-
Anyone who attempts to answer that question ends up answering a different question:
"What good is Traditional Catholicism?"
But that's not the question I asked.
Traditional Catholicism is defined as: "The movement by which Catholics deal with the Crisis in the Church (an unprecedented split between Truth and Authority) by cleaving to Truth rather than Authority which has abused its power and over-stepped its bounds. Specifically and practically speaking, this consists of leaving the Conciliar Church structure (the Novus Ordo Mass) completely, and seeking out sure priests and sure sacraments(1) wherever they can be found, with the aim of keeping the Faith and saving their souls. Permission to do this is not sought from said Authority, since such permission is not required.(2)
(1) The Novus Ordo Mass is a doubtful Rite, at least opening itself up to invalidity. The Tridentine Mass is a sure thing. The Church teaches that when you have a choice between "100% sure" and "75% sure" you are morally obligated to go with the "100%" option.
The same goes for priests. They did change the Rite of Ordination and the Rite of Consecration. Why risk invalidity, when the old Rite is 100% certain? Therefore we are obligated to stick with the safer route.
(2) This part of the essential definition of "Traditional Catholic" necessarily leads to the conclusion that Indult and Diocesan fans of the "Latin Mass" or "Extraordinary Form" are not true Traditional Catholics -- which is correct. They can be called conservatives, fans of the Latin Mass, but they lack understanding of the Traditional Movement, its purposes and justifications.
Likewise, when people try to attach Bishop Williamson/Archbishop Lefebvre's position on the Novus Ordo Mass, they end up preaching the virtues of the Traditional Catholic position. But, again, that was not the topic of discussion.
My question: what virtues are SPECIFIC to the Sedevacantist position, and its consequent beliefs about the Papacy, the visible Church, the restoration of the Church, the status of the N.O.M., and the status of all Catholics in the Conciliar Church.
People seem to confuse the Pope question (quite optional, and best left alone) with the essential (saving our souls, which requires true priests and true sacraments -- i.e., Traditional Catholicism)
One of these is clearly God's will for each one of us (saving our souls), while the other is quite debatable (personally, I think it's above our pay grade -- especially for those of us in the Lay state!)
That has to be the question, because the discussion is certainly not about "To Tradition or NOT to Tradition" -- I think we can all agree that Traditional Catholicism is the way to go. The debate is about going the next step, and deposing the Pope and the entire Conciliar structure as absolutely, simpliciter, literally "not Catholic".
-
Wow Matthew, by framing it in utilitarian terms, you've convinced me that Jorge Bergoglio is the pope. :D
-
Wow Matthew, by framing it in utilitarian terms, you've convinced me that Jorge Bergoglio is the pope. :D
I'm not being utilitarian. I'm being rational. And yes, I'm being a bit practical and grounded in reality.
To rephrase the question, "Why is sedevacantism necessary, or why would a person be wise to choose that path?"
Or, "What does Sedevacantism add to Traditional Catholicism, in the work of saving our souls?"
That's what I meant by "What good is sedevacantism?" I didn't mean, "How does Sedevacantism add to my income?" Or "How does Sedevacantism help with my housework?"
By being sarcastic in this manner, it makes me wonder why you are changing the subject. Is it because I'm exposing sedevacantism for the dead-end that it is?
-
I'm not being utilitarian. I'm being rational. And yes, I'm being a bit practical and grounded in reality.
To rephrase the question, "Why is sedevacantism necessary, or why would a person be wise to choose that path?"
Or, "What does Sedevacantism add to Traditional Catholicism, in the work of saving our souls?"
That's what I meant by "What good is sedevacantism?" I didn't mean, "How does Sedevacantism add to my income?" Or "How does Sedevacantism help with my housework?"
By being sarcastic in this manner, it makes me wonder why you are changing the subject. Is it because I'm exposing sedevacantism for the dead-end that it is?
Yes. You have exposed sedevacantism as practically worthless, and as we all know, what is not useful is not true.
-
Yes. You have exposed sedevacantism as practically worthless, and as we all know, what is not useful is not true.
Well, that might be my eventual conclusion, but I'm giving you a chance to explain why a Sedevacantist Catholic has a better chance of saving his soul than a non-Sedevacantist Traditional Catholic.
I know, it's a hard question, to the point of impossible to answer. So I'm not surprised you're dodging the question.
-
I think this is a valid question.
We're not Traditional Catholics "just because", or because we're feisty, disobedient, or bad people. There is a purpose, a point, to the Traditional Catholic movement. Without it, many more people would go to Hell. We can't have that, so Traditional Catholicism must be promoted, defended, etc.
I can't say the same about Sedevacantism. It seems more like an accretion, an option, a personal opinion. A useless theological speculation, like "How many angels fit on the head of a pin?"
-
Nah, I'm just having some fun. But you're asking the wrong question.
The question is not one of utility, but of truth. That's something all traditional Catholics can get behind. The question, "why are we traditional Catholics?" can be answered legitimately by pointing to the fact that traditional Catholicism is true, and that God made us to apprehend the truth. So the only question that we should be concerned about when approaching sedevacantism from a non sedevacantist position is whether or not it is a true allegation. Come what may from there.
I have answers-- regarding the practical benefits of sedevacantism-- I just don't think that they're the primary reason that anyone should end up concluding that the conciliar claimants aren't popes. The primary reason is distillable to truth; in this instance, a theological truth that is intertwined with the nature of Christ's mystical bride, an organization which is a visible unity of faith and charity, and one from which those who have severed themselves (from either bond) do not belong.
Even if there were no practical advantages to acknowledging these non-papacies at all, the fact of the matter would remain undisturbed. I think it's important to acknowledge this. If we evaluate usefulness before truth, what does that say about us?
Anyways, those who acknowledge the state of sede vacante have clarity. They are not pre-occupied with looking at what the "pope" says and figuring out what is true or not. They're also not pre-occupied with the sedevacantist question, either, which is something sedeplenists find themselves frequently anxious about. Practical devotions become clearer, because you have a "deadline" after which you know that no pope has canonized a saint, approved a Litany, instituted a change in sacramental rite, etc. You can actually focus on your spiritual life instead of being absorbed in controversies. You can tell your children, "that man isn't pope, so don't listen to him." Now, one could say, "I'm not a sedevacantist but I do all this anyways." Heh.
What do you call a man who doesn't teach as pope, doesn't legislate as pope, doesn't canonize as pope, and doesn't actually do anything a pope does? To invert the old saying: if it doesn't walk like a duck, or quack like a duck, well...
Now of course, one needn't be a sedevacantist to go to Heaven, but if we're distilling things to the minimum prerequisite to be saved, once again: what does that say about us? If a person judges that they can discuss the matter, then let's discuss the matter; let's not focus on pragmatics at the expense of ontology.
Honestly Matthew, sounds to me like you're convinced of sedevacantism and you're asking the age-old (valid) question: where do we go from here? Maybe you can share with us how you think the SSPX, or Bishop Williamson, could restore the Church.
-
Perhaps the prime virtue of sedevacantism is that it is not drawn to the Modernist popes.
So far, every organized group of non-sedevacantist traditionalists have reconciled with Modernist Rome, or is in the process of reconciling, and has compromised on the faith. Even Bishop Williamson said in one of the conferences that was posted on this forum that he would go to Rome and meet with "the pope" if he was summoned. Catholics are naturally drawn to the papacy and if one recognizes the wrong man as the pope, one is going to be drawn in the wrong direction. We can only hope that the Resistance remains more or less unorganized.
The organized groups of sedevacantist traditionalists with which I have had contact, on the other hand, have absolutely no interest in being recognized by Rome because they see Modernist Rome as having no more authority as, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury. They have not compromised on the faith even though they have differences of opinions on issues that require a pope to resolve and in practical issues. (I'm not suggesting that all organized sedevacantist groups fit this as I only have limited experience.) Sedevacantists will not be drawn in the wrong direction.
Sedevacantists are also less likely to accept the new Rite of Orders while non-sedevacantists, even those who used to reject the new Rites as, at best, doubtful, have pretty much completely caved on the issue since their current pope was, himself, ordained and consecrated in the New Rites. Depending upon the individual priest, this goes to the central issue of the validity and invalidity of the sacraments. I understand that some non-sedevacantists still reject the New Rites but maintain, nonetheless, that Bergoglio is the valid reigning pope, which is beyond my ability to comprehend.
-
Honestly Matthew, sounds to me like you're convinced of sedevacantism and you're asking the age-old (valid) question: where do we go from here? Maybe you can share with us how you think the SSPX, or Bishop Williamson, could restore the Church.
Now you're asking the wrong question.
Or you've demonstrated how many sedevacantists "miss the point".
The problem is, we don't know with anything greater than "moral certainty" that sedevacantism is true, and neither do you.
We can act based on moral certainty though, so that isn't a condemnation of you, or others like you.
But we don't have the certainty of faith, or metaphysical certainty, or the certainty of dogma, on the Pope question. From this truth comes the conclusion that we can't impose our THEOLOGICAL OPINION on others. And that is the principle by which I criticize Fr. Cekada, the Dimond Bros., and other "dogmatic" sedevacantists. They attempt to condemn non-sedevacantists.
Others go half-way, and say "Oh I don't condemn non-Sedevacantists. Some of them are in ignorance..." But let me ask you: am I in ignorance? Anyone who's been a member of CI longer than a few weeks knows better. So such persons could only conclude that I am malicious.
I don't know how Bishop Williamson and the Resistance are going to restore the Church. How the Church will be restored is a MYSTERY and I'm OK with that.
Sedevacantists, on the other hand, want cut-and-dried, simple, humanly understandable solutions they can wrap their minds around. Mystery is ANATHEMA to them. Some even know with certainty how the Church will be restored: a miraculous apparition of St. Michael, or Sts. Peter and Paul. See what I mean? No mystery.
I, on the other hand, acknowledge the mystery.
-
Perhaps the prime virtue of sedevacantism is that it is not drawn to the Modernist popes.
So far, every organized group of non-sedevacantist traditionalists have reconciled with Modernist Rome, or is in the process of reconciling, and has compromised on the faith. Even Bishop Williamson said in one of the conferences that was posted on this forum that he would go to Rome and meet with "the pope" if he was summoned. Catholics are naturally drawn to the papacy and if one recognizes the wrong man as the pope, one is going to be drawn in the wrong direction. We can only hope that the Resistance remains more or less unorganized.
The organized groups of sedevacantist traditionalists with which I have had contact, on the other hand, have absolutely no interest in being recognized by Rome because they see Modernist Rome as having no more authority as, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury. They have not compromised on the faith even though they have differences of opinions on issues that require a pope to resolve and in practical issues. (I'm not suggesting that all organized sedevacantist groups fit this as I only have limited experience.) Sedevacantists will not be drawn in the wrong direction.
Sedevacantists are also less likely to accept the new Rite of Orders while non-sedevacantists, even those who used to reject the new Rites as, at best, doubtful, have pretty much completely caved on the issue since their current pope was, himself, ordained and consecrated in the New Rites. Depending upon the individual priest, this goes to the central issue of the validity and invalidity of the sacraments. I understand that some non-sedevacantists still reject the New Rites but maintain, nonetheless, that Bergoglio is the valid reigning pope, which is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Well...I see your point but I can think of at least one group of organized sedevacantists that did reconcile with Modernist Rome: the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferre (https://www.chemere.org/)r (a quasi Dominican religious order). Their founder at least held sedevacantist beliefs for some time. Yet the majority of sedevacantist groups have not. That is not exactly the best argument for sedevacantism though.
-
Well...I see your point but I can think of at least one group that did reconcile with Modernist Rome: the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferre (https://www.chemere.org/)r (a quasi Dominican religious order). Yet the majority have not.
Yes, but while we talk about "how various Trad groups go off the deep end", it should be pointed out that Sedevacantists, by their very nature, are not inclined (or tempted) to "make a deal with Rome" because they believe the Pope is not the Pope and the Church is not the Church. (As an aside, it should be pointed out that Sedevacantists are almost always Ecclesia-vacantist as well as Sede-vacantist)
The ways Sede groups go off the rails are simply different. They are not SAFER or in a MORE PRUDENT PLACE -- they simply picked a different poison. They go off the rails, percentage wise, just as often. They have just as many problems in their chapels. The problems are just...different.
For example, Sede groups are more likely to end up in SCHISM with other Catholics, or end up dogmatic "we're the last Catholics on earth" home aloners.
How is that any better than going back to the Conciliar Church? Recall that the devil is just as happy to grab you FROM THE RIGHT as well as FROM THE LEFT.
The Pharisees were a demonic distortion to the Right, just as the Sadducees were the deviation to the Left. Both were condemned by Our Lord.
-
But we don't have the certainty of faith, or metaphysical certainty, or the certainty of dogma, on the Pope question.
We don't have a metaphysical certainty that the pope has to be Catholic?
It seems to me that the idea that anyone who claims to be Catholic is, therefore, Catholic is just a re-working of Americanism. I've often heard people ask what right I or anyone else has to suggest that so-and-so (Bergoglio, Nancy Peℓσѕι, Joe Biden, etc.) aren't Catholic, after all, they say they're Catholic!
Frankly, I believe that you are wrong on the facts. Bergoglio is manifestly a heretic. He has promulgated a new doctrine on marriage (among many, many other things). He is not a Catholic; he cannot be pope.
Admitting this fact does not mean that one cannot acknowledge the very same mystery as you. You shouldn't attribute the views of some sedevacantists to sedevacantism. After all, I know a few non-sedevacantists who have blessed candles all over their houses so that they will have light when the "Three Days of Darkness" comes. I also know non-sedevacantist traditionalists who have told me that everyone associated with the Resistance are apostates! It's crazy!
-
Yes, but while we talk about "how various Trad groups go off the deep end", it should be pointed out that Sedevacantists, by their very nature, are not inclined (or tempted) to "make a deal with Rome" because they believe the Pope is not the Pope and the Church is not the Church. (As an aside, it should be pointed out that Sedevacantists are almost always Ecclesia-vacantist as well as Sede-vacantist)
The ways Sede groups go off the rails are simply different. They are not SAFER or in a MORE PRUDENT PLACE -- they simply picked a different poison. They go off the rails, percentage wise, just as often. They have just as many problems in their chapels. The problems are just...different.
For example, Sede groups are more likely to end up in SCHISM with other Catholics, or end up dogmatic "we're the last Catholics on earth" home aloners.
How is that any better than going back to the Conciliar Church? Recall that the devil is just as happy to grab you FROM THE RIGHT as well as FROM THE LEFT.
The Pharisees were a demonic distortion to the Right, just as the Sadducees were the deviation to the Left. Both were condemned by Our Lord.
Again, you are simply wrong on the facts. Nothing you are saying is "more likely" for sedevacantists, just some of the sedevacantists you know. And no, sedevacantists are NOT almost always "Ecclesia-vacantist". That's just calumny. You're either making things up or are just listening to people who are telling you stories; at best you're attributing to all what a few have told you.
By the way, every single sedevacantist I know is willing to consider looking at Rome when the man claiming to be pope at the Vatican is actually a Catholic.
-
By the way, every single sedevacantist I know is willing to consider looking at Rome when the man claiming to be pope at the Vatican is actually a Catholic.
Maybe it's my Thomistic philosophy background talking, but it sounds like you believe the True Church could become something other, then go back to being the True Church. That involves not one, but TWO substantial changes.
That is abhorrent to Thomistic philosophy. Just like we know that conception begins at birth, because if the baby were "something else" until the 12th week (for example), then a substantial change would have to happen at that point. A destruction, followed by a creation. And what was the "creature" before 12 weeks?
What is more likely is that the Church is gravely sick, disfigured, etc. and will be restored somehow. But if it is to be the Catholic Church someday, then it has to be the Catholic Church right now. Or else the Church has officially FAILED in violation of Christ's promise to St. Peter. Our Blessed Lord does not crawfish on His promises!
The only way to weasel out of that one, is to resort to some kind of petit eglise or "hidden church" argument. But the Catholic Church has to be visible and recognizable.
And modern-day Sedevacantists have to admit -- a 59-year Interregnum (time period without a pope) is a real issue, an issue worthy of debate or concern.
But even what you say suggests that right now (before the Pope starts talking/acting like a Catholic) the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. Ergo, I am correct -- ecclesiavacantism.
Ecclesiavacantism, by the way, is defined as "The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, full stop. Its members are not Catholic. Its bishops have no authority, etc."
-
What good is Sedevacantism?
Ask our Lady of Fatima...
As far as I know, she only requested that we pray for the Pope for he will have much to suffer. I personally believe that if the sedevacantist position carried any weight, Our Lady would have suggested something in the line of praying for a "True Pope" to be appointed.
So as far as I'm concerned, in regards to the question, there is no good.
-
And for all your quotes from famous Doctors of the Church (I believe one of them is St. Robert Bellarmine) suggesting that a "Sede vacante" state could be possible if the Pope were to fall into heresy, I'd like to see where these same Doctors and saints rubber stamp the idea of a FIFTY NINE YEAR INTERREGNUM...not just from the Papacy, but from the College of Cardinals as well!
Because let's face it -- we're not having this conversation in 1970 or 1975, as many people did back then.
