Author Topic: Understanding sedevacantism (Read 1030 times)

Oremus · « **on:** November 29, 2013, 08:57:41 AM »

To make a very long story short, I am being (for lack of a better term), beginning to accept that sedevacantism may be correct.

My dilemma is, I don't have the answers to fully understand. For example, something that I read a lot of is that the popes espouse the heresy of modernism. Well, where/who said that modernism was a heresy and when did Pope Francis espouse it? Or if he didn't, what heresy did he commit or what did he do to lose the See of Peter.

I realize this is such a big question, so I'm just looking for a point in the right direction on where to start.

Thanks in advance.

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** November 29, 2013, 09:11:47 AM »

Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On the Doctrines of the Modernists)

".....And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it [Modernism] as the synthesis of all heresies?"

As for Francis, it would be much easier to post his public remarks that have not been modernist / heretical, here they are: .

hollingsworth · « **Reply #2 on:** November 29, 2013, 10:06:21 AM »

The sede merely looks upon a church which is heretical and apostate, and concludes that there is no pope. However, and I've never been able to understand this, if there is no longer a pope on the Chair, does it not hold equally true for all the other posts operating under the pope? If we have an antipope on the throne, then all the cardinals and bishops under him are also anticardinals and antibishops, aren't they? After all, they were all appointed by antipopes. Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it sedevaticanus, (or whatever the proper Latin might be)?

LoverOfTradition · « **Reply #3 on:** November 29, 2013, 10:08:56 AM »

If Sedavancatism is true, then where is the true Pope? How is he going to come on the scene and from where? If the Pope isn't the true Pope, then the rest of the Clergy aren't, either.

Just asking. I've never been able to understand this.

Mabel · « **Reply #4 on:** November 29, 2013, 11:56:49 AM »

Have you read through the materials on strobertbellarmine.net ?

Whether it convinces you or not, I think that site gives the best explanation. The person who puts it up doesn't need to convince you in order to make a livelihood or support their chapel, either.

soulguard · « **Reply #5 on:** November 29, 2013, 12:02:38 PM »

Quote from: Oremus

To make a very long story short, I am being (for lack of a better term), beginning to accept that sedevacantism may be correct.

My dilemma is, I don't have the answers to fully understand. For example, something that I read a lot of is that the popes espouse the heresy of modernism. Well, where/who said that modernism was a heresy and when did Pope Francis espouse it? Or if he didn't, what heresy did he commit or what did he do to lose the See of Peter.

I realize this is such a big question, so I'm just looking for a point in the right direction on where to start.

Thanks in advance.

The website of most holy family monastery describes heresies of the post Vatican 2 "popes" including Francis.

songbird · « **Reply #6 on:** November 29, 2013, 01:37:41 PM »

Vatican I may help to explain. When the doctrine of infallibility came about, all terms must be defined. this is very important. We have the same in our State laws. So, Pope is defined. Laws in the church state that in order to produce a new pope, that man must be "Catholic" or he is not to be considered. Church/Christ states that we will know them by their fruits. Outward/manifest actions of heresies are judged.
The lay people do not need a formal meeting to come to this decision, especially when those involved to vote are of the same caliber.

These popes who kiss the Koran, and wear the Jєωιѕн cap, write books that state anyone is saved and etc. are manifest heresies.

We are also protected if any, non-pope tries to made a doctrine, all terms must be defined. I doubt if a non-pope would do such; for to define would bring out their heretical thoughts, give them away. This happened at Vatican II. Ratzinger was asked to define his suggestions and he refused or stated he had no need to. I believe it was Levebrve who said, "if you try to define, you will give yourself away as heretics."

So, I think the answer to a lot of questions, is the time it takes to read docuмents of the church, and not out of context.

Chapter 12 of Daniel will happen. There will be an end to the continual sacrifice, the Mass. We are very close. No Mass, no clergy? Or no valid clergy? Hm? But it will happen.

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 29, 2013, 02:18:03 PM »

Quote from: Oremus

To make a very long story short, I am being (for lack of a better term), beginning to accept that sedevacantism may be correct.

My dilemma is, I don't have the answers to fully understand. For example, something that I read a lot of is that the popes espouse the heresy of modernism. Well, where/who said that modernism was a heresy and when did Pope Francis espouse it? Or if he didn't, what heresy did he commit or what did he do to lose the See of Peter.

I realize this is such a big question, so I'm just looking for a point in the right direction on where to start.

Thanks in advance.

I have a suggestion. Read the encyclical by POPE ST PIUS X entitled Pacendi Domenici Gregis written in 1907. Not only was he POPE at the time teaching as only a Holy Roman Pontiff can - but he is a Canonized Saint to boot. It just doesnt get any better than that.

Compare it to what is being taught today in the Novus Ordo.

Sedevacantists are not disobedient to the PAPACY. They are obedient to everything the Papacy has defended up to the moment that modernism usurped it. It is because of the Ppapcy that sedevacantism exists TODAY because of the times we are in.

Read what his HOLINESS Taught and then read the Docuмents of Vatican II . Both cannot be the truth.

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 29, 2013, 02:33:50 PM »

Quote from: LoverOfTradition

If Sedavancatism is true, then where is the true Pope? How is he going to come on the scene and from where? If the Pope isn't the true Pope, then the rest of the Clergy aren't, either.

Just asking. I've never been able to understand this.

null

When Our Lord came the first time - what was the state of the religion of Almighty GOD? Was everything sailing along smoothly? If you think so , then you need to reread the many discourses Our Lord had with the Pharisees.

Today we find ourselves in a similar situation. Tell me the difference between The Novus Ordo of today and the Pharisees in Our Lords time.

I am a Sedevacantist. Not because I wish to separate from the CATHOLIC Church but rather because I want to remain Catholic and to remain united to the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant.

Our Church is a Living Church. The Church Militant may have shrunk in size today but it still makes up only a third of the Living Church. The Soul is eternal. 260 Popes verses 6 questionable Popes in the Living Church?

When judgement day comes for me I want to make it known that The teachings of 260 POPES many of whom shed their blood rather than defect the truths of the Catholic Faith - that I did not go along with modernism as condemned by many of these 260 TRUE POPES. That their teachings were clear in a time of unmistakeable Heresy.

Oremus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 29, 2013, 05:36:42 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Have you read through the materials on strobertbellarmine.net ?

Whether it convinces you or not, I think that site gives the best explanation. The person who puts it up doesn't need to convince you in order to make a livelihood or support their chapel, either.

Yes, someone pointed me to the website last night in a PM. Thanks!