Author Topic: The sedevacantist issue (Read 4190 times)

Kephapaulos · « **on:** February 19, 2008, 12:39:22 PM »

FM was kind enough to give me a link to some information about the sedevacantist position, but I've read things arguing it before. It still seems to me that there was an evasiveness I observe from sedevacantists when I asked especially the question in the other thread about how they personally came to their conclusion.

I also have noticed there seems to be a tendency of sedevacantists here to be divisive but not in the sense our Lord would have meant it. Pravoslavni, for example, adheres to the Cardinal Siri thesis, roscoe has had some issues concerning race and Pope Boniface VIII, and gladius and FM are the typical sedes I suppose as far as claiming there has been no pope since Pius XII. Trinity, who used to post there, seemed to not like how some were opposed to the movie Bella's nature. The sedevacantist thesis affects the thinking of sedevacantists here, and it is sad because then the question comes to mind whether the Catholic faith is really driving their spirits.

Why do you even worry about Benedict XVI and the hierarchy if you do not even consider them legitimate? It shouldn't even matter if there are only fragments of the Church left with most people not even prone to accept the Catholic faith. I notice more of a reliance on prophecies, theological opinions, and conspiracy theories among sedevacantists rather than complete solid Catholic teaching and authentic historical examples.

Granted, I am no expert theologian or historian, but I have seen just from what has been said by sedevacantists and their behavior here as well as reading about them that sedevacantism does not produce good fruit. Sure, the sedevacantist communities probably have valid sacraments and all, but it is very unreasonable to go so far as to claim there has not been pope for almost fifty years or for more than three years for that matter.

There are so many details involved of course like visibility, authority, obedience, and all, but we must in the end see the results of the sedevacantist conclusion applied to today's Church crisis. Such results are ill-founded, and as much as charity can sometimes be tough, there is such thing as being disrespectful and out of line. I have found unkindness from the sedevacantists here aside from holding false opinions.

roscoe · « **Reply #1 on:** February 19, 2008, 12:51:19 PM »

Kindness is for fools--St Pius X as quoted at todays catholicworld. It is still my view that Siri thesis or not, the alleged popes beg/ john 23 are anti-popes if for no other reason that there actions show it. And the vat 2 church is a schismatical church.

As far as my opponent is concerned, he is all over the map and I am surprised anyone can describe him as anything.

Dulcamara · « **Reply #2 on:** February 19, 2008, 01:09:48 PM »

Well, it's also condemned clearly by one of the popes, I think, in the book "Popes Against Modern Errors," which lists a lot of condemned errors. Can anyone confirm this? I don't happen to have a copy nearby.

Actually, if people would just read the old papal docuмents, it would knock a lot of modern silliness and stupidity out of everyone's heads right from the start. As I said in another thread, I firmly believe that the two things that are the foundation of every error, are pride and/or ignorance. A "pretty good idea" of the Catholic faith isn't the same as knowing exactly what has been condemned by the Church and why. You can know the ten commandments forward and backwards, but you still may not know the Church's teachings on liberalism, for instance.

If people informed themselves first, they wouldn't fall so easily into a myriad of errors long since condemned by the Church. But you have to go out and look for those answers, and not in so-and-so's "really good book about -fill in the blank-" but rather in the encyclicals and in the catechisms and in the Summa and the like, which have the clout of Church teaching and Church authority behind them.

But sadly, people in simple human pride and ignorance, much prefer to be gurus of the stuff of "so-and-so's really good book" than to go out and find the hard, unmovable Catholic truth, and submit to it, however hard or painful it is, or however much they don't understand or like it. (education and humility)

In this case, it's the man who doesn't like the corrupt president, claiming that because he's corrupt, he ISN'T the president. Well... he may be corrupt. He may be crooked... but for better or worse, I'm sorry... he is, unfortunately the president... And the Church of all time says, (as I recall) I'm sorry if the pope is corrupt. I'm sorry if he's a "bad man." I'm sorry if, heaven forbid, he's a flaming liberal heretic... but he is, nevertheless, the pope.