You and I are having this conversation in 2017, which is 59 years after the death of Pope Pius XII.
As a matter of fact, the Restoration of the Church seems farther away than ever before. Humanly speaking, it appears that all is lost. Maybe that's a good sign? (cf. Our Lady of Fatima)
-
The sedevacantist position is the only one that makes sense..the opposite would be you believe your pope Borgolio, the heretic from hell is Catholic..so the question is do you believe he is a Catholic? I believe he is an anti pope , any one should be able to see it ...what does that make me? a sedevacantist? I'm open to a more accurate term if one exists
-
Anyone who attempts to answer that question ends up answering a different question:
"What good is Traditional Catholicism?"
But that's not the question I asked.
Traditional Catholicism is defined as: "The movement by which Catholics deal with the Crisis in the Church (an unprecedented split between Truth and Authority) by cleaving to Truth rather than Authority which has abused its power and over-stepped its bounds. Specifically and practically speaking, this consists of leaving the Conciliar Church structure (the Novus Ordo Mass) completely, and seeking out sure priests and sure sacraments(1) wherever they can be found, with the aim of keeping the Faith and saving their souls. Permission to do this is not sought from said Authority, since such permission is not required.(2)
(1) The Novus Ordo Mass is a doubtful Rite, at least opening itself up to invalidity. The Tridentine Mass is a sure thing. The Church teaches that when you have a choice between "100% sure" and "75% sure" you are morally obligated to go with the "100%" option.
The same goes for priests. They did change the Rite of Ordination and the Rite of Consecration. Why risk invalidity, when the old Rite is 100% certain? Therefore we are obligated to stick with the safer route.
(2) This part of the essential definition of "Traditional Catholic" necessarily leads to the conclusion that Indult and Diocesan fans of the "Latin Mass" or "Extraordinary Form" are not true Traditional Catholics -- which is correct. They can be called conservatives, fans of the Latin Mass, but they lack understanding of the Traditional Movement, its purposes and justifications.
Likewise, when people try to attach Bishop Williamson/Archbishop Lefebvre's position on the Novus Ordo Mass, they end up preaching the virtues of the Traditional Catholic position. But, again, that was not the topic of discussion.
My question: what virtues are SPECIFIC to the Sedevacantist position, and its consequent beliefs about the Papacy, the visible Church, the restoration of the Church, the status of the N.O.M., and the status of all Catholics in the Conciliar Church.
People seem to confuse the Pope question (quite optional, and best left alone) with the essential (saving our souls, which requires true priests and true sacraments -- i.e., Traditional Catholicism)
One of these is clearly God's will for each one of us (saving our souls), while the other is quite debatable (personally, I think it's above our pay grade -- especially for those of us in the Lay state!)
That has to be the question, because the discussion is certainly not about "To Tradition or NOT to Tradition" -- I think we can all agree that Traditional Catholicism is the way to go. The debate is about going the next step, and deposing the Pope and the entire Conciliar structure as absolutely, simpliciter, literally "not Catholic".
Here's an answer to which I no longer subscribe-
Just as in the case of an antipope vs a real pope, the true Catholic comes down on the side of the true Pope and condemns the false one, in the case of a false pope vs. a real vacancy, the true Catholic will come down on the side of the vacant see so as not to align himself with a false Pope. The practical advantage is not one of restoration, but to provide against innovation, to identify more fully the true enemies of the Church, and to frame a context within which to act.
-
FIFTY NINE YEAR INTERREGNUM...not just from the Papacy, but from the College of Cardinals as well!
Truly absurd... and the cherry on the top of their scandalous/false narrative is that they refuse to lift the slightest finger to fill their imagined vacancy, as they seduce gullible souls like Mithrandylan, see: https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/new-traditional-catholic-chapel-mn/msg543934/#msg543934
-
Truly absurd... and the cherry on the top of their scandalous/false narrative is that they refuse to lift the slightest finger to fill their imagined vacancy, as they seduce gullible souls like Mithrandylan, see: https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/new-traditional-catholic-chapel-mn/msg543934/#msg543934
Apparently, you don't know much about what you oppose. It's the prerogative on the clergy of Rome to elect their Bishop, so an election cannot be held by sedevacantists. However, refuse to lift the slightest finger? Sounds like you don`t think enough of the power of prayers, as well as the fact that one needs to explain the problem correctly before a lasting solution is had. This prerequisite is constantly being done, and it is people like you who want to squelch it.
-
Apparently, you don't know much about what you oppose. It's the prerogative on the clergy of Rome to elect their Bishop, so an election cannot be held by sedevacantists. However, refuse to lift the slightest finger? Sounds like you don`t think enough of the power of prayers, as well as the fact that one needs to explain the problem correctly before a lasting solution is had. This prerequisite is constantly being done, and it is people like you who want to squelch it.
For the record, Matthew, BumphreyHogart is none other than Nado, a dogmatic sedevacantist you banned quite some time ago for insulting you personally.
-
There is no good quality to sedevacantism. Sedevacantists try to concern Catholics that they are obeying an heretic. I can assure every single sede in the world that Francis has not asked me to do a single thing.
-
The sedevacantist position is the only one that makes sense..the opposite would be you believe your pope Borgolio, the heretic from hell is Catholic..so the question is do you believe he is a Catholic? I believe he is an anti pope , any one should be able to see it ...what does that make me? a sedevacantist? I'm open to a more accurate term if one exists
FYI, this is another problem I have with Sedevacantists. They're the most emotional Catholics around.
"Borgolio, the heretic from hell"
First of all, it's Bergoglio -- it doesn't take devotion or being a fan to have the BRAINS to remember someone's name, or spell it right.
Second of all, "heretic from hell"? What evidence do you have that he actually came from hell? Why do you feel the need to emotionally exaggerate the truth?
At least other sedevacantists limit themselves to calling him a heretic. Why not do the same?
Because saying "heretic from hell" makes non-sedevacantists look more foolish for not rejecting him? I think that's it. Might as well add a few MORE adjectives, to make non-sedevacantists look even MORE ridiculous. How about "fire-breathing, horned heretic from the deepest pit of hades"?
This is the essential nature of websites like Novus Ordo Watch and Traditio. By name calling and excessive disrespect, they attempt to make anyone with a less extreme position on the Pope look foolish.
-
There is no good quality to sedevacantism. Sedevacantists try to concern Catholics that they are obeying an heretic. I can assure every single sede in the world that Francis has not asked me to do a single thing.
If you believe he is pope, you honor and don't oppose him. You love Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass. That's the way it has always been.
-
If you believe he is pope, you honor and don't oppose him. You love Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass. That's the way it has always been.
Resistance to the Pope and the hierarchy has been shown many times over the centuries, usually the resisters became saints too.
-
Resistance to the Pope and the hierarchy has been shown many times over the centuries, usually the resisters became saints too.
Never to approved rites, laws and councils.
-
If you believe he is pope, you honor and don't oppose him. You love Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass. That's the way it has always been.
Ah, Bumph... here's a little tp, you got some bs comin out your keyboard.
-
Ah, Bumph... here's a little tp, you got some bs comin out your keyboard.
Give us your greatest example you have in mind.
-
Resistance to the Pope and the hierarchy has been shown many times over the centuries, usually the resisters became saints too.
Is that a fact?
I invite you to listen to this 40 minute conference. It touches on this very subject you have affirmed.
"Resisters"..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1PuX0_vVXI
-
Is that a fact?
I invite you to listen to this 40 minute conference. It touches on this very subject you have affirmed.
"Resisters"..
Instead of going through 49 minutes of it, can you guess how many minutes into it is the highlight you are thinking of, and from your memory who did it concern?
-
Instead of going through 49 minutes of it, can you guess how many minutes into it is the highlight you are thinking of, and from your memory who did it concern?
I suppose it starts at the latter half of the recording. And it concerns all Catholics.
-
I suppose it starts at the latter half of the recording. And it concerns all Catholics.
Thanks for that, but what historical person resisted what, under which pope? What is that highlight?
-
St. Polycarp resisted Pope St. Anicetus
1. In the second century, the rites of the Church still were not fixed. There was a natural tendency to maintain the Judaic rites. The Roman Empire, dominant in almost the whole known world, exercised a strong influence. There was also the Greek influence present principally in Egypt and Syria. With this, a question understandably presented itself to the Church. Which of these influences should the liturgical rite follow?
Pope St. Anicetus (155-168) wanted to regularize the rites of the Church, initiating what would come to be the Roman Rite. St. Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, wanted to keep the same rites that he had learned from St. John and that had been followed by the other Apostles.
St. Polycarp traveled from the East to Rome and spoke firmly to St. Anicetus, opposing that planned uniformization. St. Polycarp was intransigent. St. Anicetus could not manage to persuade him of his reform. The two rites were maintained, because of the resistance of the great Bishop of Smyrna.
St. Polycarp, along with St. Clement of Rome, the Pope and St. Ignatius of Antioch are each honored with the singular title of Apostolic Father, that is, among the great apologists of the Church these great Saints were instructed by one or another of the Apostles.
St. Irenaeus resisted Pope St. Victor
2. In the year 190, a similar question arose. Pope St. Victor (189-199) suffered the provocations of Blastus, a Catholic of the Jєωιѕн race who went to Rome with the intention of provoking a schism in the Church over the celebration of the Easter rites. Pope Victor had decided to resolve the problem by making a uniform rite to be followed under the threat of excommunication.
All the Churches agreed, with the exception of the Asian Church, which at that time was very numerous. St. Irenaeus, an Asian who had moved to Lyons (France) and became its Bishop, opposed the decision of the Pope, and presented himself before Pope St. Victor to show him all the evils that could come for the Church with the possible schism of the Asian Church. The resistance of St. Irenaeus had the desired effect, and Pope Victor, while maintaining the general rule for the rest of the Church, opened an exception for the Asians.
Pope Marcellinus offered incense to idols
3. A more serious and sad case was that of Pope Marcellinus (296-304), which took place in the years 303-304. It is not a case of resistance per se, but the precedence of a Pope who fell into an error contrary to Catholic Doctrine.
With regard to this, the Roman Breviary (reading of April 5) says: “During the cruel persecution of the Emperor Diocletian, Marcellinus of Rome, overcome with terror, offered incense to the idols of the gods. For this sin he did penance, and wearing a hairshirt, went to the Council of Sinuesso, where many Bishops had assembled. There he openly confessed his crime.”
There is no account of resistance to this action, but one can well imagine that the heroic Catholics who were disposed to offer their lives as martyrs to avoid the crime of Marcellinus strongly opposed that shameful defection of the Supreme Pontiff.
Ss. Athanasius & Hilary resisted the Arian politics of Pope Liberius
4. The epoch of Pope Liberius (352-366) in the middle of the 4th century was marked principally by three men. The Roman Emperor Constantius II, son of Constantine, directed the semi-Arian persecutions. St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, and St. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, resisted the Emperor.
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I011_Hilary.jpg)St. Hilary did not fear to oppose and correct Pope Liberius
At first, Liberius took a strong, laudable stance supporting the Bishops who had resisted the Emperor and were exiled for refusing to sign semi-Arian decrees. In view of this, Constantius ordered the Pope to be arrested and submitted him to pressures to intimidate him. Since the Pope remained constant up to this point, he was sent in exile to Thrace. Then Constantius had Felix elected to occupy the Chair of Peter.
This exile was more difficult for Liberius to endure than the other pressures. After some time, he submitted to the desires of the Emperor. Four letters preserved by St. Hilary of Poitiers in his Historical Fragments and his work Ad Constantiumcontain the testimony of the Pope's submission to the semi-Arian Emperor. St. Athanasius also left a record of the papal defection in his History of the Arians and his Apologia against the Arians.
From Thrace, Liberius was taken to Sirmium, where he signed a semi-Arian profession of faith in the year 357. After he signed this docuмent, the Pope was authorized to return to Rome. In his Chronicle (a. 349), St. Jerome wrote: “Liberius, conquered by the tedium of exile, with heretical perversity signed [the profession of semi-Arian faith] and entered into Rome as a conqueror.”
It is interesting to note that neither St. Athanasius nor St. Hilary had any problem in resisting the Arian politics of Pope Liberius. It is largely from the writings of these two saints that the heresy of Pope Liberius is known today.
Ss. Augustine & Aurelius opposed & resisted Pope Zosimus
5. At the beginning of the 5th century, St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, St. Aurelius, Archbishop of Carthage, and St. Jerome in Bethlehem were shining lights in North Africa and Asia Minor. At that time, the Church was afflicted with the Pelagian heresy.
The doctrine of Pelagius was first condemned by the Council of Carthage in 411. Afterward, it gave rise to the great polemic of St. Jerome and Orosius in Jerusalem, where the heretic had established an important base. St. Augustine wrote various books against the Pelagian doctrine: The Remission of Sins and the Baptism of Children, the Spirit and the Letter, Letter to Hilary, Nature and Grace, Perfect Justice, The Acts of Pelagius, The Grace of Christ and Original Sin.
Alongside these intellectual efforts, the Bishop of Hippo and the Bishop of Carthage exercised their influence so that the two African Councils of Carthage and Mileve held in 416 condemned the Pelagian doctrine and its promoters.
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I011_Augustine.jpg)The great St. Augustine resisted Pope Zozimus when he approved Pelagius
This effort of the African Bishops was approved and praised by Pope Innocent I (401-417), who also expressly condemned Pelagius, his doctrine and his followers. With the rise of Pope Zosimus (417-418) to the papal throne, the Pelagians found an unexpected opportunity to return to the offensive. After various hypocritical maneuvers of Pelagius, Pope Zosimus, in the presence of the Roman clergy, recognized the statements of the heretic as orthodox. He expressed indignation that “a man of Pelagius’ merit could have been so calumniated.” (Letter Postquam nobis, of November 21, 417)
This papal support for Pelagius can also be found in the Letter Magnum pondus.In addition to this inconceivable position, the Holy See demanded a formal retraction from the African Bishops.
The African Bishops appealed, asking Rome to take into consideration the prior condemnation of Pope Innocent I and the two councils of Carthage. The request was unheeded. In face of this situation, St. Augustine and St. Aurelius made an energetic protestation, or obtestatio – an oath with God as witness – affirming that the prior Catholic Doctrine prevailed over the judgment of Zosimus. A plenary council of all Africa then assembled to uphold the condemnation made by Pope Innocent I against Pelagius.
Finally, Pope Zosimus, breaking with his prior measures, accepted the condemnation of Innocent I and renewed the excommunication of Pelagius. This precedent remains in History as a brilliant example of resistance.
Pope Vigilius’ acceptance of Monophysitism had to be resisted
6. Vigilius, the papal representative at Constantinople, was a kind of puppet of the Empress Theodora. He was the one who gave the order to Belisarius, one of the principal generals of Justinian, to depose Pope Silverius (536-537). Silverius was exiled to Asia, returned to Rome, and then newly exiled to the Island of Palmaria where he died, abandoned.
After the death of Silverius, Vigilius himself was raised to the Pontifical Throne (537-555). At that time, the question of the “Three Chapters” was a much-discussed topic. In summary, this referred to the Council of Chalcedon, which condemned the heresy of Eutyches, Monophysitism. To condemn the “Three Chapters” was equivalent to condemning the Council of Chalcedon and approving Monophysitism.
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I011_Vigilius.jpg)Pope Vigilius effectively approves Monophysitism at the Second Council of Constantinople
The Emperor Justinian wanted the Council of Chalcedon to be condemned. At first, Pope Vigilius took a firm position. For this, he was made prisoner and exiled to Constantinople. After years of struggle, in which he suffered ridicule and physical violence, Vigilius gave in. On the orders of Justinian, a new council of Constantinople was convoked and the “Three Chapters” were condemned, that is to say, Monophysitism was accepted.
Vigilius, who wanted to end his exile, asked Justinian for permission to return to Rome. The Emperor agreed, with the condition that the Pope would approve the decisions of the recent council. Vigilius pulled back from his former orthodox position, wrote a letter of retraction, condemned the “Three Chapters” and launched an anathema against its authors. After this reconciliation with Justinian, Vigilius was rewarded with concessions that would have allowed him to reorganize the government of Rome and Italy. He left Constantinople, but he never carried out his plans because he died before he reached Rome.
This is a brief account of six historical precedents that illustrate errors of Popes in the past and the consequent possibility of opposing them with a legitimate and salutary resistance. Three interesting cases still remain, which will be dealt with in the next article.
-
St. Columbanus resisted Pope Boniface IV
1. The case of Pope Vigilius, which the reader already knows, had strong repercussions in the Church of the time. In the West, the pontifical prevarication triggered great indignation, even causing a schism in northern Italy. After the death of Vigilius, his disrepute continued for some time in the Church.
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I013_Columbanus.jpg)St. Columbanus rebuked the Pope in a letter for supporting Nestorianism
In that general climate of confusion following the doctrinal fall of a Pope, one can understand the attitude of the Irish monk St. Columbanus. While in Italy in the city of Babbio, he learned from Agrippinus, Bishop of Cone, that Pope Boniface IV (608-615) was manifesting strong Nestorian tendencies.
