Author Topic: VERY serious question (Read 1289 times)

Stephen Francis · « **on:** September 22, 2013, 10:27:19 PM »

Quote from: The Gospel According to St. Matthew, chapter 23

[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

It is clear from these Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself that the corrupt, compromised, spiritually-bankrupt leaders of the Sanhedrin were still POSSESSED OF THE AUTHORITY to command obedience to the Scriptures insofar as they were commanding obedience to the LETTER and not to their additions/deletions or other aberrations.

How, then, are we to understand sedevacantism? Would not Our Lord's Words condemn such a premise? Certainly, the men who are parading around dressed as Catholic clergy are introducing awful ideas into the world. Their "interpretations" of what Scripture and Tradition have to say are novel and unsupportable at BEST and awful at any rate. With that said, however, aren't these men, ridiculous as they seem, legitimately IN the positions of authority in the Church? Aren't we to obey the Catholic things they say while ignoring their obviously non-Catholic example?

I'm not thinking of changing my perspective on so-called SVism. I just want to ask the flat, point-blank question:

If you are a 'sedevacantist', what is at the TOP of your list of reasons why? What ONE thing, all other considerations notwithstanding, makes you take that position?

Obviously, alternately, if you are NOT a 'sedevacantist', the same question applies to you as well. What is the ONE thing, no matter what else may or may not be true, that convinces you of your position.

Again, I'm not considering changing my opinion, but I DO want to be able to bring my family to Holy Mass sooner than later, and the only chapel near me that offers a valid Mass is a chapel staffed by the SSPX.

I am trying to understand the MAJOR points of contention between the sedevacantists and the sedeplenists.

Please, for my ease of reading and for the benefit of those who might be less aware of the distinct claims of each position, please try to limit your response to the answer to my ONE question. Feel free to comment at length on the ONE answer, but please don't talk about why you disagree with the justifications that the other side makes, or why you feel that St. So-and-so was right or wrong for seemingly/obviously/maybe/definitely believing what you do.

Just give me YOUR TOP SINGLE REASON why you are or are not a sedevacantist.

Also, sedevacantists: please feel free to indicate (briefly) how long you feel the Chair has been empty.

Thank you in advance.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** September 22, 2013, 10:31:21 PM »

The Haydock Commentary is as follows:

Quote from: Haydock DR Commentary

Ver. 1. Then Jesus, &c. Jesus thus spoke to the multitude a few days previous to his passion. It is here observable that our Saviour, after he had tried all possible remedies, after he had taught and confirmed his doctrines by innumerable miracles, after he had secretly by his parables reprehended them for their wickedness, but without effect, now publicly upbraids their vices. But before his reprehension of the Pharisees, he instructs the people, lest they should despise the authority of the priesthood. (Salmeron)

Ver. 2. The Scribes. They, who professed the greatest zeal for the law of Moses, and gloried in being the interpreters of it, sat upon the chair of Moses, succeeded to his authority of governing the people of God, of instructing them in his law, and of disclosing to them his will. Such, therefore, as did not depart from the letter of the law, were called Scribes. But such as professed something higher, and separated themselves from the crowd, as better than the ordinary class of men, were called Pharisees, which signifies, separated. (Origen) --- God preserveth the truth of the Christian religion in the apostolic See of Rome, which in the new law answers to the chair of Moses, notwithstanding the disedifying conduct of some few of its bishops. Yes, though a traitor, as vile as Judas himself, were a bishop thereof, it would not be prejudicial to the integrity of the faith of God's Church, or to the ready obedience and perfect submission of sincere good Christians, for whom our Lord has made this provision, when he says: do that which they say, but do not as they do. (St. Augustine, Ep. clxv.)