Actually, if someone would be so kind, I wish they would supply this from a book of dogma or an encyclical. I've heard the position, but don't recall where it is exactly.

In any case (excusing the source for those who hate the SSPX), this is a very interesting page which does quote from many official sources, as noted in the footnotes at the bottom of it, which addresses some of the chief problems of this error.

If you bother to read this page (page 3 of a very long article), you may also find page 4 equally enlightening. I realize some of this is "so-and-so's really good website" ... but the quotes from the sources are not at all just "so-and-so's really good books."

I think it would help things greatly all around, if more people quoted official sources (like this article did). The Catholic purpose of a Catholic discussion, is to arrive at the truth, which in any Catholic discussion on faith and morals, is best served by getting to the Church's official definition of the truth, rather than simply guessing at it and arguing about it.

roscoe · « **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2008, 01:33:25 PM »

A pope is not a Pope if he hasn't been elected according to Canon Law. I don't need the Siri thesis but I do believe it to be true because my common sense tells me that there has to be some logical explanation for what is happening now. Just my view. Ciao

Dulcamara · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2008, 02:03:45 PM »

Quote

I actually just answered your objections in two other threads on the "sede" position, so I won't repeat it here. (Sorry for the inconvenience.)

I will just answer this point which I don't think I explicitly covered there.

Obedience is only binding under pain of sin where it does not command sin. Eg, the child must obey his parent in everything that is not a sin. While the child can refuse to sin if the parent commands it, he must still obey the parent in everything else.

So a Catholic must not obey the pope if the pope commands them to sin, but must obey him in everything that is in line with God's law. That is a bit different than saying, "if the pope commands you to sin, you must disobey him in everything."

The proposition "you must obey EVERYTHING or NOTHING the pope teaches," is an error of the understanding of what is meant by obedience. By obedience is meant submission within the limits of God's law, NOT "obeying blindly." Obeying blindly is one of many tools the devil adeptly uses to get meek souls quickly to hell. It is "obeying the devil in the name of obeying God" ... which is a contradiction of the very concept of obedience. True obedience is in line with God's law. Rebellion is in line with the devils, certainly.

It's a neat trick of the devil to say, "he is the pope, therefore you must obey him, even if he says to sin!" or alternately, "you must obey God rather then men, therefore you cannot obey the pope (God's lawful authority on earth) at all!" which is mere blind rebellion, which is the simplistic opposite of blind obedience. Both are bad, because both are in error.

True obedience means subjection to lawful superiors in everything except sin. Which means that according to God's law, we are bound to obey parents and popes alike, in everything they command which is not sinful, and to promptly disobey them in order to rather obey God ONLY IN THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO GOD'S LAW. Blind men fall into the pit, whether they blindly obey or blindly disobey.
Posted Today, 8:00 pm

Dulcamara · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2008, 05:01:41 PM »

Unless that link is a link to either something official, or that quotes something official, I'm no more interested in reading it than I am in reading the Wanderer, the Catholic Family News, or the private newsletter of John Doe, "the other pope". I am only a mere human being, which means if I'm to get through this modernist mess with my soul in tact, I must be careful that what I read is official, and not conjecture, opinion or hearsay.

For instance, the article I submitted quoted Catholic teachings, which are relevant, and in such a way that one did not have to wade through the rest of the article in order to find them. If someone wanted to read the rest of it, more power to them. But one could easily pick out the truly important parts at a glance... those which quote the Church (so to speak), not the man who wrote the article. When someone says "click on this link" I'm more likely than not to pass it up, unless it's proceeded by the remark, "this quotes the Church's official position on this matter." And if I do click on it then, if I have to read the whole article to find in the person's own words what they think the Church said, I'm likely not to read any part of it.

The worst thing a fool can do, is go around following every other fool in a downward spiral. It's why, I suppose, the Church warns against reading literature of other religions. Not because the Church isn't right, but because most people are easily misled by that which "sounds right."

So if you think me a fool, I had better not click on that link, unless it links to the Council of Trent or some papal encyclical or something, or at the very least something that quotes such a thing directly, in a way that I will not confuse the quote for someone's mere opinion.