Concerned about the scandal this was creating for the See of Peter, St. Columbanus wrote to the Pope. After affirming his humility, the Saint did not hesitate to make an admonition: “Vigilance, vigilance, I beg you, O Pope. Vigilance, I repeat, because it seems Vigilius did not have enough vigilance” (Epistula V). St. Columbanus entreated the Pope to prove his orthodoxy and to assemble a council to clarify the doctrinal confusions of the time. He ended his letter with a reprimand addressed to the Pope.
The heresy of Pope Honorius resisted by St. Sophronius
2. In order to follow the heresy of Pope Honorius (625-638), some background information is necessary. The doctrines of Monoenergism and of Monothelism are two variants of Monophysitism. The author of the heresy, Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, defended the notion that in Christ there was only one single energy and one single will.
This was countered by the strong and efficient opposition of St. Sophronius, who was afterward Patriarch of Jerusalem. The heresy was also combated by St. Maximus the Confessor and various Popes, as we will see below.
In an attempt to thwart the attacks of St. Sophronius and gain support for the new heresy, Patriarch Sergius wrote to Pope Honorius. The Pope responded with a letter approving it.
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I013_Christ.jpg)Monophysitism and its variants denied the two equal natures - human and divine - in Christ
In the docuмent, Honorius praised the efforts of Sergius and approved his thesis about a single energy. The arguments of those who opposed him, said Honorius, could be reduced to just a grammatical question. It was sufficient, Honorius affirmed, to teach that the same Word Incarnate divinely operates divine things and humanly operates human things, and that in all His action there is only one acting, therefore, only one will.
St. Sophronius was elected Patriarch of Jerusalem, and called a synod to combat the heresy. The final docuмent of the assembly was an anti-Monothelist profession of faith. The Patriarch also wrote a treatise about the first heresies in the Church and how she had always combated them. The central point of his analysis was to demonstrate that the Church had taught that there were two energies in Christ - one human and one divine. This is a natural consequence of the double nature of the Savior. To affirm the contrary is to fall into Monophysitism.
The docuмents of Sophronius – the conclusion of the synod and the treatise – were sent to Honorius. The Pope reproved the Patriarch, warning him that he should not separate the energies in Christ.
With this standoff between Honorius and Sophronius, Emperor Heraclitus launched edicts about religious unity and the faith, in which he favored the heresy and combated St. Sophronius.
Monothelism was condemned by the successors of Pope Honorius: Pope Severinus (640-640) condemned it, Pope John IV (640-642) in 642, and Pope Theodore I (642-649) excommunicated Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, for defending the same error.
Pope St. Martin I (649-655) was imprisoned by the Emperor Constans II, and died a martyr because he would not accept Monothelism. Pope Eugenius I (654-657) also rejected this doctrine. The Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople (680-681) condemned Monothelism and condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic. The docuмent of condemnation was issued by Pope Saint Agatho (678-681). This condemnation of Honorius as a heretic was reaffirmed by (http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/j080sdLeoII_6-3.htm)Pope St. Leo II (682-683).
Honorius’ support for Jєωιѕн errors resisted by St. Braulius
3. The Council of Toledo of 638 praised King Chintila for a law of interdict that forbade those who professed the Jєωιѕн faith from remaining in Spain. The Council determined that in the future every King should swear to maintain this rigorous prescription, under punishment of anathema. This attitude of prevention in relation to the errors of the Jєωιѕн religion was a confirmation of a canon of the Council of Toledo of 633, presided over by St. Isidore.
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I013_Braulio.jpg)St. Braulius did not fear to rebuke the Pope for his soft stand on the Jews
Pope Honorius sent an admonition to the Bishops of Spain, expressing his benevolence toward the Jєωιѕн errors. In view of this, St. Braulius of Saragosa, disciple and friend of St. Isidore of Seville, reprimanded the Pope immediately after the Council of 638. He stated that he found it incredible that baptized Jews had received permission in Rome to return to their superstitious practices.
St. Braulius sent Honorius an account of the “past and present acts” of the councils regarding the Jєωιѕн errors. Directing himself to the Pope, he first manifested his respect toward the “the first and most eminent of the Prelates,” to the “head of our ministry.”
But then he affirmed that he could not believe that the “astuteness of the serpent had been able to leave traces of his passing over the stone of the Apostolic See.”
One of the “dogmas” of Progressivism that unfortunately is held by many ecclesiastics in high places of the Church today is that of not combating the errors of the Jєωιѕн religion, which, nonetheless, continues to profess the same principles. It is interesting to see here how the Councils and the Saints have acted so courageously in the past, and how even when a Pope - a heretic Pope - supported the Jєωιѕн errors, he received the exemplary resistance of St. Braulius.
-
No thanks for an article by Atila Sinke Guimarãess
-
No thanks for an article by Atila Sinke Guimarãess
So you won't watch a video or read an article, you are a bad willed schismatic.
-
So you won't watch a video or read an article, you are a bad willed schismatic.
Really, how old are you? You sound like you may be 14.
The author is not reputable in his/her field.
I will watch the video for the portion that pertains to what we are talking about here.
-
FYI, this is another problem I have with Sedevacantists. They're the most emotional Catholics around.
"Borgolio, the heretic from hell"
First of all, it's Bergoglio -- it doesn't take devotion or being a fan to have the BRAINS to remember someone's name, or spell it right.
Second of all, "heretic from hell"? What evidence do you have that he actually came from hell? Why do you feel the need to emotionally exaggerate the truth?
At least other sedevacantists limit themselves to calling him a heretic. Why not do the same?
Because saying "heretic from hell" makes non-sedevacantists look more foolish for not rejecting him? I think that's it. Might as well add a few MORE adjectives, to make non-sedevacantists look even MORE ridiculous. How about "fire-breathing, horned heretic from the deepest pit of hades"?
This is the essential nature of websites like Novus Ordo Watch and Traditio. By name calling and excessive disrespect, they attempt to make anyone with a less extreme position on the Pope look foolish.
No emotion at all, not sure what you are talking about, You are right thought, I don't respect your pope Jewgorglio as I know he is an enemy of Christ.. I did notice you couldn't answer a simple question though.
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Chur
ch built upon a rock, that is Christ, and uponPeter... because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”
4
St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful,
and put tosilence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”5(Intro. To Catena Aurea.)
-
Really, how old are you? You sound like you may be 14.
The author is not reputable in his/her field.
I will watch the video for the portion that pertains to what we are talking about here.
And how is he not reputable?
-
Apparently, you don't know much about what you oppose. It's the prerogative on the clergy of Rome to elect their Bishop, so an election cannot be held by sedevacantists. However, refuse to lift the slightest finger? Sounds like you don`t think enough of the power of prayers, as well as the fact that one needs to explain the problem correctly before a lasting solution is had. This prerequisite is constantly being done, and it is people like you who want to squelch it.
So you have no sedevacantist "Roman clergy" member of your sect to be your pretend Camerlengo.... what is your novel group's latest breaking news contingency plan after 60 years then, Mr. Bogus?
Sorry to take you out of your deep prayer...
-
Mr. Bum,
When you and Cekada are done contemplating your navels together, can you provide your "urgent" Plan B of your vacant narrative?
-
My question: what virtues are SPECIFIC to the Sedevacantist position, and its consequent beliefs about the Papacy, the visible Church, the restoration of the Church, the status of the N.O.M., and the status of all Catholics in the Conciliar Church.
People seem to confuse the Pope question (quite optional, and best left alone) with the essential (saving our souls, which requires true priests and true sacraments -- i.e., Traditional Catholicism)
One of these is clearly God's will for each one of us (saving our souls), while the other is quite debatable (personally, I think it's above our pay grade -- especially for those of us in the Lay state!)
That has to be the question, because the discussion is certainly not about "To Tradition or NOT to Tradition" -- I think we can all agree that Traditional Catholicism is the way to go. The debate is about going the next step, and deposing the Pope and the entire Conciliar structure as absolutely, simpliciter, literally "not Catholic".
What good is sedevacantism?
It it true, Matthew, that many people on the online forums really seem to get side-tracked by this question and answer a different one. Or they start a debate without being charitable. It greatly grieves me to see this, and I can only speak for myself and others I know who privately hold the sedevacantist opinion...
First of all, I would like to say that most people would not generally be able to pick private sedevacantists out of a traditional Catholic group because we don't generally speak up unless someone else brings the subject up first. Why is that? Because we believe that, though it makes the most sense to us, it is not obligatory upon anyone to believe. In fact, it often does more harm to converse about it with people who are not ready to hear it. If someone legitimately has a question though, I do try my best to answer them. You have asked this question in sincerity, and in turn will try my best to answer it as far as my understanding allows.
+++
Sede-vacantism was the key element in my converting to traditional Catholicism, and has been for many other people I know...
I will never forget the day, back when I was 15 years old, that a friend of mine was trying to talk me into becoming a traditional Catholic. I, in turn, tried to convert this friend from his "error". One time I was trying to make a point to him and told him that the only way it would make sense that Vatican II and the novus ordo could be bad was if a pope could be a heretic. At the time, I had never even heard of sede-vacantism, and thought that this argument would win my friend, since I figured that a pope could obviously not be a heretic. This friend of mine then looked into whether a pope could be a heretic, became a sede-vacantist, and soon thereafter converted me to the traditional Catholic Faith.
I will admit that I was at first a dogmatic sede-vacantist, and in over jealousness probably did more harm than good for those I talked to about the subject. As with everything, it takes time to find a happy medium and balance one's opinions...
That being said, I will return to the original answer...
What good is sedevacantism?
Believing that the modern popes are not actually popes makes the situation of the Church look very bleak, but it also makes it so that we do not have to question ourselves about at what times we should or should not listen to them. It makes it so that we are not tempted to look back at the novus ordo, but encouraged to look only to the traditions and customs of the past popes and doctors of the Church who held the Apostolic Faith for guidance in our lives.
If sede-vacantism is true, than no man on earth has the power to set things right. It is a horrifying thought. Only God can fix the Crucifixion of the Church, just as only God could remedy the Crucifixion of Our Lord. Those who are not sede-vacantists seek for human means to remedy the problems of the Church (like the Moto Proprio of Benedict XVI, or the SSPX joining with Rome). Yet, accepting the fact that the papacy has been more solidly attacked, makes us all the more apt to pray and do penance, and hope that God will bring about the Restoration sooner because He is our only hope...
-
Since Matthew couldn't answer the question I'm hoping any non sedevacantist can answer a simple question...is your pope catholic
-
Since Matthew couldn't answer the question I'm hoping any non sedevacantist can answer a simple question...is your pope catholic
Yes, he was baptized and raised as a Catholic, professes the Catholic faith and has been neither excommunicated nor proclaimed as a heretic, objectively he is Catholic.
Subjectively, he has done many non-Catholic things which are at odds with his Catholicism and rob him of (subjective) moral authority.
But as it stands, the identity of the Pope is a matter of dogmatic fact, if the Church could fail to identify her head she would risk apostasy and the gates of Hell would prevail. In secondary matters such as dogmatic facts, the Church is also infallible.
-
thanks for the reply
you did give me a good laugh though when you wrote "professes the Catholic faith"
I am interested to know if there are many others who believe in that statement
-
thanks for the reply
you did give me a good laugh though when you wrote "professes the Catholic faith"
I am interested to know if there are many others who believe in that statement
Subjectively that is; he intends to and he believes he does.
-
Subjectively that is; he intends to and he believes he does.
Only a fool believes that intentions make something true. Intentions don't make something true. Bergoglio does not profess the Catholic Faith. Does he think he does? Frankly, I don't believe that even he believes that he professes the Catholic Faith. He professes the faith he believes the Catholic Faith should be.
-
Yes, he was baptized and raised as a Catholic, professes the Catholic faith and has been neither excommunicated nor proclaimed as a heretic, objectively he is Catholic.
Subjectively, he has done many non-Catholic things which are at odds with his Catholicism and rob him of (subjective) moral authority.
But as it stands, the identity of the Pope is a matter of dogmatic fact, if the Church could fail to identify her head she would risk apostasy and the gates of Hell would prevail. In secondary matters such as dogmatic facts, the Church is also infallible.
Great post :)
-
Only a fool believes that intentions make something true. Intentions don't make something true. Bergoglio does not profess the Catholic Faith. Does he think he does? Frankly, I don't believe that even he believes that he professes the Catholic Faith. He professes the faith he believes the Catholic Faith should be.
This is all your private conjecture. I know Francis is a wicked liberal, but he has not been condemned by anyone in authority, and the benefit of the doubt goes to the authority.
-
This is the 50th post in this thread and so far, no one has answered the question; "What good is sedevacantism?"
I would think a direct answer would start out something like one of these examples:
Sedevacantism is good because it ______________
or Good comes from sedevacantism by _______________
-
This is all your private conjecture. I know Francis is a wicked liberal, but he has not been condemned by anyone in authority, and the benefit of the doubt goes to the authority.
Actually, the principle is the opposite, "a doubtful pope is no pope". Look it up (papa dubius papa nullus)
-
Actually, the principle is the opposite, "a doubtful pope is no pope". Look it up (papa dubius papa nullus)
Papa dubius Papa nullus is not a law or maxim, it is the opinion of some few saints and theologians who opined that for those having some doubts about the validity of a pope, regard him as no pope, might be absolved of schism. It does not mean he is no pope at all.
"What good is sedevacantism?"
-
It allows Catholics to remain Catholics and not deny the Church Teaching that heretics are not in the Church and the Infallible Teaching of Pope Paul IV that a heretic's election to the Papacy is null and void. Thereby, Sedevacantism is good in that a Catholic does not have to make up ridiculous theories such as...oh I don't know...that the Pope can be the head of the Catholic Church whilst simultaneously the head of a false Church.
This answer does not tell of good which arises from sedevacantism, mainly because according to this answer, because sedevacantism allows Catholics to remain Catholic, non-sedevacantists are not Catholic, meaning the only Catholics on earth according to your answer, would be sedevacantists. Certainly even you cannot truly believe this.
So the question remains unanswered.
-
Papa dubius Papa nullus is not a law or maxim, it is the opinion of some few saints and theologians who opined that for those having some doubts about the validity of a pope, regard him as no pope, might be absolved of schism. It does not mean he is no pope at all.
It's a principle. A true pope cannot have the characteristic of being doubtful, which is why all the papal claimants of the so-called Western Schism were obliged to drop their claims or else be schismatic.
-
It's a principle. A true pope cannot have the characteristic of being doubtful, which is why all the papal claimants of the so-called Western Schism were obliged to drop their claims or else be schismatic.
As long as you understand that it does not mean he is not pope. IOW, regardless of how strong, your opinion alone or shared with millions, has no bearing whatsoever on the pope's validity.
"What good is sedevacantism?"
-
Actually, the principle is the opposite, "a doubtful pope is no pope". Look it up (papa dubius papa nullus)
AH, the principle of doubt is not purely negative, but positive probable doubt.
Now, undoubtedly he has said and done things that are at least apparently contrary to the faith, but on the other hand he alternates these acts with Orthodox statements, for example that Christ cannot be properly worshipped or sought outside of the Church.
This kind of alternation is indicative of many plausible scenarios. Is the Pope mentally unstable? Is he possessed? Is he being drugged? Or are his notions of the faith not so much formally heretical as much as just badly formed?
And before you tell me even a material heretic cannot be a Pope and refer to Pope Pius XII, you have to understand the context of the term "Material Heretic."
A material heretic is not a person who pronounces heretical words, a material heretic is a person who finds themselves outside the communion of the Catholic Church and, through no fault of their own, finds themselves believing matter that has been objectively condemned as heresy.
In this sense a material heretic cannot be Pope, as in a person who is in good faith but outside the Church's communion is outside the pale as a Papal candidate.
Now, Francis is not a material heretic. He is a Catholic whose actions are proximate to heresy and are pending canonical correction and review.
Those fine distinctions and such... ;-)
Now, there is no positive probable doubt regarding his election, there is no positive probable doubt regarding his enthronement and there is no positive probable doubt regarding the submission of Cardinals nor his acceptance as Pope by the laity.
Therefore in the mind of the Church, which infallibly ascertains matters of dogmatic fact, he is Pope. YOUR job is to submit to the Church's recognition of that and accept that he, as Pope, has done what he has done.
-
Profession of the Catholic faith is indeed one of the criteria for membership in the Church.
Formal heresy obviously undermines said profession.
-
As long as you understand that it does not mean he is not pope. IOW, regardless of how strong, your opinion alone or shared with millions, has no bearing whatsoever on the pope's validity.
"What good is sedevacantism?"
what good is your opposite theory..in believing someone who odes not profess the Catholic faith is your pope..what good is it ?
-
what good is your opposite theory..in believing someone who odes not profess the Catholic faith is your pope..what good is it ?
Again, dogmatic facts are infallible, and the Church has recognized the fact he is the Pope. If she could misidentifying her head, there is no guarantee she wouldn't follow a false prophet and thus defect.
-
The question, "What good is Sedevacantism?" is actually a secondary question.
The first question must be, "is it true?"
So, assuming it is true....
Of course it is good. God is Truth. Truth is good. Truth opposes error. We are obliged to seek and hold to the truth come what may, and to help eradicated error that are brothers are affected by. The truth eradicates contradictions. All of that is good and pleases God. Pleasing God is the meaning of life. Furthermore, when facing any problem, one must understand the problem first in order to expect a secure and lasting solution in the future, even if we don't know yet what that exactly is. Sedevacantism does all of this.....again, assuming it is true.