Ver. 3. All therefore whatsoever they shall say. St. Augustine, in his defence of the Apostolic See, thus argues, contra lit. Petil. "Why dost thou call the apostolic chair the chair of pestilence? If, for the men that sit therein, I ask: did our Lord Jesus Christ, on account of the Pharisees, reflect upon the chair, wherein they sat? Did he not commend that chair of Moses, and, preserving the honour of the chair, reprove them? For he sayeth: they have sat on the chair of Moses. All therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do. These points if you did well consider, you would not, for the men whom you defame, blaspheme the Apostolic See, wherewith you do not hold communion." (lib. ii. chap. 51) And again, chap. 61 Ibid. "Neither on account of the Pharisees, to whom you maliciously compare us, did our Lord command the chair of Moses to be forsaken; (in which chair he verily figured his own) for he warned the people to do what they say, and not what they do, and that the holiness of the chair be in no case forsaken, nor the unity of the flock divided, on account of the wicked lives of the pastors." --- Christ does not tell them to observe every thing, without exception, that the Pharisees should say to them; for, (as it was observed in a previous chapter) many superstitions and false ordinances had obtained amongst them, corrupting the Scriptures by their traditions; but only such as were not contrary to the law of Moses. We are taught to obey bad no less than good ministers, in those things that are not expressly contrary to the law of God. Hence appears how unfounded and unreasonable is the excuse so often adduced by persons in justification of their misdeeds, viz. that they saw their pastors do the same. Such must attend to the rule here given by Jesus Christ. What they say, do: but according to their works, do ye not. (Denis the Carthusian) --- The words, all whatsoever, shew that nothing must be excepted, but what the supreme law orders to be excepted. (Estius)

Source

Full Online Haydock DR Bible With Commentary

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #2 on:** September 22, 2013, 10:47:55 PM »

Quote from: Haydock Commentary

The words, all whatsoever, shew that nothing must be excepted, but what the supreme law orders to be excepted.

There, in a nutshell, is my individual problem with both the current occupant of the Chair and all the Conciliar claimants. I see very clearly violations of that Supreme Law which is Divinely revealed and thus infallible. As such, those violations render obedience to those persons occupying the See of Peter null and void, since they have, ipso facto, incurred excommunication due to their departures from the Catholic Faith.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** September 23, 2013, 08:40:27 AM »

You're making the wrong distinction here based on how you want this passage to read. Our Lord distinguishes between their teachings and their behavior, not between their true teachings and their false teachings.

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #4 on:** September 23, 2013, 09:01:01 AM »

Spoiler alert:

I actually asked the question because I knew that answer; I just wanted to see if any "recognize/resist" adherents would jump at the chance to use that Scripture in their own defense.

You've solved the puzzle early, Ladislaus! Well played!

bowler · « **Reply #5 on:** September 23, 2013, 09:21:09 AM »

Quote from: Stephen Francis

Certainly, the men who are parading around dressed as Catholic clergy are introducing awful ideas into the world. Their "interpretations" of what Scripture and Tradition have to say are novel and unsupportable at BEST and awful at any rate. With that said, however, aren't these men, ridiculous as they seem, legitimately IN the positions of authority in the Church? Aren't we to obey the Catholic things they say while ignoring their obviously non-Catholic example?

I am a traditionalist, I follow what came before, what is universal, what has always been from the time of the Fathers. Todays situation is all unprecedented in history. It is a mystery that requires my own personal interpretation. That is not my way. Therefore, I make no decisions regarding the popes and local bishops other than avoiding them because of their deeds. "By their deeds you shall know them". I pray for their conversion in the canon of the mass and when I do the rosary. I look for priests who were ordained in the Latin Rite, by bishops who were ordained in the Latin Rite and consecrated in the Latin Rite. I take my children to those priests and also teach them where the priest is deviating from tradition, so that they are aware of it, and learn to have a keen eye for the truth (not just be sheep who follow a priest because he is a priests). We homeschool because we have not found priests/schools that do not undermine our beliefs, morals, and standards. We go to an SSPX chapel to receive the sacraments, and we have learned over time to expect nothing more.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** September 23, 2013, 09:45:06 AM »

Quote from: Stephen Francis

Quote from: The Gospel According to St. Matthew, chapter 23
[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

It is clear from these Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself that the corrupt, compromised, spiritually-bankrupt leaders of the Sanhedrin were still POSSESSED OF THE AUTHORITY to command obedience to the Scriptures insofar as they were commanding obedience to the LETTER and not to their additions/deletions or other aberrations.

How, then, are we to understand sedevacantism? Would not Our Lord's Words condemn such a premise? Certainly, the men who are parading around dressed as Catholic clergy are introducing awful ideas into the world. Their "interpretations" of what Scripture and Tradition have to say are novel and unsupportable at BEST and awful at any rate. With that said, however, aren't these men, ridiculous as they seem, legitimately IN the positions of authority in the Church? Aren't we to obey the Catholic things they say while ignoring their obviously non-Catholic example?