By the way, I follow the Catholic Church. If anybody else happens to be following it, then I will be... surprise surprise... in agreement with them. If there is someone claiming to be Catholic who is teaching a new doctrine, then interestingly enough, I will happily disagree with them. It's called being Catholic. There shouldn't be another label, because there shouldn't be another "position" than the position of the Church, that the Church has always held. Those who are in line with the truth are all simply Catholic, because the Church is not meant to be split among political parties and sects like a country often is. There's only one truth, only one set of dogmas, only one infallible teaching on any point.

Those who aren't in line with the Catholic Church and that one truth, may or may not be Catholic, but I leave that to God to judge. For my part, my business is simply to follow what the Church has always taught, and "Catholic" is the only label I've got.

Dogma is so close minded, isn't it? But there are only two choices for man: submission to the truth or rebellion against it. It doesn't matter how much or little he rebells, if he does, he will still be a rebel. The only "Catholics" are the ones who find out what the Church has always taught, and as the Church's opponents used to mock us for, submit to it. (Oh, the 'tyranny' of truth!)

There's only one version of true Catholicism, and it's all shockingly ONE, and those who follow it are simply "Catholics."

Pravoslavni · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2008, 06:04:35 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

FM was kind enough to give me a link to some information about the sedevacantist position, but I've read things arguing it before. It still seems to me that there was an evasiveness I observe from sedevacantists when I asked especially the question in the other thread about how they personally came to their conclusion.

I also have noticed there seems to be a tendency of sedevacantists here to be divisive but not in the sense our Lord would have meant it. Pravoslavni, for example, adheres to the Cardinal Siri thesis, roscoe has had some issues concerning race and Pope Boniface VIII, and gladius and FM are the typical sedes I suppose as far as claiming there has been no pope since Pius XII. Trinity, who used to post there, seemed to not like how some were opposed to the movie Bella's nature. The sedevacantist thesis affects the thinking of sedevacantists here, and it is sad because then the question comes to mind whether the Catholic faith is really driving their spirits.

Why do you even worry about Benedict XVI and the hierarchy if you do not even consider them legitimate? It shouldn't even matter if there are only fragments of the Church left with most people not even prone to accept the Catholic faith. I notice more of a reliance on prophecies, theological opinions, and conspiracy theories among sedevacantists rather than complete solid Catholic teaching and authentic historical examples.

Granted, I am no expert theologian or historian, but I have seen just from what has been said by sedevacantists and their behavior here as well as reading about them that sedevacantism does not produce good fruit. Sure, the sedevacantist communities probably have valid sacraments and all, but it is very unreasonable to go so far as to claim there has not been pope for almost fifty years or for more than three years for that matter.

There are so many details involved of course like visibility, authority, obedience, and all, but we must in the end see the results of the sedevacantist conclusion applied to today's Church crisis. Such results are ill-founded, and as much as charity can sometimes be tough, there is such thing as being disrespectful and out of line. I have found unkindness from the sedevacantists here aside from holding false opinions.

The Siri Thesis and sedevacantism are two different subjects. My debates with other sedes on this forum have been over the Siri Thesis, not over the possability of a vacancy of the Apostolic See. What do Roscoe's comments about race have to do with sedevacantism?

I don't "worry" about Ratzinger, however, the heresies of Ratzinger, and the apostate Vatican II sect need to be exposed so that all Catholics will be able to realize that the VII church is phoney. Why on Earth would should Catholics NOT care if the Church is reduced to "fragments."

You say "sedevacantism does not produce good fruit." What is the bad "fruit" of sedevacantism? Do you endorse the SSPX? They encourage shismatic attitudes and compromising of the Faith.

Do you endorse the indultees? VII produces rotten fruit, which all Traditional Catholics can plainly see. There can be no compromise with the false sect.