-
Or, "What does Sedevacantism add to Traditional Catholicism, in the work of saving our souls?"
That's what I meant by "What good is sedevacantism?"
here is what i have learned by being in the NO group. I have gotten a lot out of Mass, NO Mass. But there is a lot of creepy stuff going on in the RCC these days, meaning the non-traditional Church, and so i am attracted to the sedavacantists
I always thought or was told (both) they were in schism, but it is the NO people who are schismatic. And look what the NO folks created? a monster... a Frankenstein called Francis. I'm sorry, God, if that is not how you want me to say things but that happens to be my true thoughts/feelings.
That guy is no more Catholic than Jack Chick
I want him to step down.
Does this answer your question? Hmmm... I like the NO when there is a good priest celebrating Mass. But I have known just SO many bad priests, priests who actually seem to hate their parishioners, are abusive and etc. I know this one priest who, when a homeless Catholic person needed help, pretty much essentially told the person to take a flying leap, would not get help from the "Catholic" Church (not that one anyway). Real Christian, isn't it? The reason the person was homeless was because of persecution for standing up for what was right, but some priests are just like non-priests: if you are homeless, it is because you are lazy and stupid and irresponsible. I dont know if the priest thought that about this person but that's what it looked like. In any case, i am digressing. So I will just say that I am totally disenchanted with "the Church" --the NO priests.. in general
-
what good is your opposite theory..in believing someone who odes not profess the Catholic faith is your pope..what good is it ?
I have no "opposite theory", I am however waiting, likely in vain, for some sede to actually answer the question directly which was asked in the OP and is the title of this thread.
-
I have no "opposite theory", I am however waiting, likely in vain, for some sede to actually answer the question directly which was asked in the OP and is the title of this thread.
you do, you believe a non catholic is head of the Catholic Church..as a sedevacantist I believe the opposite...the freemason is not my pope...so stillwaiting for the answer..what good is your position..your question is ridiculous
Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976: “The Council [Vatican II] turned its back on Tradition and broke with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council… If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid election are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope
-
you do, you believe a non catholic is head of the Catholic Church..as a sedevacantist I believe the opposite...the freemason is not my pope...so stillwaiting for the answer..what good is your position..your question is ridiculous.
No, as I already said, I have no opposite theory, I was looking for an answer to what you call a "ridiculous question", you call the question ridiculous and will not answer it because you have no clue, apparently for you it's all about your having "the pope problem" as Fr. Cekada likes to call it.
Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976: “The Council [Vatican II] turned its back on Tradition and broke with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council… If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid election are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope.
I always am somewhat amazed when the sedevacantists resort to quoting anti-sedevacantist saints, fathers, magisterial teachings and even anti-sedevacantist Archbishop Lefebvre in their attempts to vindicate their sedevacantism. Doing such things is quite illogical, do you actually believe it to be a help to your cause?
If you are going to quote from authoritative sources to vindicate sedevacantism at all, then you need to quote from sedevacantist bishops, sedevacantists saints and fathers and sedevacantist magisterial teachings from sedevacantist popes.
-
I am pretty sure the answer to this question is that Sedevacantism is not good. It is not good because our Church is without a Pope now for a long time. How could anybody think that that's good. It does not make it any less true though. Sedevacantism is not good because we have no one person in authority right now to judge on the issues that inflict the Church's faithful. This is the punishment that we receive for the injustice done to our God. What we do have is the Dogmas of the Church to guide us right now. Sedevacantism is just the label we put on our current state of affairs based on the Dogmas and Teachings of the Church. So Sedevacantism is not good.
Thank seven for giving a clear answer! Your post should be up-thumbed all over the place for being the only answer to the question in this whole thread.
Although we disagree on the pope's validity issue, thanks for your answer.
-
Maybe we can all join together in spending more time praying that God will bless us a holy traditional Catholic pope instead of arguing about whether Sedevacantism is good or bad? :)
"God first served." -Saint Joan of Arc
-
I have no "opposite theory", I am however waiting, likely in vain, for some sede to actually answer the question directly which was asked in the OP and is the title of this thread.
The question was answered in several posts early in the topic. I can't help it if you read but won't comprehend.
-
No, it was not answered, certainly you never answered it - you never answer questions.
To see what an answer looks like, read seven's post. That's answering a clear question with a clear answer.
-
I am pretty sure the answer to this question is that Sedevacantism is not good. It is not good because our Church is without a Pope now for a long time. How could anybody think that that's good. It does not make it any less true though. Sedevacantism is not good because we have no one person in authority right now to judge on the issues that inflict the Church's faithful. This is the punishment that we receive for the injustice done to our God. What we do have is the Dogmas of the Church to guide us right now. Sedevacantism is just the label we put on our current state of affairs based on the Dogmas and Teachings of the Church. So Sedevacantism is not good.
i can see why you'd think this
but here's the thing: We still have the Church despite not having a valid pope. JEsus promised HIs Church would prevail even against the gates of Hell.
If Francis ever OFFICIALLY taught heresy, I believe God would strike him dead
that has happend in the history of the papacy. A pope was getting ready to declare a certain version of the Bible valid and the right one etc.. and yet it was full of heresies. The cardinals and everyone else were in a tizzy wondering what to do
when suddenly this rather young pope just dropped dead.
i wish i could give u more details but that is probably enough... eh?
-
What Good is Sedevacantism
To know what is "Good" about Sedevacantism , we must first know what it is, and what it represents !
Try this out for size...
What is Sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism comes from the Latin sede vacante, which means “seat vacant.” It is the position held by traditional Catholics who claim that the Papal Seat, the Holy See, has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
Sedevacantists believe that the subsequent claimants to the papal office — John XXIII (1958–1963), Paul VI (1963–1978), John Paul I (1978), John Paul II (1978–2005) and Benedict XVI (since 2005) — have been neither true Catholics nor true, legitimate popes.
Sedevacantism owes its origins to the rejection of the theological and disciplinary changes implemented following the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).
Sedevacantists reject this Council and all its decrees, most notably its docuмents on ecuмenism and religious liberty, which contradicts the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and denies the unique mission of Catholicism as the one true religion, outside of which there is no salvation.
Sedevacantists also reject the New Mass of Paul VI, promulgated on 3 April 1969, as invalid since it has changed the words of consecration and deviated from the tradition of the Church.
See if That will help you out!
What good does all this do ? ,,,
It reconizes, there is not a true Pope in the chair of Peter, and that a Heretic , cannot be a Pope, or head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Outside of Which their is No Salvation..
-
No, as I already said, I have no opposite theory, I was looking for an answer to what you call a "ridiculous question", you call the question ridiculous and will not answer it because you have no clue, apparently for you it's all about your having "the pope problem" as Fr. Cekada likes to call it.
I always am somewhat amazed when the sedevacantists resort to quoting anti-sedevacantist saints, fathers, magisterial teachings and even anti-sedevacantist Archbishop Lefebvre in their attempts to vindicate their sedevacantism. Doing such things is quite illogical, do you actually believe it to be a help to your cause?
If you are going to quote from authoritative sources to vindicate sedevacantism at all, then you need to quote from sedevacantist bishops, sedevacantists saints and fathers and sedevacantist magisterial teachings from sedevacantist popes.
You do have an oposite position to that of the sedevacantist, you believe a non catholic is head of the Church of Christ..why can't you answer the question...what good is it?
your question is ridiculous, a person who holds the sedevacantist position didn't create the crisis...we're in a crisis period. what good is it? ...so you don't have a clue
I quote Lefebvre precisely because he didn't hold the sedevacantist position. yet he questioned seriously the question of whether the pope was a true pope....before jew Borgolio came along, your freemason pope who spews anti catholicism at an unprecedented rate ... totally logical, do you get it now or will you continue with your nonsense
-
The question, "What good is Sedevacantism?" is actually a secondary question.
The first question must be, "is it true?"
So, assuming it is true....
Of course it is good. God is Truth. Truth is good. Truth opposes error. We are obliged to seek and hold to the truth come what may, and to help eradicated error that are brothers are affected by. The truth eradicates contradictions. All of that is good and pleases God. Pleasing God is the meaning of life. Furthermore, when facing any problem, one must understand the problem first in order to expect a secure and lasting solution in the future, even if we don't know yet what that exactly is. Sedevacantism does all of this.....again, assuming it is true.
Bump.
-
Well, for myself, I am looking for the True Precious Blood. You know, the "Pelican" feeding her young blood from her breast.
-
Well, for myself, I am looking for the True Precious Blood. You know, the "Pelican" feeding her young blood from her breast.
Please express that in real terms now, so that we know what you mean.
-
Precious Blood is in all the sacraments, IF, priests are Truly ordained. That is what I want, Precious Blood, for the Powers are in the Blood and Body of Christ. Correct!?
-
No, it was not answered, certainly you never answered it - you never answer questions.
To see what an answer looks like, read seven's post. That's answering a clear question with a clear answer.
You think his answer is a proper answer because he agrees with you. That is the only reason you think it is a good answer. You simply ignore what is said when someone disagrees with you and declare that the question has not been answered. Your ability to understand is hampered by your inability to learn.
-
You think his answer is a proper answer because he agrees with you. That is the only reason you think it is a good answer. You simply ignore what is said when someone disagrees with you and declare that the question has not been answered. Your ability to understand is hampered by your inability to learn.
Seven gave another clear answer to this post. I do not agree entirely with his answer, I was happy to see the question answered and that's the point - the point is, he answered the question, unlike you and unlike anyone else here who replied to the question rather than actually answering the question.
It is not my inability to learn that disturbs you, it is your inability to answer questions. So again, read seven's answer to know what a clear answer to a clear question looks like.
-
What Good is Sedevacantism
To know what is "Good" about Sedevacantism , we must first know what it is, and what it represents !
Try this out for size...
What is Sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism comes from the Latin sede vacante, which means “seat vacant.” It is the position held by traditional Catholics who claim that the Papal Seat, the Holy See, has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
Sedevacantists believe that the subsequent claimants to the papal office — John XXIII (1958–1963), Paul VI (1963–1978), John Paul I (1978), John Paul II (1978–2005) and Benedict XVI (since 2005) — have been neither true Catholics nor true, legitimate popes.
Sedevacantism owes its origins to the rejection of the theological and disciplinary changes implemented following the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).
Sedevacantists reject this Council and all its decrees, most notably its docuмents on ecuмenism and religious liberty, which contradicts the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and denies the unique mission of Catholicism as the one true religion, outside of which there is no salvation.
Sedevacantists also reject the New Mass of Paul VI, promulgated on 3 April 1969, as invalid since it has changed the words of consecration and deviated from the tradition of the Church.
See if That will help you out!
What good does all this do ? ,,,
It reconizes, there is not a true Pope in the chair of Peter, and that a Heretic , cannot be a Pope, or head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Outside of Which their is No Salvation..
That answers the question? Where is there any good in supposedly knowing that the seat is vacant? All you gave was yet another example of a non-answer.
All you are doing is what the others have done - writing a reply that does not even address the question.
Correct me if I'm wrong but while having no actual authority whatsoever, but by certainly having knowledge of the popes' sins, this certain knowledge is the determining factor which is supposed to qualify sedevacantists to conclude that they know with certainty the Chair of St. Peter is empty. Is this correct?
What good is that to all the other traditional Catholics who have the same knowledge of the popes' sins, yet disagree that this knowledge in some way qualifies them to conclude the same above popes have been deprived of their office?
-
sede3 said:
You do have an oposite position to that of the sedevacantist, you believe a non catholic is head of the Church of Christ..why can't you answer the question...what good is it?
your question is ridiculous, a person who holds the sedevacantist position didn't create the crisis...we're in a crisis period. what good is it? ...so you don't have a clue
I quote Lefebvre precisely because he didn't hold the sedevacantist position. yet he questioned seriously the question of whether the pope was a true pope....before jew Borgolio came along, your freemason pope who spews anti catholicism at an unprecedented rate ... totally logical, do you get it now or will you continue with your nonsense
Yes, I do have an opposite position to that of sedevacantists, but to state it correctly, and to put it more precisely and clearly so that there can be no misunderstanding in the matter, sedevacantists hold an opposite position to that of the Catholic Church.
As the OP's ridiculous question asked, what good is that?
-
Yes, I do have an opposite position to that of sedevacantists, but to state it correctly, and to put it more precisely and clearly so that there can be no misunderstanding in the matter, sedevacantists hold an opposite position to that of the Catholic Church.
As the OP's ridiculous question asked, what good is that?
wrong, you can't prove "sedevacantists hold an opposite position to that of the Catholic Church. '
why don't you state precisely what your position is?
here are some options to help you out as you seem to be struggling
option 1. Jewgorglio is a catholic, sedevacantists are nuts
2.Jewgorglio is a heretic but since there is no declaration from the church he is my pope
3.Jewgorglio is a heretic and no declaration needed from the church...the sede position
-
wrong, you can't prove "sedevacantists hold an opposite position to that of the Catholic Church. '
why don't you state precisely what your position is?
here are some options to help you out as you seem to be struggling
option 1. Jewgorglio is a catholic, sedevacantists are nuts
2.Jewgorglio is a heretic but since there is no declaration from the church he is my pope
3.Jewgorglio is a heretic and no declaration needed from the church...the sede position
No, not wrong, you have still not answered the ridiculous question and proof is, sedevacantism itself is a doctrine of man, not of the Church - so what good is sedevacantism?
-
Precious Blood is in all the sacraments, IF, priests are Truly ordained. That is what I want, Precious Blood, for the Powers are in the Blood and Body of Christ. Correct!?
St. Athanasius and those minority who followed him, went without the Sacraments, or had them scarcely and in dire and dangerous situations...even though the Arians had the true Sacraments. This is because we are obliged to flee parishes that even have one heresy.
-
The question, "What good is Sedevacantism?" is actually a secondary question.
The first question must be, "is it true?"
So, assuming it is true....
Of course it is good. God is Truth. Truth is good. Truth opposes error. We are obliged to seek and hold to the truth come what may, and to help eradicated error that are brothers are affected by. The truth eradicates contradictions. All of that is good and pleases God. Pleasing God is the meaning of life. Furthermore, when facing any problem, one must understand the problem first in order to expect a secure and lasting solution in the future, even if we don't know yet what that exactly is. Sedevacantism does all of this.....again, assuming it is true.
bump
-
No, not wrong, you have still not answered the ridiculous question and proof is, sedevacantism itself is a doctrine of man, not of the Church - so what good is sedevacantism?
again let the record show you can't clarify your position..I have proved that your question is nonsensical..the answer is there's nothing good about the crisis we're in..why not concentrate on other issues you are more knowledgeable about...
-
St. Athanasius and those minority who followed him, went without the Sacraments, or had them scarcely and in dire and dangerous situations...even though the Arians had the true Sacraments. This is because we are obliged to flee parishes that even have one heresy.
That means that there is really nowhere nowadays we can obtain the True Blood, right? Better to stay home alone on Sundays? Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are advocating home-aloneism here and this is precisely a perfect example of what is bad in strict, dogmatic sedevacantism.
This does not happen in sedeprivationism or sedevacantism which is not dogmatic, but merely opinionist.
-
That means that there is really nowhere nowadays we can obtain the True Blood, right? Better to stay home alone on Sundays? Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are advocating home-aloneism here and this is precisely a perfect example of what is bad in strict, dogmatic sedevacantism.
This does not happen in sedeprivationism or sedevacantism which is not dogmatic, but merely opinionist.
There are plenty of valid Masses and priests without heresy around the world.
-
again let the record show you can't clarify your position..I have proved that your question is nonsensical..the answer is there's nothing good about the crisis we're in..why not concentrate on other issues you are more knowledgeable about...
I clarified it, look at post #84 where I said it clearly enough for an elementary student to understand when I said.... "Yes, I do have an opposite position to that of sedevacantists, but to state it correctly, and to put it more precisely and clearly so that there can be no misunderstanding in the matter, sedevacantists hold an opposite position to that of the Catholic Church."
Now feel free to answer the question, yes, it is a ridiculous question - we both agree on that, but for different reasons entirely.
-
I clarified it, look at post #84 where I said it clearly enough for an elementary student to understand when I said.... "Yes, I do have an opposite position to that of sedevacantists, but to state it correctly, and to put it more precisely and clearly so that there can be no misunderstanding in the matter, sedevacantists hold an opposite position to that of the Catholic Church."
Now feel free to answer the question, yes, it is a ridiculous question - we both agree on that, but for different reasons entirely.
And I responded post 84 so that even an elementary student could understand, why can't you answer a basic question?
wrong, you can't prove "sedevacantists hold an opposite position to that of the Catholic Church. '
why don't you state precisely what your position is?
here are some options to help you out as you seem to be struggling
option 1. Jewgorglio is a catholic, sedevacantists are nuts
2.Jewgorglio is a heretic but since there is no declaration from the church he is my pope
3.Jewgorglio is a heretic and no declaration needed from the church...the sede position
-
And I responded post 84 so that even an elementary student could understand, why can't you answer a basic question?
wrong, you can't prove "sedevacantists hold an opposite position to that of the Catholic Church. '
why don't you state precisely what your position is?
here are some options to help you out as you seem to be struggling
option 1. Jewgorglio is a catholic, sedevacantists are nuts
2.Jewgorglio is a heretic but since there is no declaration from the church he is my pope
3.Jewgorglio is a heretic and no declaration needed from the church...the sede position
But you never answered the ridiculous question - what good is sedevacantism?
