vintage, Nadir? But I agree, and I don't think any Resistance priest would have an issue with this, unless there were to be an appearance from such an arrangement that the Resistance priest was now a sedevacantist. SSPX and Resistance priests as a whole are happy to give the sacraments to sedevacantists in my experience, but not the other way around, at least with Bishop Sanborn's priests. Is that the case with all the sedevacantists?
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1511
    • Reputation: +1238/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #50 on: December 09, 2023, 01:36:33 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on December 08, 2023, 08:23:01 AM
    So, this shows the transmission:

    +Lefebvre:  Papacy is protected and guided by the Holy Ghost against the type of destruction we've seen from the V2 papal claimants.  This is a problem that must one day be resolved.

    Modern R&R:  Papacy destroying the Church?  Not a problem.
    Not so, Ladislaus.

    The Archbishop did not espouse your ecclesiology, which we might term "New Catholic", and you know it. "New Catholic", which is not so new, I will term the other extreme from "Old Catholic" which is not a label that in any way attaches to Archbishop Lefebvre or his faithful followers, much as you keep repeating it. I don't know if you are half-joking but you should desist as you are bound to influence some poor souls, and who knows where it might lead them.

    "New Catholic" is indeed an apt description of your error on Infallibility, as it is the same as those in the Conciliar Church, as Bishop Williamson has so often explained. It is the same exaggerated notion of Infallibility that leads some Novus Ordo Catholics to say "we must obey because he's Pope" as leads you to say "what he says is evil so he can't be Pope". One falls to the left, the other to the right.

    Neither is true.

    Sedevacantists are very fond of quoting the words of Vatican Council I "this gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors”.

    They are not so fond of providing the context that immediately follows that gives the true measure of this never failing faith, giving it specificity and limits: "But since, in this very age in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the supreme pastoral office. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone - God forbid - whould presume to contradict this our definition; let him be anathema." - Pastor Aeternus

    That is what Vatican I defined, and that is what Old Catholics reject. New Catholics, like you, reject it too. You want to dispense with all the conditions.

    It is the same understanding St Robert Bellarmine had of the faith of Peter that cannot fail, as also the saints and Popes cited by him: 
    "'I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail; and when you have converted, strengthen your brethren' (Luke 22:31). From this text, St Bernard in letter 90 to Pope Innocent deduced that the Roman Pontiff teaching ex cathedra cannot err; and before him the same was said by Pope Lucius I in letter I to the Bishops of Spain and France, by Pope Felix I in a letter to Benignus, Pope Mark in a letter to Athanasius, Leo I in sermon 3..., Leo IX in a letter to Peter Patriarch of Antioch, Agatho in a letter to the Emperor Constantine IV which was read at the Sixth Council (act 4 and again act 8) and approved by the whole Council, Pope Paschal II at the Roman Council..., Innocent III in the chapter Majores on Baptism and its effect... Therefore, if the Roman Pontiff cannot err when he is teaching ex cathedra, certainly his judgement must be followed... For we read Acts ch 15 that the Council said: 'It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us'; such also now is the Pontiff's teaching ex cathedra, whom we showed is always directed by the Holy Ghost so that he cannot err." - St Robert Bellarmine, On the Word of God, Lib 3, Cap 5

    Archbishop Lefebvre faithfully transmitted the doctrine of the Church:
    "We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions... Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it..." - Retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

    As explained to the Council Fathers by Bishop Vincent Gasser in his official Relatio:
    "It should not be said that the Pontiff is infallible simply because of the authority of the Papacy but rather inasmuch as he is certainly and undoubtedly subject to the direction of the divine assistance. By the authority of the Papacy the Pontiff is always the supreme judge in matters of faith and morals, and the father and teacher of all Christians. But the divine assistance promised to him, by which he cannot err, he only enjoys as such when he really and actually exercises his duty as supreme judge and universal teacher of the Church in disputes about the Faith. Thus, the sentence 'The Roman Pontiff is infallible' should not be treated as false, since Christ promised infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete, since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgement, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal".

    The Council may well have defined that the Pope is infallible every time he teaches on matters of faith and morals, period. But it did not. It might have defined that the Pope is infallible every time he teaches the universal Church on matters of faith and morals, period. But it did not. There are quite a few conditions, as Archbishop Lefebvre noted.

    When the Popes in their Ordinary Magisterium teach about the Roman See being without blemish, when they talk about the never failing faith of Peter, that is how we are to understand it. It is not without grave reason that one opposes the See of Rome, but that such a reason can exist, there is no doubt. You, Ladislaus, think you can put a limit on just how far it can go...

    The possibility of a Pope who wants to destroy the Church is discussed by St Robert Bellarmine at some length. He says that even if he couldn't be removed, God would provide the remedy. The remedy will come.