I understand that not everyone has had the access to all of the information that Traditional Catholics have had. I know that there are definatley good Catholics who unfortunatlety associate with the Novus Ordo Church. There are also a lot of good, holy, people who attend the SSPX and indult, but are unfortunatley deceived. I do not condemn anyone, God is the judge of souls, however I can not in any way condone the SSPX, or the indultees.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2008, 07:36:40 PM »

Now that's what I mean. That was not very kind of what you said last to Dulca, FM. Don't know if you'll even respond this, FM, but I don't remember when it was essential to be a theologian for salvation. Not every Catholic knows theology. Oh, yes, theology is useful and indispensible, but it is not the most essential thing for salvation, as much as I even like and know some of it myself.

Dulca makes very good points, regardless of whether Dulca is of the SSPX position or not. You can be assured I am of that position though. This is not a matter of interpretation of Catholic teaching, considering that you mentioned, FM, about a man trained by the SSPX interpreting heavy references to official Catholic docuмents. Official Church teachings cannot just be interpreted, of course.

Dulca, you made very good points. :smile:

We must simply stick with what the Church has always taught and await for her judgment of our present situation in the future.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2008, 08:07:01 PM »

If one can even consider that the hierarchy can defect altogether with the loss of jurisdiction, the only logical conclusion is that the Church has defected, although I imagine a sedevacantist could contend that.

You see, considering roscoe's Pope Boniface VIII denial, for example, since if he denies as it is already the papacies from John XXIII onward, then it must be okay to look back and question the validity of pontificates long ago, even though I am aware that Dante Alighieri had abouts about the election of Pope Boniface VIII. I don't recall Dante coming out and denying Boniface VIII's pontificate though, and even if he did, it would not matter since no one can judge the status of a Pope. That is all, of course, another issue altogether.

The racist issue and roscoe does not have an absolute bearing on sedevacantism, and so I withdraw that part of what I said at the beginning as part of my arguments against sedevacantism.

Just by observing the fruits, one can tell if something is good or not. And so I have then noticed a sort of patronizing among sedevacantists here at times. I sure hope those times did not really smack of pride though and were rather out of invincible ignorance.

The Cardinal Siri thesis still has something to do with sedevacantism in that there is still denial of certain popes being popes since John XXIII. I don't recall when Cardinal Siri ever claiming openly that he was Pope. If I'm not mistaken, didn't he go along with Vatican II?

It matters little what I say. <---- (something which one, or some, of sedevacantists might quote and comment on for all I know) What matters is the Catholic faith. I admonish all here to read what Dulca says in this thread. What Dulca says affirms that we must adhere to what the Church has always taught. We need to leave final judgments of the current situation to the Church in the future.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2008, 08:36:57 PM »

I did not say roscoe's Pope Boniface VIII issue was bearing on sedevacantism. The racist issue has no bearing, I said.

To what errors are you referring as well? And why do you assume we sedeplenists have a lack of knowledge?

Dulca was just stating the truth. Be aware that there is also more than abstract ideas. Those ideas must be applied too. The sedevacantist thesis is simply theory, and no Pope has ever attempted to promulgate a heretical dogmatic definition regardless of any false or ambiguous teachings given by popes since John XXIII.

Dulcamara · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2008, 10:31:17 PM »

Quote from: Four_Marks

Quote from: Dulcamara
His? :shocked:

I guess that's what I get for wearing pants...

:roll-laugh1: I see.

Well, being a scholar, my dear lady, you would know that if gender has not been established, (and I didn't care to establish it) one naturally is inclined to refer to one as being male, hence the references in my posts to "him" .

I'm sorry if it offended you, but somehow I don't think it did.

P.S. I'd ditch those pants in a big hurry. :wink: LOL

Take care,

Four_Marks

As soon as I can afford bloomers as opposed to nylons... I probably will. And the offense will belong here more rightly to the men, as you just mistook a "silly woman" for one of them.