I already stated my position - sedevacantism is a doctrine of man - and as if you don't know - like all doctrines of man, this doctrine is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you cannot understand that, I suggest you look into it a little and stop looking for ways to ignore this fact.
The dogma states quite definitively that it is altogether necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. . . . do you see that there is no proviso to this dogma saying ". . .unless you don't believe the pope is the Roman Pontiff".?
This can only mean one of two things; 1) that per the dogma, no matter what you think or how strongly you believe in your own opinion, you can never get to heaven because you reject being subject to the pope or 2) sedevacantists have figured out how to get into heaven while positively rejecting being subject to the pope on the grounds they don't believe he is the pope.
For my eternity, I will err on the side of caution and live and die by #1, which paraphrasing St. Thomas More's last words, is to say that I remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.
You?
-
But you never answered the ridiculous question - what good is sedevacantism?
I already stated my position - sedevacantism is a doctrine of man - and as if you don't know - like all doctrines of man, this doctrine is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you cannot understand that, I suggest you look into it a little and stop looking for ways to ignore this fact.
The dogma states quite definitively that it is altogether necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. . . . do you see that there is no proviso to this dogma saying ". . .unless you don't believe the pope is the Roman Pontiff".?
This can only mean one of two things; 1) that per the dogma, no matter what you think or how strongly you believe in your own opinion, you can never get to heaven because you reject being subject to the pope or 2) sedevacantists have figured out how to get into heaven while positively rejecting being subject to the pope on the grounds they don't believe he is the pope.
For my eternity, I will err on the side of caution and live and die by #1, which paraphrasing St. Thomas More's last words, is to say that I remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.
You?
Do you not reject that dogma by resisting him...just because you recognize him as your pope doesn't mean you have been subject to him. there have been many anti popes in the history of the church, by that fact alone you should realize the possibility Jewgorglio is an anti pope..which he is. Even if you're not convinced you have no basis to be so anti sede. My arguement is you are not erring on the side of caution because if you don't hold the sede position you are either stating
a. Jewgorglio professes the Catholic faith ( he doesn't) or
b.that he is a heretic but since the church hasn't made a declaration he is still pope
what other options are there that I'm missing, please enlighten me. at the end of the day the difference between you and me is you believe you need a declaration from the Church and I don't believe the Church teaches it. In no way am I putting my soul a risk for taking the sede position, you can't prove that. I don't believe in my own opinion, I rely on the church doctors.
St. Francis De Sales (17thcentury), Doctor of the Church,The Catholic Controversy
, pp.305-306: " Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church
-
Do you not reject that dogma by resisting him...just because you recognize him as your pope doesn't mean you have been subject to him. there have been many anti popes in the history of the church, by that fact alone you should realize the possibility Jewgorglio is an anti pope..which he is. Even if you're not convinced you have no basis to be so anti sede. My arguement is you are not erring on the side of caution because if you don't hold the sede position you are either stating
a. Jewgorglio professes the Catholic faith ( he doesn't) or
b.that he is a heretic but since the church hasn't made a declaration he is still pope
what other options are there that I'm missing, please enlighten me. at the end of the day the difference between you and me is you believe you need a declaration from the Church and I don't believe the Church teaches it. In no way am I putting my soul a risk for taking the sede position, you can't prove that. I don't believe in my own opinion, I rely on the church doctors.
St. Francis De Sales (17thcentury), Doctor of the Church,The Catholic Controversy
, pp.305-306: " Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church
No, I accept that dogma, you reject it by rejecting, denouncing, disrespecting and insulting him as pope - as if you have that right. Hopefully you will come to realize this some day while you are still alive.
Think about St. Thomas More's last words. Everyone can remain the pope's good subjects - but God's first. That is what Catholics do.
Your real problem comes from you knowing of his sins. You've gotten yourself convinced that this knowledge qualifies you to make all manner of slanderous, disrespectful and outrageous remarks against him. You've fooled yourself into believing that your knowledge qualifies you to declare he is not the pope and that he has never even been elected.
Newsflash! - this knowledge in no way qualifies you or anyone on earth to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected, but now you've given into this and blindly embrace it - and from what I know about it, good luck getting yourself back into reality.
We, as Catholics first, then his subjects, have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful. This is how Catholics act - they remain the pope's good subject - but God's first, always God's first whether we're talking about the current pope or the first pope it does not matter, always God's first.
And as pope, he is entirely capable of commanding something that is sinful, which has been proven over the last +50 years, and the sheeple proved themselves fooled, because they obeyed sinful wishes of the pope and hierarchy, because they were not subject first to God - and that is to their shame, they have no one to blame but themselves.
So since you obviously have no answer to the ridiculous question, can we agree that your answer must be that, because sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic, that no good comes from sedevacantism?
Oh, and please cease quoting Catholic saints in your effort to vindicate your sedevacantism, if you want to actually make an impact with quotes, then only quote from sedevacantist saints and popes please. Thank you.
-
No, I accept that dogma, you reject it by rejecting, denouncing, disrespecting and insulting him as pope - as if you have that right. Hopefully you will come to realize this some day while you are still alive.
Think about St. Thomas More's last words. Everyone can remain the pope's good subjects - but God's first. That is what Catholics do.
Your real problem comes from you knowing of his sins. You've gotten yourself convinced that this knowledge qualifies you to make all manner of slanderous, disrespectful and outrageous remarks against him. You've fooled yourself into believing that your knowledge qualifies you to declare he is not the pope and that he has never even been elected.
Newsflash! - this knowledge in no way qualifies you or anyone on earth to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected, but now you've given into this and blindly embrace it - and from what I know about it, good luck getting yourself back into reality.
We, as Catholics first, then his subjects, have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful. This is how Catholics act - they remain the pope's good subject - but God's first, always God's first whether we're talking about the current pope or the first pope it does not matter, always God's first.
And as pope, he is entirely capable of commanding something that is sinful, which has been proven over the last +50 years, and the sheeple proved themselves fooled, because they obeyed sinful wishes of the pope and hierarchy, because they were not subject first to God - and that is to their shame, they have no one to blame but themselves.
So since you obviously have no answer to the ridiculous question, can we agree that your answer must be that, because sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic, that no good comes from sedevacantism?
Oh, and please cease quoting Catholic saints in your effort to vindicate your sedevacantism, if you want to actually make an impact with quotes, then only quote from sedevacantist saints and popes please. Thank you.
I choose to insult Jewgorglio because he is an enemy of the Church of Christ, surely you can't be so blind, Hopefully you will come to realize this some day while you are still alive.
you write: "Your real problem comes from you knowing of his sins."
me: nope,your real problem is inventing things instead of keeping with the facts, I never mentioned anything about his sins, we're talking about heresy. You've fooled yourself into believing an heretic, non catholic is your pope ruling the Church of Christ
So since you obviously have no answer to my question: what good is it to believe an heretic is your pope..can we agree that your answer must be: nothing
you write:"Oh, and please cease quoting Catholic saints in your effort to vindicate your sedevacantism, if you want to actually make an impact with quotes, then only quote from sedevacantist saints and popes please"
me: more ridiculous statements on your part, the sedevacantist position is catholic..but since you want more quotes , I won't let you down
you write: Newsflash! - this knowledge in no way qualifies you or anyone on earth to declare him deprived of his office
me: Archbishop Lefebvre's quote posted below, he is quoted "It is possible that we might be forced" who is this we he is referring to.....newsflash you don't know what you are talking about
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine,
De Romano Pontifice , II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as
Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of
what he is not a member;now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the
Church,and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St.
Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. Degreat. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope ."St. Antoninus (1459): "
In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone
and without any other sentence, separated from the Church . A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to
be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since
he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church ." ( Summa Theologica , cited in Actes de Vatican I . V. Frond pub.)
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986: “This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I have not created it. I would die to make it go away! We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope. Because it seems to me initially – I do not yet want to say it solemnly and publicly – that it is impossible for a pope to be publicly and formally heretical.”
Thank You
-
The only way I can see sedevacantism as being true in respect to the infallibility of the Church in identifying her head is if the past 5 popes have been truly and validly elected as real popes, but that each one at some point has abdicated their papacy, because the act of election, enthronement and submission comprises all that is necessary for a man to be truly considered as pope.
Even then, the loss of authority in the public sphere is debatable. Theologians are not unanimous on whether the Church must declare him outside the Church in some fashion or whether it is left to private recognition of the fact.
I don't see how the determination of sedevacantism can be left to private recognition without devolving into Protestant Chaos.
-
But as it stands, the identity of the Pope is a matter of dogmatic fact, if the Church could fail to identify her head she would risk apostasy and the gates of Hell would prevail. In secondary matters such as dogmatic facts, the Church is also infallible.
The Catholic Church is infallible, yes. The conciliar church - not so much. Perhaps you do not understand the distinction.
-
The Catholic Church is infallible, yes. The conciliar church - not so much. Perhaps you do not understand the distinction.
I think you don't realize, there was no conciliar Church in 1963 when Montini was elected Pope. Therefore he was pope. And after him all the electors were cardinals he had made as Pope or made by previous Popes, making the election of JPII also valid.
And if you are versed in canon law you would realize there is a thing called common error of fact.
Factual Common error is a mechanism the Church utilizes for supplying jurisdiction in cases of necessity. Now, if the Bishops who were made cardinals legitimately mistook a non-Pope for a Pope, common error of fact supplies jurisdiction to the act and renders the cardinals true cardinals.
Now, the act of electing a Pope is not an act of jurisdiction, but an act of administration initiated by the Cardinal Camerlongo.
Therefore all elections of any persons to the papacy is putatively valid, and all Cardinal candidates are putatively valid until proven otherwise.
Therefore any act of election, enthronement and submission creates a valid Pope within the same Vatican structure that has always existed.
Now, can these popes lose their jurisdiction? Yes. Can they lose their office? Yes.
But again, who will declare it for the benefit of all? And where will the visibility of the Church be? The beauty of the Papacy is one can point to it and ask a group of bishops one question, "Are you with the Pope?" And their answer suffices to establish visible unity.
With that gone, where is the unity? Where is the perpetual visibility of the Church? Relegated to warring factions of headless priests and Popeless bishops?
How can I buy that?
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/crossing-the-sedehold-of-hope/msg324903/#msg324903 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/crossing-the-sedehold-of-hope/msg324903/#msg324903)
This is nothing different than what the rest of heretical conciliar popes have taught - their actions have all called the Great Commission, "nonsense". -Stubborn
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-second-vatican-council/msg529639/#msg529639 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-second-vatican-council/msg529639/#msg529639)
You need to look up the definition for "in communion". I assure you that believing the pope to be the pope and being subject to him is not in that definition. - Stubborn
I wonder who is desrepecting and rejecting...
Yes, I believe you wonder since you seem incapable of differentiating between the truth and slanderous disrespect of the popes in their efforts toward the defamation of the person in office.
FYI - We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable. That’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy.
Also, YOU obviously need to look up the definition for "in communion". Have you? Why not? I assure you that believing the pope to be the pope and being subject to him is not in that definition.
-
I choose to insult Jewgorglio because he is an enemy of the Church of Christ, surely you can't be so blind, Hopefully you will come to realize this some day while you are still alive.
you write: "Your real problem comes from you knowing of his sins."
me: nope,your real problem is inventing things instead of keeping with the facts, I never mentioned anything about his sins, we're talking about heresy. You've fooled yourself into believing an heretic, non catholic is your pope ruling the Church of Christ
So since you obviously have no answer to my question: what good is it to believe an heretic is your pope..can we agree that your answer must be: nothing
you write:"Oh, and please cease quoting Catholic saints in your effort to vindicate your sedevacantism, if you want to actually make an impact with quotes, then only quote from sedevacantist saints and popes please"
me: more ridiculous statements on your part, the sedevacantist position is catholic..but since you want more quotes , I won't let you down
you write: Newsflash! - this knowledge in no way qualifies you or anyone on earth to declare him deprived of his office
me: Archbishop Lefebvre's quote posted below, he is quoted "It is possible that we might be forced" who is this we he is referring to.....newsflash you don't know what you are talking about
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine,
De Romano Pontifice , II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as
Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of
what he is not a member;now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the
Church,and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St.
Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. Degreat. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope ."St. Antoninus (1459): "
In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone
and without any other sentence, separated from the Church . A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to
be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since
he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church ." ( Summa Theologica , cited in Actes de Vatican I . V. Frond pub.)
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986: “This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I have not created it. I would die to make it go away! We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope. Because it seems to me initially – I do not yet want to say it solemnly and publicly – that it is impossible for a pope to be publicly and formally heretical.”
Thank You
Oh, and please cease quoting Catholic saints in your effort to vindicate your sedevacantism, if you want to actually make an impact with quotes, then only quote from sedevacantist saints and popes please. Thank you.
Still can't figure out what good is sedevacantism? Me neither.
-
Oh, and please cease quoting Catholic saints in your effort to vindicate your sedevacantism, if you want to actually make an impact with quotes, then only quote from sedevacantist saints and popes please. Thank you.
Still can't figure out what good is sedevacantism? Me neither.
Naa ,i'll stick to quoting Catholics who support the sede stance thank you very much
Pope Leo XIII Motu Proprio of September 25, 1888, when he wrote in his invocation to St. Michael:
“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”
U Still can't figure out what good is recognizing an heretic as your pope? Me neither
U still can't figure out you have lost this argument?
-
First Vatican Council.
Session 4 : 18 July 1870
First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ
Look it up.
You look it up.
Calling the pope a heretic because he speaks and teaches heresy is not calling him defamatory names for the sake of making a joke out of his situation. It is plain to see that you do not understand the difference.
-
Naa ,i'll stick to quoting Catholics who support the sede stance thank you very much
Pope Leo XIII Motu Proprio of September 25, 1888, when he wrote in his invocation to St. Michael: U Still can't figure out what good is recognizing an heretic as your pope? Me neither
U still can't figure out you have lost this argument?
Pope Leo XII was not a sedevacantist pope so why are you referencing him? Do you think being a name dropper carries any weight?
The sedevacantists who quote Catholic authors in their attempts to vindicate their sedevacantism has the same effect as prots who quote Scripture in their attempt to convince us that their man made doctrines are true and the Catholic doctrines are false.
There is no difference.
Not too surprising that you still have zero clue and still cannot even begin to think of an answer to the question - what good is sedevacantism?
-
Pope Leo XII was not a sedevacantist pope so why are you referencing him? Do you think being a name dropper carries any weight?
The sedevacantists who quote Catholic authors in their attempts to vindicate their sedevacantism has the same effect as prots who quote Scripture in their attempt to convince us that their man made doctrines are true and the Catholic doctrines are false.
There is no difference.
Not too surprising that you still have zero clue and still cannot even begin to think of an answer to the question - what good is sedevacantism?
stop embarrassing yourself, you can't handle the numerous quotes that support the sede position from Catholic authors so like a little child you mention they were not sede popes , why don't you come out and state what you really believe ... that anyone who believes a pope is not a true pope due to public heresy without a declaration ...is not a Catholic ...since you are arguing like a (dogmatic pope is pope until a declaration ) why not be man enough and state what you really feel....your nonsensical prot example carries no weight..you don't have a clue...
-
stop embarrassing yourself, you can't handle the numerous quotes that support the sede position from Catholic authors so like a little child you mention they were not sede popes , why don't you come out and state what you really believe ... that anyone who believes a pope is not a true pope due to public heresy without a declaration ...is not a Catholic ...since you are arguing like a (dogmatic pope is pope until a declaration ) why not be man enough and state what you really feel....your nonsensical prot example carries no weight..you don't have a clue...
All misquoting Catholic teachings do is sink you further into your error as your posts continue to demonstrate.
Either quote from sedevacantist popes and saints or give it up. It's that simple.
-
Checkmate.
No, you need to actually look it up before you claim either defeat or victory. You call yourself Truecharity for a reason - no? Well, let's see true charity and post wth it is that you are even talking about.
While you're posting in this thread, why not actually answer the question - what good is sedevacantism?
-
All misquoting Catholic teachings do is sink you further into your error as your posts continue to demonstrate.
Either quote from sedevacantist popes and saints or give it up. It's that simple.
If I misquote anything, feel free to correct. You are acting child like with your sede popes nonsense, which I have already refuted... have you no shame? It is you who are basically giving up because you are unable to respond to my logical posts. Any one here of good will should see through your nonsense.
-
Precious Blood. Chapter 12 of Daniel says that the Sacrifice of the Mass will end and for ---years. (equal to 3 and a half years). So, home alone? IMO I don't see signs that we are there, yet. So, there is still Precious Blood available? Yes, I do see that possible.
-
All misquoting Catholic teachings do is sink you further into your error as your posts continue to demonstrate.
Either quote from sedevacantist popes and saints or give it up. It's that simple.
I think you should give up trying to use reason in argumentation. Sedevacantist popes??