I'm not thinking of changing my perspective on so-called SVism. I just want to ask the flat, point-blank question:

If you are a 'sedevacantist', what is at the TOP of your list of reasons why? What ONE thing, all other considerations notwithstanding, makes you take that position?

Obviously, alternately, if you are NOT a 'sedevacantist', the same question applies to you as well. What is the ONE thing, no matter what else may or may not be true, that convinces you of your position.

Again, I'm not considering changing my opinion, but I DO want to be able to bring my family to Holy Mass sooner than later, and the only chapel near me that offers a valid Mass is a chapel staffed by the SSPX.

I am trying to understand the MAJOR points of contention between the sedevacantists and the sedeplenists.

Please, for my ease of reading and for the benefit of those who might be less aware of the distinct claims of each position, please try to limit your response to the answer to my ONE question. Feel free to comment at length on the ONE answer, but please don't talk about why you disagree with the justifications that the other side makes, or why you feel that St. So-and-so was right or wrong for seemingly/obviously/maybe/definitely believing what you do.

Just give me YOUR TOP SINGLE REASON why you are or are not a sedevacantist.

Also, sedevacantists: please feel free to indicate (briefly) how long you feel the Chair has been empty.

Thank you in advance.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

We can neither do what these public heretics do or say. Those on the Chair of Moses where an imperfect foreshadowing of the authority of future Popes.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** September 23, 2013, 09:46:59 AM »

I just read the rest of the thread. You fooled me Francis.

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** September 23, 2013, 10:33:10 AM »

Quote from: Stephen Francis

Quote from: The Gospel According to St. Matthew, chapter 23
[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

It is clear from these Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself that the corrupt, compromised, spiritually-bankrupt leaders of the Sanhedrin were still POSSESSED OF THE AUTHORITY to command obedience to the Scriptures insofar as they were commanding obedience to the LETTER and not to their additions/deletions or other aberrations.

How, then, are we to understand sedevacantism?

The difference between the Scribes and the Pharisees at the time of Jesus and the bishops and popes of today is that the Scribes and Pharisees were simply hypocrites who generally taught the truth according to Scriptures but behaved in ways that were unholy. They were not unlike some of the popes and bishops of the Middle Ages who, when they taught, taught sound doctrine but made their palaces houses of ill repute.

The bishops and popes today simply don't teach the Catholic Faith. Their Catechism contains heretical doctrines. Their Canon Law contains laws that directly violate the divine laws the Church has always taught. Their sacraments put God away and make all rites those seeking fellowship with one another. It is not just their actions that are unholy, but their teachings as well.

You ask what the turning point was for me. It was when I attended the ninth annual Interfaith Thanksgiving Service on November 25, 2008 at the Cathedral of SS. Peter and Paul in Indianapolis, Indiana. Until that night, I had known about Assisi I and Assisi II. I had read about how terrible they were and still couldn't really understand. I thought, yes, it's bad, but we've often had "bad popes". But actually witnessing one of these interfaith services changed my entire perspective.

It isn't quite the same as seeing a National Geographic Special showing various religious services from peoples in various locales around the world. This was the Archbishop of Indianapolis inviting Protestants, Jєωs, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Sikhs (religious communities that are in the greater Indianapolis area) to the cathedral to pray to their assorted gods in "thanksgiving". When I saw what hosting such an event actually entails, it became clear that these men (i.e., the bishop and all the Catholics who actively participated) were apostates. There is just no other word for what I saw.

Since the Scribes and Pharisees weren't actively promoting the worship of Jupiter or the other Roman gods, we can't know for sure what Jesus would have said, but I don't think he would have encouraged his followers to do as they say (i.e., worship Jupiter one day and God the next) but not as they do.

The Catholic Church had never before condoned such things let alone encourage them or teach in its catechisms or laws that such things were acceptable. The fact is, if you simply do what the Conciliar leaders tell you to do, even if you don't do what they do, you will lose the faith and you will succuмb to heresy.

That is why I am sedevacantist.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #9 on:** September 23, 2013, 11:40:56 AM »

It breaks God's commandment.

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #10 on:** September 25, 2013, 10:57:53 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stephen Francis
Quote from: The Gospel According to St. Matthew, chapter 23
[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

It is clear from these Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself that the corrupt, compromised, spiritually-bankrupt leaders of the Sanhedrin were still POSSESSED OF THE AUTHORITY to command obedience to the Scriptures insofar as they were commanding obedience to the LETTER and not to their additions/deletions or other aberrations.