However I'm not a scholar (or a feminist, for the record); I have no glorious college degrees (nor would I glory in them if I had, education being what it has become, and my being what I am). Life has been my education, which according to Chesterton was the way it once was for all good women. But being a woman and unemployed, I have the luxury of reading, thinking and hearing good sermons, and those have proved a very satisfactory education for me. If perhaps some day all books are free to all men on the internet, maybe I can share the highlights with you. But more probably it would just lead to more arguments, and as you well know, vicious verbal fighting is not a sport for ladies. Let the feminists take up arms. I'm going in the other direction.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #11 on:** February 20, 2008, 03:46:56 PM »

Quote from: Four_Marks

Quote from: Kephapaulos
Now that's what I mean. That was not very kind of what you said last to Dulca, FM. Don't know if you'll even respond this, FM, but I don't remember when it was essential to be a theologian for salvation. Not every Catholic knows theology. Oh, yes, theology is useful and indispensible, but it is not the most essential thing for salvation, as much as I even like and know some of it myself.

Dulca makes very good points, regardless of whether Dulca is of the SSPX position or not. You can be assured I am of that position though. This is not a matter of interpretation of Catholic teaching, considering that you mentioned, FM, about a man trained by the SSPX interpreting heavy references to official Catholic docuмents. Official Church teachings cannot just be interpreted, of course.

Dulca, you made very good points. :smile:

We must simply stick with what the Church has always taught and await for her judgment of our present situation in the future.

Yes, Kepha, I am responding. It is not "very kind" of him (and others) to be subjecting the world to his material.

Kepha wrote: "Don't know if you'll even respond this, FM, but I don't remember when it was essential to be a theologian for salvation. Not every Catholic knows theology. Oh, yes, theology is useful and indispensible, but it is not the most essential thing for salvation, as much as I even like and know some of it myself."

Very good point. Well then cease your (your camp residing on this forum) unbridled theologizing. You admittedly don't think it's too necessary, so shy away from giving your opinions, for example, which defend the SSPX's erroneous "R&R" (recognize and resist) madness.

You misunderstand me, Kepha. I don't mean intrepreting as far as his own interpretation. Intrepreting, as in CORRECTLY explaining the teachings of the Church for "we, the admittedly ignorant masses of Catholics that pretend we have even an ounce of his knowledge". I haven't seen any of your crowd refuting Fr. Cekada lately, or EVER.

Anyway, you're NOT up against me, nor are you up against Fr. Cekada per se; rather you're up against the teachings of the Church as clearly explained for dummies, obviously myself included, by Rev. Fr. Cekada. :wink:

In closing. Overall, Dulca's points are "straw", ie., worthless. I'm not being uncharitable, just honest.

All the best,

Four_Marks P.S. Yes, if ONLY you actually would just stick to what the Church has always taught, Catholicism would be infinitely better off. :smile:

What Fr. Cekada says is probably "just his interpretation" though as since you have pointed out that a man trained by the SSPX is "interpreting" Catholic doctrine with the SSPX view. It is a matter of dealing with the current situation of the Church, and it must be observed how ideas are applied. We don't only think and talk about them. We also live them. The life and actions influenced by ideas then can show forth whether or not those ideas are good or evil. Sedevacantism has shown to cause needless controversy (particularly on this forum) which only leads to the conclusion from what sedevacantists promote that there need not be a pope or authority for the Church for it to run like usual.

I've read from the sedevacantist explanation concerning the dogma that St. Peter has PERPETUAL successors from Vatican I, and so how can they be said to be perpetual if we've had supposedly such a long interregnum according to sedevacantists who proprose sede vacante as de facto? They can't be said to be perpetual then.

Consider also who takes the real beatings today. Sedevacantists might complain of Rome and it's shenanigans, but they have really nothing to do with confronting Rome on the issues of today. The Novus Ordo just gives in, but the SSPX actually fights for Catholic Tradition and confronts the issues instead of merely staying out in the boondocks like sedevacantist groups.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2008, 01:06:10 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

...Sedevacantists might complain of Rome and it's shenanigans, but they have really nothing to do with confronting Rome on the issues of today. The Novus Ordo just gives in, but the SSPX actually fights for Catholic Tradition and confronts the issues instead of merely staying out in the boondocks like sedevacantist groups...

This is a pretty childish understanding of the matter, my old friend. "Confronting" 'Rome' accomplishes nothing, especially as SSPX, etc., do it - calling their poisoner and would-be executioner by the name of "papa". To defeat the enemy, one must first IDENTIFY him.