-
I am probably wrong, and I certainly don't hold that one mujst be sede to be Catholic. I do hold that one does not get to 'sift' what is Catholic from pronouncements, at whatever level of import they may have, from someone held to be the Vicar of Christ. Simply put if I understand Joe Schmoe to be Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ picks North Carolina in tomorrow night's National Championship, I better have a damn good reason to pick Gonzaga. Given all that some of the "concilliar" popes have said and done, much like ANY Catholic picking Roy Williams and his treasonous Tarheels in said game is suspect of HERESY ipso facto, though Gonzaga is nominally catholic at this stage, CLEARLY he could not be a true pope or my Kansas Jayhawks would be the infallible Choice!!!
All kidding aside and attempt to lighten the question a bit, I am not saying Francis is not the Pope, I just don't see how he could be? As a Catholic we ALL yearn to be in union with the man occupying the seat (at least ostensibly he is) but I think I lean towards sede vacante or aftr least Ladislaus' sede doubt ism as it gives a certain peace of mind that I am not disobeying our holy Father because he just ain't it. I cannot be in union with heretics any more than I could dis-avow my children. Peace of mind with no rancor is the value to me. I don't have to continue ever more difficult mental gymnastics to continue to consider these men popes.
-
I am probably wrong, and I certainly don't hold that one mujst be sede to be Catholic. I do hold that one does not get to 'sift' what is Catholic from pronouncements, at whatever level of import they may have, from someone held to be the Vicar of Christ. Simply put if I understand Joe Schmoe to be Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ picks North Carolina in tomorrow night's National Championship, I better have a damn good reason to pick Gonzaga. Given all that some of the "concilliar" popes have said and done, much like ANY Catholic picking Roy Williams and his treasonous Tarheels in said game is suspect of HERESY ipso facto, though Gonzaga is nominally catholic at this stage, CLEARLY he could not be a true pope or my Kansas Jayhawks would be the infallible Choice!!!
All kidding aside and attempt to lighten the question a bit, I am not saying Francis is not the Pope, I just don't see how he could be? As a Catholic we ALL yearn to be in union with the man occupying the seat (at least ostensibly he is) but I think I lean towards sede vacante or aftr least Ladislaus' sede doubt ism as it gives a certain peace of mind that I am not disobeying our holy Father because he just ain't it. I cannot be in union with heretics any more than I could dis-avow my children. Peace of mind with no rancor is the value to me. I don't have to continue ever more difficult mental gymnastics to continue to consider these men popes.
I think you're safe with your decision..it's important not to fall for these anti-sede's attacks as if they have the higher ground...they don't..even if they are the majority
-
Actually if sedevacantism were true, it is a very good thing. And here is why.
You are sick, you go to the doctor. He examines you and after the examination gives you a diagnosis. Following up that diagnosis, he prescribes a remedy.
Now, in this struggle there are three elements- discerning the issues, diagnosing the problem, remedying the problem.
Each of these three elements is good but for different reasons.
Discerning the nature of the issues is good because we need to find out what we are up against. The good here provided disambiguation of truth from error.
Having discerned the problems, we ponder a diagnosis; that is we synthesize the problems and most carefully render a judgment that the problem is in FACT X.
The Remedy would then be to apply the proper procedures to eliminate X.
Now, not everyone is called to be involved in every stage of treatment.
Some are called to make initial assessments, such as parents examining the health of their children. Others are called to provided diagnoses, such as doctors, and still others are to work on the implementation of a remedy, such as pharmacists.
Now, if Sedevacantism is the diagnosis of some Catholics as to the nature of our crisis, and it is true, it is a good, because all truths are intrinsically good.
The exact nature of the good it would provide is the disambiguation of truth from error, a synthesis of how the various errors would fit together and how they are to be avoided.
Now, it is up to individuals to apply those things to their own lives, but to say sedevacantism is no good because it doesn't provide a cure is to blame the diagnosis for not being a remedy. It isn't MEANT to be a remedy, it is an abstract analysis of the problem.
YOU have to work out the remedy for yourself until the Church comes to a decision on how to act. In the meantime, it would be foolish, if sedevacantism were true, to pass off your responsibility to act on the diagnosis to the sedevacantist by blaming it for being a diagnosis!
This is the good of Sedevacantism- it is a potentially accurate diagnosis of the problem.
-
Stubborn, I think you should go through all of your posts on this forum in which you argue against SV. Compare that to when you argue against BOD. If you will notice that when you argue against BOD, you cite the Magisterium and quote many things. When it comes to you attacking SV, you will notice that you almost NEVER use any quotes from the Church to prove your points........
You are wrong. You must not have gone back far enough through my posts because if you did, you would have found that in most of my earlier posts, I quoted a lot of teachings from bulls, encyclicals and etc. condemning the error of sedevacantism.
Using magisterial teachings to disprove sedevacantism to sedevacantists is like using Trent's canons to argue with the BODers to argue the 'doctrine of a BOD' "infallibly defined". IOW, it has proven to be a waste of my time so I pretty much gave up on using magisterial teachings and have been trying to appeal to plain old reality and even the common sense we all are supposed to have.
For example; Pope Boniface VIII did not decree.......It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff unless you do not believe he is the Roman Pontiff.
Consider that the dogma is rendered meaningless by adding the proviso of the sedevacantists; "unless you do not believe he is the Roman Pontiff."
Many (most?) sedevacantists have made this proviso into a doctrine unto itself, hence the reason why sedevacantism has for many, become a doctrine of man, believed to be a doctrine of the Church - and sedevacantism, as a doctrine of man and being contrary to the teachings of the Church and not found in any teachings of the Church, as a rule I won't read quotes from popes and Fathers which are used in an attempt to vindicate sedevacantism.
There is absolutely zero reason for sedevacantism, yet per the dogma, there's an eternity of reasons to be against it. Our salvation is not in any way dependent upon the pope's status. The people who reject this truth necessarily have got to reject other necessary Catholic truths and principles in order to cling to and embrace sedevacantism, in much the same way as those rabid (not all) BODers necessarily must reject other Catholic truths and principles in order to cling to and embrace a BOD.
In the past I explained my theory regarding the "well respected" 19th and 20th century theologians - it is only my theory and one which I don't know how to prove other than using those quotes from +ABL which support it and from Fr. Wathen which support it, and those quotes which are half truths and lies from those who rely on those theologians and quote them regularly - yet for me, it proves itself by seeing how so many people including clergy, have been taught half truths, flat out lies and confused theology as regards many things, not only a BOD, but also infallibility, magisterium and "the Church". Just read a few of nado's and bosco's posts - you tell me where they came up with their theology. If you spend the time, I think you'll find their errors can be traced back in some part to those "well respected" theologians of the 19th and 20th century.
-
Stubborn, I think you should go through all of your posts on this forum in which you argue against SV. Compare that to when you argue against BOD. If you will notice that when you argue against BOD, you cite the Magisterium and quote many things. When it comes to you attacking SV, you will notice that you almost NEVER use any quotes from the Church to prove your points. You use the same attacks over and over. You get the same responses over and over. It's usually horror at how someone could call themselves Catholic and believe the way you do. If not horror it's mostly confusion in response. The reason for this is because you offer no proof from the Church that attacks SV in the way you want it to. The quotes you seldom use have nothing to do with the subject and no thinking person in the Church thinks they do.
Sedevacantists, from now on, when arguing with Stubborn about this issue, demand he show proof from the Catholic Church that SV is condemned, that a heretic can remain Catholic (which he believes), or any other silly thing he says. Other than that he will use the ole "I'm rubber you're glue" technique in his arguments, and you'll get nowhere, if you notice, his replies make no sense at all when arguing against SV. I also noticed he has been really getting on SV3 for calling Francis names but yet he calls the man he believes is pope a heretic. Just ask him. I also notice that he detests 20th century theologians and blames them for SV's believing in SVism, yet he practically worships Fr. Wathen who is a 20th century "theologian", and made the horrible error that says once a catholic always a catholic, while trying to make sense of the Crisis. Just ask him.
This is where he is coming from. It makes no sense. When arguing with Stubborn about SV, make him prove his beliefs, because he can't. It took me forever to get him to believe and admit that the OUM is infallible. When it comes to this issue he knows very little and could not understand, in his current state, why SV is true.
:applause: his arguments on this thread against sedevacantism have been clearly exposed, I say no point wasting more energy on this thread
-
Pope Leo XII was not a sedevacantist pope so why are you referencing him? Do you think being a name dropper carries any weight?
The sedevacantists who quote Catholic authors in their attempts to vindicate their sedevacantism has the same effect as prots who quote Scripture in their attempt to convince us that their man made doctrines are true and the Catholic doctrines are false.
There is no difference.
Not too surprising that you still have zero clue and still cannot even begin to think of an answer to the question - what good is sedevacantism?
Stubborn,
It's nearly impossible to reason with SV's. I know you have tried. Most are too far gone. They're a few cans short of a six-pack, mentally-speaking, and it seems than nothing can really change that.
-
Stubborn,
It's nearly impossible to reason with SV's. I know you have tried. Most are too far gone. They're a few cans short of a six-pack, mentally-speaking, and it seems than nothing can really change that.
Is that so? Why would you say this?
Let's be clear- you are implying they are insane. To be insane means to not be in conformity with reality.
Now, you as a traditionalist who is not a sedevacantist take it upon yourself to analyze and examine Papal teaching in order to determine whether or not you ought to submit to it. Is it not so? And in so doing, you therefore submit the Papal Magisterium to your own private scrutiny and pick and choose what you can take and what you can leave.
But this attitude in regard to the Papacy is heretical. Have you not read Pope Pius IX Quanta Cura? What are the opinions he reprobates?
"Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church."
You have taken it upon yourself to abrogate the Church's discipline regarding the mass and the administration of the sacraments. If Bergoglio is Pope, you owe Amoris Laetitia willing submission of mind out of obedience, for it is Papal Magisterium.
Now you will utter the cry, "It is not binding!" Do you know how absurd that is? That which is not binding may not oblige YOU to follow it, but it is permissible for others to follow. Now is any part of Amoris Laetitia permissible for others to follow?
Certainly not. But if it is not permissible to follow Amoris Laetitia, how is it Papal Magisterium? You will tell me it is not infallible. I will remind you it commands your obedience. You will say the error is obvious, I will say because it is Papal Magisterium it cannot objectively be harmful to souls, otherwise you would admit the Church can grant wicked disciplines, which is condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei.
Now, you were saying something about someone being nuts. Someone IS nuts, but it is only those living in an ecclesiastical wonderland where they get to be pickers and choosers according to their own whims. That is clearly a form of insanity.
This is why Pope Pius IX says in regard to the above opinion-
6. Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.
Your entire MO is condemned.
-
Akin to a form of protestantism: Pick and choose Church teaching I deem worthy.
Yes, so basically there are two authentic choices you can make-
EWTN or CMRI.
Catholic Answers or True Restoration.
Bishop Barron or Bishop Sanborn
These two choices are the only ones that can account for a truly Catholic attitude and position- one of pious submission and obedience to the whole of magisterial teaching.
That's why Bishop Sanborn has said he has greater respect for Indult People than SSPXers, because they submit to what they believe is the true Magisterium and follow through with the notion that the Vatican II changes are purely cosmetic.
OTOH, we have a huge problem I am beginning to be aware of.
You see, the Magisterium is not something the bishops and Pope make up, it is Christ speaking through his Church.
So when you hear the anathemas of Trent, this is the judgment of God. This is the voice of God upon the earth. When you hear the Creed of Nicea, this is the judgment of God, the same with Quanta Cura and all the Papal Magisterium-
"He who hears you hears me."
Pope Leo XIII teaches the living Magisterium is the voice of God upon the earth.
So if you want Francis, if you want him for a Pope, then simply acknowledge, Amoris Laetitia is the voice of Christ. The Novus Ordo is the will of Christ. The unanimous consent of the Novus Ordo bishops in the CCC is the voice of Christ.
Either it is or it is not. If it is not, then neither is that authority from which it issues from God. But if the authority is legitimate, you are fighting Christ's will for his Church O traditionalist, and you ought to know, "A weapon formed against them will not prosper."
So choose you this day whom you will serve:
Francis, your ego, or the authentic Magisterium?
-
Stubborn,
It's nearly impossible to reason with SV's. I know you have tried. Most are too far gone. They're a few cans short of a six-pack, mentally-speaking, and it seems than nothing can really change that.
little girl , only adults should be posting here, go call your daddy , I'll forgive you for your insult, I remember when I was 12 I said some idiotic things myself and my daddy corrected me
-
Stubborn,
It's nearly impossible to reason with SV's. I know you have tried. Most are too far gone. They're a few cans short of a six-pack, mentally-speaking, and it seems than nothing can really change that.
Thanks Meg and for the most part, I agree - and I stopped expecting to change that a long time ago. Mostly I post the things I do for those on the fence, those trads who get caught up in the confusion who might only need a simple dose of reality to keep them from catching the syndrome themselves - the easiest and surest way to keep from catching the bug is still prevention, which means to avoid it like the plague for the good of their souls.
-
little girl , only adults should be posting here, go call your daddy , I'll forgive you for your insult, I remember when I was 12 I said some idiotic things myself and my daddy corrected me
You should have taken the correction.
-
.
That's why Bishop Sanborn has said he has greater respect for Indult People than SSPXers, because they submit to what they believe is the true Magisterium and follow through with the notion that the Vatican II changes are purely cosmetic.
+Sanborn still exhibits the effects of the priestly formation he received at the Novus Ordo seminary where he graduated cuм laude from.
P.S. The Hierarchy is not "the magisterium".
-
+Sanborn still exhibits the effects of the priestly formation he received at the Novus Ordo seminary where he graduated cuм laude from.
P.S. The Hierarchy is not "the magisterium".
I don't believe a person who denies BoD has any idea at all what the Magisterium is.
It is the living voice of God on earth, and therefore you eaither must attribute the Promulgated Missale Romanum of Paul VI as an act of Christ's will for his Church or deny the authority issuing it. It's really all that is available to you, otherwise you charge the Church with handing down harmful disciplines, which is condemned by Pope Pius VI.
Which will it be?
-
Thanks Meg and for the most part, I agree - and I stopped expecting to change that a long time ago. Mostly I post the things I do for those on the fence, those trads who get caught up in the confusion who might only need a simple dose of reality to keep them from catching the syndrome themselves - the easiest and surest way to keep from catching the bug is still prevention, which means to avoid it like the plague for the good of their souls.
I hadn't thought about prevention. I see now why you keep up the debate with impossible odds. Hopefully the debates will prevent others from falling into the SV error.
-
little girl , only adults should be posting here, go call your daddy , I'll forgive you for your insult, I remember when I was 12 I said some idiotic things myself and my daddy corrected me
My dad passed away, so I'm not able to consult him. Besides, he hated Christianity, having been raised in a Protestant Pentacostal snake-handling hillbilly church. He wasn't able to forgive, unfortunately.
Anyway, what do you think of Archbishop Lefebvre's position? I mean, that the Church is occupied by a Modernist sect?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais developed the view further. His study is here:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
Excerpt:
"It [the study] reflects Archbishop Lefebvre's true position concerning the mystery of a Pope residing over the destruction of the Church: The Pope remains the Pope, but he is at the head of two churches [...].
-
I don't believe a person who denies BoD has any idea at all what the Magisterium is.
It is the living voice of God on earth, and therefore you eaither must attribute the Promulgated Missale Romanum of Paul VI as an act of Christ's will for his Church or deny the authority issuing it. It's really all that is available to you, otherwise you charge the Church with handing down harmful disciplines, which is condemned by Pope Pius VI.
Which will it be?
The mass of PPVI obviously is not an act of Christ's will for His Church, yet PPVI promulgated it using his authority along with the authority of the hierarchy because there was nothing to stop him - no one should ever accuse the Church, which is Christ, of handing down harmful disciplines.
The people who went along with the new religion, those who helped further the destruction wrought by the hierarchy of the day, they were the ones who compromised the faith for themselves and their children - and they did so of their own free will, they'll never be able to blame anyone but themselves for losing their faith. Many of them did so while using the excuse that they did so in "obedience to the pope and the magisterium" - but before God, such a farce of a reason will never relieve them of their guilt in the matter.
The flavor of the day was "if the pope said to do it then blindly, we must do it". So many people believed this lie because that is what they were taught. These days that same polluted mentality prevails - I attribute that mentality in large part to the half truths taught by certain "well respected" 19th/20th century theologians, whose false teachings have been embraced as if they are authentic teachings of the Church.
In the words of +ABL:
"After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas."
-
Do you understand Stubborn that Popes own authority is Christ's? The authority he uses to promulgate an act is Christ wielding that authority. That's why he's a Vicar. He wields the authority of Christ. Papal authority is not divorced from Him but exists as a participation IN him.
Every act in the AAS is, or ought to be, something you can attribute to Christ.
-
Do you understand Stubborn that Popes own authority is Christ's? The authority he uses to promulgate an act is Christ wielding that authority. That's why he's a Vicar. He wields the authority of Christ. Papal authority is not divorced from Him but exists as a participation IN him.
Every act in the AAS is, or ought to be, something you can attribute to Christ.