    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1511
    • Reputation: +1238/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #51 on: December 09, 2023, 01:48:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • That quote of the Archbishop above, it should be noted, was in the context of praying for the Pope in the Mass. He was linking recognition of the Pope to the question of infallibility. It was near the end of his life, and as you know, it was his consistent position all through the crisis, much as it took some study and serious thinking on his part. The great scandals of these Popes, the damage done to the Church and souls, it gave him reason to pause, but your solution was always for him "too simple", "too speculative", the reality he said was more complex. And so it is.
    Logged

    Offline MiserereMei

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 209
    • Reputation: +124/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #52 on: December 09, 2023, 07:42:58 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on December 08, 2023, 07:45:30 PM
    Ha. ha. Yes, my father was very fond of that term. Perhaps it is indicative of our geographical location and vintage, Nadir? But I agree, and I don't think any Resistance priest would have an issue with this, unless there were to be an appearance from such an arrangement that the Resistance priest was now a sedevacantist. SSPX and Resistance priests as a whole are happy to give the sacraments to sedevacantists in my experience, but not the other way around, at least with Bishop Sanborn's priests. Is that the case with all the sedevacantists?
    In my experience CMRI priests don't deny the sacraments, at least in the US and Mexico. They even take care of faithful that have been "rejected" by other groups due to disagreements. They acknowledge the confusion.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11347
    • Reputation: +6327/-1095
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #53 on: December 09, 2023, 08:45:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Nadir on December 08, 2023, 04:07:14 PM
    No. What is the need for him to know? Now if you were an Anglican or a Calathumpian he should be informed, but as you and the resistance priest are both practicing Catholics, there is no need whatsoever. Any more is cultish and sectarian.

    I still think honesty is always the best policy.  I would make it clear that I was a sedevacantist in the event he had an issue with it.  The priest would be going out of his way to provide sacraments at my home.  This is different than my going to him for mass or confession (I have gone to a SSPX chapel for confession and mass before and did not inform the priest then). 

    In any event another poster PMed me to let me know that the priest does in fact know the OP's position on sedevacantism.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12469
    • Reputation: +8259/-1575
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #54 on: December 09, 2023, 01:33:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • If "your family" is not the Magisterium why would we care what "your family" thinks?
    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1942
    • Reputation: +517/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #55 on: December 09, 2023, 03:09:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on December 07, 2023, 06:37:37 PM
    Got it.  So basically you've become an Old Catholic.  Does the CMRI priest know your position or do you deceive him?
    It said the post V2 popes “materially and illegitimately” hold the office but not “formally and legitimately”.  That just seems like Sedeprivationism to me (albeit maybe not worded super precisely)
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1511
    • Reputation: +1238/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #56 on: December 09, 2023, 03:36:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on December 09, 2023, 01:33:03 PM
    If "your family" is not the Magisterium why would we care what "your family" thinks?
    Fair go, Mark, none of us here has Magisterial authority. We all do our best to adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium. Recounting our experiences and what we stand for gives encouragement to others and can help them to understand the crisis and stand firm in the Faith.
    Logged

    Offline OABrownson1876

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 663
    • Reputation: +547/-27
    • Gender: Male
      • The Orestes Brownson Society
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #57 on: December 09, 2023, 03:42:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • If the church can last three years without a pope, who is to say that the interregnum cannot last ten, twenty, or even seventy years.  There is not some magical formula, "Well three years we can do, seventy years we cannot do."  

    And my question is, why does John Paul II get dethroned from the papacy for supporting the New Mass and ecuмenism, but Siri does not?  Once again, Card. Siri did nothing to blast the NO, nothing to defend his "papacy," and what evidence is there to the contrary?  

    I often wonder what would have happened if Pius XII put a statue of Buddha on top of the tabernacle, what would have the Catholics said?  Because he would have been a validly elected pontiff, who, committing a sacrilegious action, would have given grave scandal to the Church.  This is the case of JPII at Assisi.  And once again, a good number of the cardinals who elected JPII were valid cardinals even by sedevacantist standards.  

    And I am not so sure that a pope loses his pontificate because he has a positive desire to destroy the Church.  The head of any other entity, the family, a business - any entity that comes to mind- can have a desire to destroy that entity, while still remaining its head.  
    Logged
    Bryan Shepherd, M.A. Phil.
    PO Box 17248
    2312 S. Preston
    Louisville, Ky. 40217; email:letsgobryan@protonmail.com. substack: bryanshepherd.substack.com
    website: www.orestesbrownson.org. Rumble: rumble.com/user/Orestes76

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1511
    • Reputation: +1238/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #58 on: December 09, 2023, 03:45:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: BrianA on December 08, 2023, 12:49:52 AM

    -The Vatican Council
    (not some made-up sh*t by idiots on CathInfo)
    Oh goodness, I didn't see that comment before. Brian, you should have noticed that this was a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, not Plenus Venter of Cathinfo. I agree that our opinions are worth little. That is why I follow a good shephered that the Good Lord gave us. Some seem to think it is a cult of personality which I absolutely repudiate. It is rather St Paul's admonition "be ye followers of me as I also am of Christ".
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1511
    • Reputation: +1238/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The position me and my family take on Sedevacantism...
    « Reply #59 on: December 09, 2023, 03:48:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: OABrownson1876 on December 09, 2023, 03:42:46 PM
    If the church can last three years without a pope, who is to say that the interregnum cannot last ten, twenty, or even seventy years.  There is not some magical formula, "Well three years we can do, seventy years we cannot do." 

    And my question is, why does John Paul II get dethroned from the papacy for supporting the New Mass and ecuмenism, but Siri does not?  Once again, Card. Siri did nothing to blast the NO, nothing to defend his "papacy," and what evidence is there to the contrary? 

    I often wonder what would have happened if Pius XII put a statue of Buddha on top of the tabernacle, what would have the Catholics said?  Because he would have been a validly elected pontiff, who, committing a sacrilegious action, would have given grave scandal to the Church.  This is the case of JPII at Assisi.  And once again, a good number of the cardinals who elected JPII were valid cardinals even by sedevacantist standards. 

    And I am not so sure that a pope loses his pontificate because he has a positive desire to destroy the Church.  The head of any other entity, the family, a business - any entity that comes to mind- can have a desire to destroy that entity, while still remaining its head. 
    I agree with everything you say here OAB.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9
    « previous next »