Against whom does the SSPX "fight"? The supposed VICAR OF CHRIST. The very notion is absurd.

Btw, sedes HAMMER the modernists in a way that the inconsistent trads could never conceive. Facing the facts gives one true liberty and strength to pursue the fight in a meaningful manner. Until such facts are faced, it is just a case of banging one's head against an incredibly solid wall - and wasting one's time.

God speed.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2008, 01:19:32 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

I've read from the sedevacantist explanation concerning the dogma that St. Peter has PERPETUAL successors from Vatican I, and so how can they be said to be perpetual if we've had supposedly such a long interregnum according to sedevacantists who proprose sede vacante as de facto?

Did you READ the explanation, or just come across it? The way you phrase this question is nonsense, for you essentially say that you read the explanation and simultaneously wonder how such is explained. Either you read the explanation or you did not. If you did so, well ... If you did not, then go read it.

Dulcamara · « **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2008, 04:13:15 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Against whom does the SSPX "fight"? The supposed VICAR OF CHRIST. The very notion is absurd.

Btw, sedes HAMMER the modernists in a way that the inconsistent trads could never conceive. Facing the facts gives one true liberty and strength to pursue the fight in a meaningful manner. Until such facts are faced, it is just a case of banging one's head against an incredibly solid wall - and wasting one's time.

God speed.

Well, anybody who listens around will realize that the SSPX doesn't fight against a "whom" (unless you mean the devil) so much as it fights against a "what". Unless you hold that fighting against a person's ideals is to fight them personally. But a person is not their ideals.

Last I heard, the SSPX is in communication with Rome, and continues to try to convert those who are there, who are in error, from their errors. Now that seems to be a perfectly reasonable way of "fighting" ... as opposed to... how did someone put it? "beating at shadows?" It is to do as the Church has always done: If there are men without the Faith, you put on your cassock, march over to the unknown lands, and do your priestly best to give it to them. Once, that meant getting tortured to death by savages in loin cloths. Now it means getting threatened and badmouthed by men with purple buttons. But the notion is the same. It's the same missionary calling that the priests of God have had for centuries.

To talk to these men and tell them to their faces, "your churches are dying, and this is why," is at least a way of trying to pound into their heads the reality that there is a problem. In any case, it seems a man can certainly do so and remain Catholic. Denying the pope smacks of a kind of religious euthanasia... the patient is too ill to fix with ease, therefore, kill the patient.

The SSPX seems to be much more against the errors than the people (a novel and markedly Catholic concept). To fight against an error, and to renounce an authority are different things. A policeman may be a wife beater, but even if he beats his wife, he will be no less a police officer for it, unless perhaps he gets arrested. You CAN renounce an error, without renouncing the authority of the person in error. If my boss is a crooked mobster, he can still tell me to run a fax for him, as long as he's my boss, and I must do it. Now if he tells me go shoot someone, obviously I'll decline, even at the risk of getting fired. ("excommunicated?")

But the reason I don't continue to fight about your articles versus mine, your ideas versus mine, is because I know that nothing will change your position. The only reason I spoke at all was to put some thoughts out there that are virtually never recognized. For instance, there ARE those who hold your position, who do so because "the pope is infallible and cannot err... therefore since this particular pope seems to be in error, he can't possibly be the pope." There are those, too, who hold the "throw the baby out with the bath water" mentality. There ARE, however other people on CathInfo besides the most vocal. While my words may not apply to you or change you minds, they do apply to some people, and they may interest still others.

If an angel came down from heaven to give you a message from the Lord Himself, that the pope is the pope, I'm sure that a good 4 or 5 people on here would argue to the death with the angel whether the message came from the Lord, or whether the angel was actually a devil. There is no point arguing with such a one, because such a one would not believe it, if the Lord Himself contradicted their opinion.

Since I'm neither the Lord nor an angel, but something much less, I can hardly expect anything I say to matter, interest or influence those persons. But again, you are not the only persons on CathInfo.