Why don't you actually address what Stubborn wrote, rather than just using the usual..."The Pope must be obeyed no matter what," approach?
The sedevacantists use the same type of logic....that everything is absolutely black-and-white.
-
Why don't you actually address what Stubborn wrote, rather than just using the usual..."The Pope must be obeyed no matter what," approach?
The actual approach is that all the official Magisterial acts of the Papacy YOU OWE submission of mind and will.
Now Vatican II is an official act of Paul VI and So is Missale Romanum.
So why do you resist what Christ has clearly willed for his Church?
And if you insist he does not then just be honest enough to admit then that the Authority that issued it was in some way divorced from Christ's own authority.
But the authority is intrinsic to the office,
Therefore there was a loss of office.
Easy.
-
Do you understand Stubborn that Popes own authority is Christ's? The authority he uses to promulgate an act is Christ wielding that authority. That's why he's a Vicar. He wields the authority of Christ. Papal authority is not divorced from Him but exists as a participation IN him.
Every act in the AAS is, or ought to be, something you can attribute to Christ.
Sorry Augustinus but your understanding of the the pope's own authority as regards this matter is the same understanding that people were taught, which helped give legs to this crisis. Your understanding, which is typical, as +ABL described: "...all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church," I accuse certain "well respected" 19th/20th century theologians for disseminating those liberal ideas which ended up in all the manifestations of the Church.
There was nothing to stop the pope and hierarchy from doing what they did. Nothing. But because the masses were taught to believe as you and most believe, they chose to abandon their faith, the only faith that all Catholics knew for +500 years, for the new faith under the guise of "that Popes own authority is Christ's no matter what" - which is a lie.
To get an understanding of what the Pastoral Council (V2) was, read this OP. (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?pretty;board=9;topic=41878.0)
-
The actual approach is that all the official Magisterial acts of the Papacy YOU OWE submission of mind and will.
Now Vatican II is an official act of Paul VI and So is Missale Romanum.
So why do you resist what Christ has clearly willed for his Church?
And if you insist he does not then just be honest enough to admit then that the Authority that issued it was in some way divorced from Christ's own authority.
But the authority is intrinsic to the office,
Therefore there was a loss of office.
Easy.
What you seem to be saying is that if we don't give our full submission of mind and will to the Pope, (which includes Vatican ll, and the New Mass), then this means that we must believe that there is a loss of office, and that we are then basically sedevacantists, is that right?
-
Ultimately, Meg, that's right.
-
Ultimately, Meg, that's right.
I know that's what the nutty SV's think. I'm asking Augustinus what he thinks.
I've said this a few times on this forum already, but it warrants repeating: Bishop Faure said that the Resistance is attacked from both the right and the left...from the left are those who believe that the SSPX should reconcile, and on the right are the Sedevacantists.
The Resistance gets attacked from both sides.
-
The actual approach is that all the official Magisterial acts of the Papacy YOU OWE submission of mind and will.
This is wrong. I would like to see where got this from.
Please provide your source.
FYI, the truth of the matter is, those things which we are bound in conscience too besides dogmatic decrees, are doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure. - Pope Pius IX
We are never to owe anyone and are even forbidden by God to give submission of our mind and will to anyone except God, certainly not even the pope - but it should be getting plain to see that with a mentality like that, is there any wonder the sheeple compromised by the millions upon the wishes of the pope and hierarcy?
-
Sedevacantists do NOT understand what submission of the mind and will means.
It is not the same as giving absolute intellectual assent to every proposition that emanates from Bergoglio. Sedevacantists twist "submission of mind and will" into something that renders basically every single act of the authentic Magisterium infallible in the practical order. Submission of mind and will refer to a genuine internal disposition of submission, i.e. it's an attitude or disposition towards the Magisterium, which essentially gives any acts of the authentic Magisterium the "benefit of the doubt" and would question it only for very grave reasons. Internal is distinguished from mere external lip service. Being submissive does not necessarily mean given intellectual assent to absolutely everything -- it means being disposed to do so.
Now, with that said, it's safe to say, that Traditional Catholics do not have submission of mind and will to Bergoglio ... in fact we typically assume that anything that emanates from his authentic "Magisterium" is going to be thoroughly polluted with Modernism.
-
We are never to owe anyone and are even forbidden by God to give submission of our mind and will to anyone except God, certainly not even the pope
False. That's a Protestant attitude. When it comes to the Magisterium, the pope takes the place of God and requires our submission (as properly defined). This does not mean absolute intellectual assent to every non-infallible proposition because, after all, it's theoretically possible that some error has crept in.
-
Now Vatican II is an official act of Paul VI and So is Missale Romanum.
So why do you resist what Christ has clearly willed for his Church?
Now those are MORE than just "merely authentic" acts of the Magisterium or Church's Universal Discipline. Since these are directed towards the Universal Church, the teachings of Vatican II must be regarded as at least infallibly safe (not containing any substantial error that can harm souls) and the New Mass must be considered as not intrinisically bringing harm to faith, spirituality, or piety (one can argue differently about various "abuses" that have crept in of course).
But your allegation that we owe internal "assent" (as you mis-defined "submission") to even the merely authentic acts of the Magisterium is simply wrong and not accepted by any Catholic theologian.
That's where the middle road lies in this debate. SVs invariably distort infallibility and extend it to nearly the entire authentic Magisterium, at least for all intents and purposes, while R&R types claim that a teaching presented to the Universal Church can bring harm to the faith and the Universal Discipline of the Church could harm faith and piety. That's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church.
This is another case where the truth lies in between.
-
False. That's a Protestant attitude. When it comes to the Magisterium, the pope takes the place of God and requires our submission (as properly defined). This does not mean absolute intellectual assent to every non-infallible proposition because, after all, it's theoretically possible that some error has crept in.
False, that is a Catholic principle, not a prot attitude.
When it comes to the magisterium (Church teaching) yes I can agree we owe our submission to that, but the pope never takes God's place to the point that we owe the man submission of our mind and will, he is God's representative on earth, he is not God.
Please post the source that teaches we owe the pope submission of our mind and will.
-
False, that is a Catholic principle, not a prot attitude.
When it comes to the magisterium (Church teaching) yes I can agree we owe our submission to that, but the pope never takes God's place to the point that we owe the man submission of our mind and will, he is God's representative on earth, he is not God.
Please post the source that teaches we owe the pope submission of our mind and will.
Yes, it's the same Prot attitude that goes along the lines of how only God can forgive sins and not man (vs. Confession).
In any case, 1) you too misunderstand the term "submission of mind and will" (please see my previous post) and 2) we owe even absolute assent (the certainty of faith) to things taught by the Pope in an infallible manner. So when teaching infallibly, the Pope might as well in fact be God.
-
2) we owe even absolute assent (the certainty of faith) to things taught by the Pope in an infallible manner. So when teaching infallibly, the Pope might as well in fact be God.
I agree with this certainly, but that's not the way you said it the first time.
-
I agree with this certainly, but that's not the way you said it the first time.
I agree.
-
Meg, VIRTUE is always found between two extremes, not doctrine. Many people wrongly believe otherwise, and the result is "compromise" with doctrine.
-
Meg, VIRTUE is always found between two extremes, not doctrine. Many people wrongly believe otherwise, and the result is "compromise" with doctrine.
What about Archbishop Lefebvre? Did he compromise with doctrine, in your view?
-
I agree with this certainly, but that's not the way you said it the first time.
It's because, like the sedevacantists, you don't understand the difference between submission and assent. I have been perfectly consistent on this point for years also.
-
I am giving you the principle. If you want me to apply it to a particular issue, let me know what that issue is.
-
I am giving you the principle. If you want me to apply it to a particular issue, let me know what that issue is.
So....you believe that there are particular issues of doctrine that the Archbishop compromised on?
-
This is wrong. I would like to see where got this from.
Please provide your source.
FYI, the truth of the matter is, those things which we are bound in conscience too besides dogmatic decrees, are doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure. - Pope Pius IX
We are never to owe anyone and are even forbidden by God to give submission of our mind and will to anyone except God, certainly not even the pope - but it should be getting plain to see that with a mentality like that, is there any wonder the sheeple compromised by the millions upon the wishes of the pope and hierarcy?
Stubborn, can you provide a definition of "Religious Submission"
And contrast it with "Catholic Faith"?
Here is what Cardinal Franzelin says-
"The Holy Apostolic See, to whom the guarding of the Deposit has been committed, and on whom the duty and office of feeding the entire Church, unto the salvation of souls, has been laid, can prescribe theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones) as to be followed, or proscribe them as not to be followed, not only with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly by definitive sentence, but also without that intention, [but] with the need and the intention of exercising care, either simply or with specified qualifications, for the safety of Catholic doctrine. [ref. omitted] In this sort of declarations, even though there is not the infallible truth of the doctrine (because, ex hypothesi, there is not the intention of deciding this), but nevertheless, there is infallible safety [infallibilis securitas]. By safety, I mean both objective safety as to the doctrine so declared (either simply or with such and such qualifications), and subjective safety, to the extent that it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be free from the violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium, that they should refuse to embrace it."
-
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
-
So....you believe that there are particular issues of doctrine that the Archbishop compromised on?
No, I can't say that. I know he was "wrong" about some things, but whether he "compromised" means that he attempted to believe something between two other extreme beliefs just for the sake of being between. I can't say that because I don't know. That is why I asked for some particulars if you want me to comment.
-
My dad passed away, so I'm not able to consult him. Besides, he hated Christianity, having been raised in a Protestant Pentacostal snake-handling hillbilly church. He wasn't able to forgive, unfortunately.
Anyway, what do you think of Archbishop Lefebvre's position? I mean, that the Church is occupied by a Modernist sect?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais developed the view further. His study is here:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
Excerpt:
"It [the study] reflects Archbishop Lefebvre's true position concerning the mystery of a Pope residing over the destruction of the Church: The Pope remains the Pope, but he is at the head of two churches [...].
the point I'm trying to convey is that you are too harsh in your insulting of sedevacantists, calling us nutty for believing an heretic can't be pope? I say the main difference between the sede and non sede trad is that one group believes a declaration is needed, the other no...I agree with Arch Bishop Lefebvre that the Church is occupied by freemason jews, they have attacked the Church for centuries....if you believe your pope is Catholic you would be mistaken, if you believe your pope is not Catholic but still your pope I say so be it, believe what you want just don't get on a high horse and think you're better than a Catholic who holds the sede position..
-
the point I'm trying to convey is that you are too harsh in your insulting of sedevacantists, calling us nutty for believing an heretic can't be pope? I say the main difference between the sede and non sede trad is that one group believes a declaration is needed, the other no...I agree with Arch Bishop Lefebvre that the Church is occupied by freemason jews, they have attacked the Church for centuries....if you believe your pope is Catholic you would be mistaken, if you believe your pope is not Catholic but still your pope I say so be it, believe what you want just don't get on a high horse and think you're better than a Catholic who holds the sede position..
Well, Archbishop Lefebvre believed that "his" pope (JPll) was indeed the pope, so I'm in good company. The Archbishop didn't think like a sede. He didn't have that type of mindset. He was mature and prudent, and he understood the Catholic Faith better than you or I.
-
Well, Archbishop Lefebvre believed that "his" pope (JPll) was indeed the pope, so I'm in good company. The Archbishop didn't think like a sede. He didn't have that type of mindset. He was mature and prudent, and he understood the Catholic Faith better than you or I.
I agree wih Archbishop Lefebvre here:
If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid election are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope...Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976
-
I agree wih Archbishop Lefebvre here:
If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid election are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope...Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976
So....the purpose of the above quote is supposed to prove what, exactly?
-
So....the purpose of the above quote is supposed to prove what, exactly?
that at the very least you can not be certain that this pope is a true pope, the sede is far from nuts.
-
Stubborn, can you provide a definition of "Religious Submission"
And contrast it with "Catholic Faith"?
Here is what Cardinal Franzelin says-
"The Holy Apostolic See, to whom the guarding of the Deposit has been committed, and on whom the duty and office of feeding the entire Church, unto the salvation of souls, has been laid, can prescribe theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones) as to be followed, or proscribe them as not to be followed, not only with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly by definitive sentence, but also without that intention, [but] with the need and the intention of exercising care, either simply or with specified qualifications, for the safety of Catholic doctrine. [ref. omitted] In this sort of declarations, even though there is not the infallible truth of the doctrine (because, ex hypothesi, there is not the intention of deciding this), but nevertheless, there is infallible safety [infallibilis securitas]. By safety, I mean both objective safety as to the doctrine so declared (either simply or with such and such qualifications), and subjective safety, to the extent that it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be free from the violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium, that they should refuse to embrace it."
In the context of this thread, "Religious Submission" simply put, is that we should have to obey the pope as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful.
Please note a few things in your quote from Cardinal Franzelin above;
1) Nowhere does he say or even imply what our responsibility is, so this quote cannot be used as your source for the statement you made - "The actual approach is that all the official Magisterial acts of the Papacy YOU OWE submission of mind and will". Please post your source.
2) He speaks of the duties of the Apostolic See, of which we are not debating.
-
that at the very least you can not be certain that this pope is a true pope, the sede is far from nuts.
Archbishop Lefebvre held the possibility that the popes were not true popes. We know that already. That's very different from what the Sedes think. They (you) are certain that Francis, for example, is not the Pope, isn't that correct? Sedes deal in certainties, in that everything has to be black-and-white. Yet Archbishop Lefebvre's position is not black-and-white.
I have a copy of Archbishop Lefebvre' book, "Open Letter to confused Catholics," published in 1986, two years before the consecrations of 1988, and twelve years after the quote you provided. In chapter XXl of the book, on page 176, +ABL writes:
"Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even the Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known with certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when the papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens in only a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by the Pope is infallible.
"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul ll would not then have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those so-called "sede-vacantists."
"It has to be admitted that Paul Vl has posed a very serious problem for the consciences of the faithful. This pontiff has done more harm to the Church than the French Revolution. There are definite acts of his, such as his signature to Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis of the New Mass, and likewise to the Council's docuмents on Religious Liberty, that are scandalous. But it is not a simple problem to know whether or not a Pope can be a heretic. A good many theologians think he can be as a private teacher but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. We have to consider the degree to which the Pope intended to invoke his infallibility in such cases as I have quoted."
-
Archbishop Lefebvre held the possibility that the popes were not true popes. We know that already. That's very different from what the Sedes think. They (you) are certain that Francis, for example, is not the Pope, isn't that correct? Sedes deal in certainties, in that everything has to be black-and-white. Yet Archbishop Lefebvre's position is not black-and-white.
I have a copy of Archbishop Lefebvre' book, "Open Letter to confused Catholics," published in 1986, two years before the consecrations of 1988, and twelve years after the quote you provided. In chapter XXl of the book, on page 176, +ABL writes:
"Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even the Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known with certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when the papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens in only a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by the Pope is infallible.
"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul ll would not then have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those so-called "sede-vacantists."
"It has to be admitted that Paul Vl has posed a very serious problem for the consciences of the faithful. This pontiff has done more harm to the Church than the French Revolution. There are definite acts of his, such as his signature to Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis of the New Mass, and likewise to the Council's docuмents on Religious Liberty, that are scandalous. But it is not a simple problem to know whether or not a Pope can be a heretic. A good many theologians think he can be as a private teacher but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. We have to consider the degree to which the Pope intended to invoke his infallibility in such cases as I have quoted."
That's the difference between the SSPX and the Sedevacantists. The SSPX is devoted to the Archbishops interpretation and implementation of tradition, the sedevacantists are dedicated to the theological ramifications of consistent thought.
For example, there are actually three distinct elements that Can be treated in the loss of authority-
Excommunication
Deposition
Resignation
Now these three things are not the same. To be excommunicated is to be placed outside the Church by a legal act.
To be deposed means to be stripped of your faculties to exercise jurisdiction and celebrate the sacraments by a legal act.
To resign means to give up juridical authority either tacitly or actually.
Now, strictly speaking even a publicly heretical Pope is not excommunicated, because no competent authority has placed him outside the Church.
Neither is he deposed, because no competent authority had stripped him of his faculties.
Rather, what is recognized here is that through his PUBLIC and NOTORIOUS heresy, he no longer professes the Catholic faith and therefore tacitly he resigns his office. This means he has no juridical authority which he can exercise, he is a corpse in terms of authority.
What remains is for a competent authority to declare this and implement this should he not repent.
The question then becomes can inferiors recognize when superiors have abandoned their office?
Yes, and we have an example of this in the life of St. Hypatius who, after having been made aware of the preaching of Nestorius, refused to commemorate him in the liturgy, because he considered him to no longer be a Catholic bishop.
And his stance in this matter was vindicated by Pope. St. Celestine declared that from the moment that Nestorius had begun to preach heresy, all his juridical acts were invalid. He had no authority from that moment on, from the moment he became a public heretic.
This is all that Sedevacantists say about Francis and the other Popes- from the time they publicly espoused heresy and manifested it notoriously, they abdicated the throne tacitly and lost authority.
For that reason, they can be deposed.
-
That's the difference between the SSPX and the Sedevacantists. The SSPX is devoted to the Archbishops interpretation and implementation of tradition, the sedevacantists are dedicated to the theological ramifications of consistent thought.