How, then, are we to understand sedevacantism? Would not Our Lord's Words condemn such a premise? Certainly, the men who are parading around dressed as Catholic clergy are introducing awful ideas into the world. Their "interpretations" of what Scripture and Tradition have to say are novel and unsupportable at BEST and awful at any rate. With that said, however, aren't these men, ridiculous as they seem, legitimately IN the positions of authority in the Church? Aren't we to obey the Catholic things they say while ignoring their obviously non-Catholic example?

I'm not thinking of changing my perspective on so-called SVism. I just want to ask the flat, point-blank question:

If you are a 'sedevacantist', what is at the TOP of your list of reasons why? What ONE thing, all other considerations notwithstanding, makes you take that position?

Obviously, alternately, if you are NOT a 'sedevacantist', the same question applies to you as well. What is the ONE thing, no matter what else may or may not be true, that convinces you of your position.

Again, I'm not considering changing my opinion, but I DO want to be able to bring my family to Holy Mass sooner than later, and the only chapel near me that offers a valid Mass is a chapel staffed by the SSPX.

I am trying to understand the MAJOR points of contention between the sedevacantists and the sedeplenists.

Please, for my ease of reading and for the benefit of those who might be less aware of the distinct claims of each position, please try to limit your response to the answer to my ONE question. Feel free to comment at length on the ONE answer, but please don't talk about why you disagree with the justifications that the other side makes, or why you feel that St. So-and-so was right or wrong for seemingly/obviously/maybe/definitely believing what you do.

Just give me YOUR TOP SINGLE REASON why you are or are not a sedevacantist.

Also, sedevacantists: please feel free to indicate (briefly) how long you feel the Chair has been empty.

Thank you in advance.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

We can neither do what these public heretics do or say. Those on the Chair of Moses where an imperfect foreshadowing of the authority of future Popes.

And what did the scribes and the Pharisees say and teach?

[6] And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. [7] Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: [8] This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. [9] And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.[10] And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye and understand. Matt 15:6-10

It was not just what they did, it is what they taught as well as they were sitting on the chair of Moses.. Yet Our Lord commanded his disciples to obey in all things except sin. We have no authority apply automatic penaties (or any penalty) to popes or anyone else for that matter. We cannot be judged by failing to use authority we do not possess. We can however, be judged by usurping authority that does not belong to us and causing greater damage to the Body of Our Lord.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #11 on:** September 26, 2013, 06:07:03 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Stephen Francis
Certainly, the men who are parading around dressed as Catholic clergy are introducing awful ideas into the world. Their "interpretations" of what Scripture and Tradition have to say are novel and unsupportable at BEST and awful at any rate. With that said, however, aren't these men, ridiculous as they seem, legitimately IN the positions of authority in the Church? Aren't we to obey the Catholic things they say while ignoring their obviously non-Catholic example?

I am a traditionalist, I follow what came before, what is universal, what has always been from the time of the Fathers. Todays situation is all unprecedented in history. It is a mystery that requires my own personal interpretation. That is not my way. Therefore, I make no decisions regarding the popes and local bishops other than avoiding them because of their deeds. "By their deeds you shall know them". I pray for their conversion in the canon of the mass and when I do the rosary. I look for priests who were ordained in the Latin Rite, by bishops who were ordained in the Latin Rite and consecrated in the Latin Rite. I take my children to those priests and also teach them where the priest is deviating from tradition, so that they are aware of it, and learn to have a keen eye for the truth (not just be sheep who follow a priest because he is a priests). We homeschool because we have not found priests/schools that do not undermine our beliefs, morals, and standards. We go to an SSPX chapel to receive the sacraments, and we have learned over time to expect nothing more.

I have a great deal of respect for the answer you have given, and I believe that the ideal should always be homeschooling. It is very hard, but blessed are those parents who are able to do it and actually carry through.

There is not much wrong with the idea that the SSPX supplies sacraments, that is there whole reason for their existence is to provide the faithful that which the new Religion can't be able to do. Since total starvation is not something that should be advocated, then some sort of sustenance is better then none. Even the Popes before during the Mexican Revolution agreed with the apostate atheistic Marxist government of Mexico to limit 1 priest to 200,000 faithful and respectively different numbers throughout all the states of the republic some of them even having a lesser proportion to priest to faithful. The principle that they operated under was, some masses are better then no masses.