Baloney. That's not the difference.
+ABL continued to live and preach the same living and true faith of the Apostles because, are you ready for this?.......the salvation of souls was his main concern and the salvation of souls is not now nor has it ever been even remotely dependent upon status of the pope.
What good is sedevacantism?
-
Baloney. That's not the difference.
+ABL continued to live and preach the same living and true faith of the Apostles because, are you ready for this?.......the salvation of souls was his main concern and the salvation of souls is not now nor has it ever been even remotely dependent upon status of the pope.
What good is sedevacantism?
The same good as a medical diagnosis.
For example, every time you eat chicken, your throats swells and you cough, but you yourself don't tie it to anything, and you still occasionally eat it because you like it anyway:
You go to a doctor and he diagnoses- "Hey you are allergic to chicken!"
Now even if you never got any anti-inflammatory medicine or anything, this diagnosis would still be an objective good because it is true and...are you ready?...you have a good reason to stop eating chicken!
What good is sedevacantism? If it is an accurate theological conclusion it tells you-
Cut from the Novus Ordo! Cut from Vatican II! Cut out the indult! Cut out the false Pope!
In terms of a solution to the lack of a Pope, that's different. But sedevacantism isn't looking for that solution, it is looking for how to survive the lack of one.
How is it good? As a diagnostic. That's how.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre held the possibility that the popes were not true popes. We know that already. That's very different from what the Sedes think. They (you) are certain that Francis, for example, is not the Pope, isn't that correct? Sedes deal in certainties, in that everything has to be black-and-white. Yet Archbishop Lefebvre's position is not black-and-white.
I have a copy of Archbishop Lefebvre' book, "Open Letter to confused Catholics," published in 1986, two years before the consecrations of 1988, and twelve years after the quote you provided. In chapter XXl of the book, on page 176, +ABL writes:
"Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even the Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known with certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when the papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens in only a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by the Pope is infallible.
"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul ll would not then have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those so-called "sede-vacantists."
"It has to be admitted that Paul Vl has posed a very serious problem for the consciences of the faithful. This pontiff has done more harm to the Church than the French Revolution. There are definite acts of his, such as his signature to Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis of the New Mass, and likewise to the Council's docuмents on Religious Liberty, that are scandalous. But it is not a simple problem to know whether or not a Pope can be a heretic. A good many theologians think he can be as a private teacher but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. We have to consider the degree to which the Pope intended to invoke his infallibility in such cases as I have quoted."
Meg, I don't think you realize, but in 1986, when Abp. Lefebvre was very concerned about Assisi, and started to consider consecrations....he positively, explicitly, showed that he believed in the principles of the sedevacantists. He merely said that in conscience he could not yet apply them, but that he was coming close to doing so. He has never retracted that.
So, you calling sedevacantists "nutty" is also calling Abp. Lefebvre nutty for believing in the principle that one can consider a papal claimant to not be a true pope and to immediately act upon it and advertise it.
-
The same good as a medical diagnosis.
For example, every time you eat chicken, your throats swells and you cough, but you yourself don't tie it to anything, and you still occasionally eat it because you like it anyway:
You go to a doctor and he diagnoses- "Hey you are allergic to chicken!"
Now even if you never got any anti-inflammatory medicine or anything, this diagnosis would still be an objective good because it is true and...are you ready?...you have a good reason to stop eating chicken!
What good is sedevacantism? If it is an accurate theological conclusion it tells you-
Cut from the Novus Ordo! Cut from Vatican II! Cut out the indult! Cut out the false Pope!
In terms of a solution to the lack of a Pope, that's different. But sedevacantism isn't looking for that solution, it is looking for how to survive the lack of one.
How is it good? As a diagnostic. That's how.
Another load of baloney.
Sedevacantism is medicinal now? - but isn't looking for a cure Ha! Did you get this medicine online?
And the purpose of the medicine that is being ingested is in fact not to cure anything but is actually ingested in order to survive whatever it is that ails you? Amazing. They used to have a name for that medicine - they used to call it Snake Oil.
Let's see.....
Sedevacantists diagnose the Church is in a crisis because the pope is not the pope - check.
This is the "medicinal diagnosis".
Yes, yes of course, it is plain to see now what good is sedevacantism. :facepalm:
Amazing medicine you've been ingesting.
-
The question, "What good is Sedevacantism?" is actually a secondary question.
The first question must be, "is it true?"
So, assuming it is true....
Of course it is good. God is Truth. Truth is good. Truth opposes error. We are obliged to seek and hold to the truth come what may, and to help eradicated error that are brothers are affected by. The truth eradicates contradictions. All of that is good and pleases God. Pleasing God is the meaning of life. Furthermore, when facing any problem, one must understand the problem first in order to expect a secure and lasting solution in the future, even if we don't know yet what that exactly is. Sedevacantism does all of this.....again, assuming it is true.
Bump. Here is the answer.
-
I sympathize with many of the sedevacantist arguments, but I don't think the position makes any more sense than the SSPX position really. Each position has its own problems. Sedevacantism basically teaches the the Pope and the Catholic Church have defected and become a false sect and now we cannot follow the Catholic Church anymore but instead we have to follow the sedevacantist priests and bishops who were never sent by the Catholic Church instead and these priests and bishops are now the Catholic Church. Of course even though what they promote is that the Catholic Church has defected and become a false sect, they say that the Catholic Church is indefectible and that only the sedevacantist position saves the indefectibility of the Church.
Of course they never say it like that.
Of course some sedevacantists argue that there must be some Bishops of the Catholic Church who did not defect and some priests of the diocese of Rome who did not defect, but nobody can name any of them.
-
I would say something. I said the sedevacantists say that the sedevacantists are now the Catholic Church. This is true of some, but others say that the traditional Catholic movement including the SSPX is now the Catholic Church and not what everyone else thinks the Catholic Church is.
-
I sympathize with many of the sedevacantist arguments, but I don't think the position makes any more sense than the SSPX position really. Each position has its own problems. Sedevacantism basically teaches the the Pope and the Catholic Church have defected and become a false sect and now we cannot follow the Catholic Church anymore but instead we have to follow the sedevacantist priests and bishops who were never sent by the Catholic Church instead and these priests and bishops are now the Catholic Church. Of course even though what they promote is that the Catholic Church has defected and become a false sect, they say that the Catholic Church is indefectible and that only the sedevacantist position saves the indefectibility of the Church.
Of course they never say it like that.
Of course some sedevacantists argue that there must be some Bishops of the Catholic Church who did not defect and some priests of the diocese of Rome who did not defect, but nobody can name any of them.
This is why we need to pray to God to resolve everything... :pray: :pray: :pray:
If the apostles had known how our Lord's Crucifixion and Death were to be remedied by His Resurrection, they probably would have been at the foot of the Cross with Our Blessed Mother...
What we need to do it remain faithful to what we know to be true until God resolves everything... Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later... :)
-
Meg, I don't think you realize, but in 1986, when Abp. Lefebvre was very concerned about Assisi, and started to consider consecrations....he positively, explicitly, showed that he believed in the principles of the sedevacantists. He merely said that in conscience he could not yet apply them, but that he was coming close to doing so. He has never retracted that.
So, you calling sedevacantists "nutty" is also calling Abp. Lefebvre nutty for believing in the principle that one can consider a papal claimant to not be a true pope and to immediately act upon it and advertise it.
I don't believe you. That's just hogwash. If Archbishop Lefebvre was coming close to being a sedecavantist in 1986, then why did he write this, in 1986, in his book "Open letter to Confused Catholics":
"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I."
Do you understand what the above quote, written and published by Archbishop Lefebvre, means?
-
The question, "What good is Sedevacantism?" is actually a secondary question.
The first question must be, "is it true?"
So, assuming it is true....
Of course it is good. God is Truth. Truth is good. Truth opposes error. We are obliged to seek and hold to the truth come what may, and to help eradicated error that are brothers are affected by. The truth eradicates contradictions. All of that is good and pleases God. Pleasing God is the meaning of life. Furthermore, when facing any problem, one must understand the problem first in order to expect a secure and lasting solution in the future, even if we don't know yet what that exactly is. Sedevacantism does all of this.....again, assuming it is true.
Bump. Here is the answer.
Truth is truth and lies are lies regardless of the pope's status. The pope's evilness does not change the truth into lies, nor does his virtuousness change lies into truths. Sedevacantism has no part in determining what the truth is and is not.
The problem / challenge / obligations we face these days is the same problem every individual has always faced since the time of the Apostles and will continue to face until the end of time; i.e. seeking Catholic truth and persevering in it. Since the time of the Apostles, this obligation is achievable only through the grace of God, not through the status of the pope.
And truth does indeed eradicate contradictions, but only when the truth as taught by Holy Mother the Church is wholly accepted. The truth must be believed and adhered too in it's entirety, if not, then contradiction to the truth is accepted as the truth, this is the case with sedevacantism.
If you actually believed what you wrote about truth, then sedevacantism can never be assumed to be true for the simple reason that in order to assume it is true, established and infallibly taught and defined truths must be rejected or ignored - and therein lies the contradiction which the truth does not eradicate because the truth is not wholly accepted so long as sedevacantism is assumed to be truth.
-
I don't believe you. That's just hogwash. If Archbishop Lefebvre was coming close to being a sedecavantist in 1986, then why did he write this, in 1986, in his book "Open letter to Confused Catholics":
"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I."
Do you understand what the above quote, written and published by Archbishop Lefebvre, means?
It is hogwash Meg.
That's why I keep asking the sedevacantists to quote only from sedevacantist authors to vindicate their sedevacantism.
If they'd only think about it, they'd see that it doesn't even make a shred of sense to try to promote sedevacantism any other way.
-
STUBBORN, you just confirm what I said, that the real, first, question is whether it is true, NOT whether it is good. Talking about whether it is good before talking about whether it is true is a reversal of logical order.
Ironic that you, the king of contradiction, would talk about contradictions as if you know what they are! Without the sedevacantist position a person just falls repeatedly into loads of contradictions, and denial of crucial doctrines about the papacy, infallibility and holiness of the Church of Christ.
-
STUBBORN, you just confirm what I said, that the real, first, question is whether it is true, NOT whether it is good. Talking about whether it is good before talking about whether it is true is a reversal of logical order.
Ironic that you, the king of contradiction, would talk about contradictions as if you know what they are! Without the sedevacantist position a person just falls repeatedly into loads of contradictions, and denial of crucial doctrines about the papacy, infallibility and holiness of the Church of Christ.
The truth must be believed and adhered too in it's entirety, if not, then contradiction to the truth is accepted as the truth, this is the case with sedevacantism.
-
I don't believe you. That's just hogwash. If Archbishop Lefebvre was coming close to being a sedecavantist in 1986, then why did he write this, in 1986, in his book "Open letter to Confused Catholics":
"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I."
Do you understand what the above quote, written and published by Archbishop Lefebvre, means?
Meg, yes, he said it in a speech he gave to seminarians, and it was printed in the Angelus.
It is not opposed to your quote. To realize the sedevantist position is NOT separating from a pope, but knowing that the man is no longer a pope, having separated himself from the Church.
-
Meg, yes, he said it in a speech he gave to seminarians, and it was printed in the Angelus.
It is not opposed to your quote. To realize the sedevantist position is NOT separating from a pope, but knowing that the man is no longer a pope, having separated himself from the Church.
The sedevacantist position is an opinion that many sedevacantists believe to be a doctrine which is based on false premises which demand that the sedevacantists separates themselves from the pope under the excuse that they know that the man is not the pope - as if that is something they actually could know.
What good is sedevacantism?
-
We know the pope is a heretic, by saying the adulterated mess. The Sin against the Holy Ghost!! Anyone who follows it, give it a pen, back it up and etc. are aligning themselves in heresy as well. You answer to your God, whose only Son, died to open heaven and His Most Precious Blood is the Power. Man will come to know what the world is like w/o the Precious Blood! Chapter 24 of Matt and Chapter 12 of Daniel. Read "Temporal Powers of the Vicar of Christ" by Cardinal Manning www.archive.org/stream/
-
We know the pope is a heretic, by saying the adulterated mess. The Sin against the Holy Ghost!! Anyone who follows it, give it a pen, back it up and etc. are aligning themselves in heresy as well. You answer to your God, whose only Son, died to open heaven and His Most Precious Blood is the Power. Man will come to know what the world is like w/o the Precious Blood! Chapter 24 of Matt and Chapter 12 of Daniel. Read "Temporal Powers of the Vicar of Christ" by Cardinal Manning www.archive.org/stream/
The Pope APPEARS to be a heretic, but unless he acknowledges the nature of his heresy he doesn't actually lose his office. For that to happen you need not only publicnotorious heresy, but public notorious heresy by one who acknowledges it as such.
Rather, we should say we know the person called Pope has no authority because he has used his authority contrary to the infallibility and indefectability of the Church, by promoting Vatican II and such. For this reason we know that he never actually willed the common good at the time of his election and was incapable of receiving the authority of the Papacy.
-
You're joking.
Not at all,how else would Canon law distinguish between a person preaching in public who says words that sound heretical but had no heretical intention?
Notorious Imputability.
Listen to Bishop Donald Sanborn-
Objections against the Second Part of the Thesis
VI. Canon 188 para 4 says that he who publicly should defect from the Faith tacitly renounces his office. But the conciliar “popes” have publicly defected from the Catholic Faith. Therefore they have renounced their office tacitly. Therefore they are not popes either formally or materially.
Resp. 1 distinguish the major: Canon 188 para 4 says that he who should publicly defect from the Catholic Faith tacitly renounces his office, if his imputability is public, I concede; however if it is occult, I deny. The reason is that defection from the the Faith must be legally known, which happens either by declaration or by notoriety. But the notoriety requires that not only the fact of the crime be publicly known, but also its imputability (Canon 2197). In the case, however, of defection from the Catholic Faith, either through heresy or through schism, it is necessary that the defection be pertinacious in order that it be imputable. Otherwise the law becomes absurd: every priest who through lack of advertence in a sermon pronounces a heresy would be guilty of notorious heresy, with all of the connected penalties, and tacitly would renounce his office. But defection from the Catholic Faith on the part of conciliar “popes,” although it be public with regard to fact, is not public with regard to imputability, and therefore there is no tacit renunciation. What is public is the intention of these “popes” to promulgate errors condemned by the ecclesiastical magisterium, and a sacramental practice which is heretical and blasphemous. Because this is so, one must conclude they necessarily do not possess apostolic authority, but one cannot conclude more or less. Not more, because competent authority alone is able to ascertain and declare legally the reality of their defection from the Catholic Faith, and not less, because it is impossible that apostolic authority, because of the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, promulgate errors which have been condemned by the ecclesiastical magisterium, and a sacramental practice which is heretical and blasphemous.
Instance: But Canon 188 says that the renunciation does not require a declaration.
Resp.: Does not require a declaration of the vacancy of the office, if the imputable defection is notorious or declared by law; I concede; if the defection is not notoriously imputable, or declared, I deny. In other words, it is necessary that public defection from the Catholic Faith have a certain legal recognition, either by the notoriety of the imputability or by legal declaration.
Instance: But the imputability of the defection of these “popes” is notorious.
Resp.: I deny. In order that imputability be notorious, it is necessary that either (1) he who has pronounced the heresy publicly confess that he professes a doctrine which is against the magisterium of the Church, such as Luther; (2) when he has been warned by the authority of the Church, and the warning having been made, he publicly reject the authority. But neither one nor the other of these conditions are fulfilled in the conciliar “popes.” Therefore the imputability of the defection is not notorious.
-
I would say something. I said the sedevacantists say that the sedevacantists are now the Catholic Church. This is true of some, but others say that the traditional Catholic movement including the SSPX is now the Catholic Church and not what everyone else thinks the Catholic Church is.
The Catholic Church MUST exist someplace since it cannot be extinguished, so the true church must be either in the Novus ordo, SSPX, or with the sedevacantists. Saying, "each position has its own problems" is to imply everyone is in error and that truth cannot be found anywhere on the earth, which is absurd. One of them, and ONLY one of them, holds the truth. You need to find out which one it is and put complete faith behind them.
-
The Pope APPEARS to be a heretic, but unless he acknowledges the nature of his heresy he doesn't actually lose his office. For that to happen you need not only publicnotorious heresy, but public notorious heresy by one who acknowledges it as such.
This is totally wrong. This was discussed by the Church Fathers of the First Vatican Council and they said otherwise:
Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [imprimatur 1903], p. 241:
"The question was also raised (at the First Vatican Council) by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy."
-
The Catholic Church MUST exist someplace since it cannot be extinguished, so the true church must be either in the Novus ordo, SSPX, or with the sedevacantists. Saying, "each position has its own problems" is to imply everyone is in error and that truth cannot be found anywhere on the earth, which is absurd. One of them, and ONLY one of them, holds the truth. You need to find out which one it is and put complete faith behind them.
Are the sedevacantists "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic?" Are the sedevacantists infallible and indefectible and do they have authority from God? The Church is supposed to be all of these things but I do not see it in the sedevacantists. I think they have a point when they say the Novus Ordo might not be the Church, but I don't think they can reasonably argue that they are the Church either if they honestly look at the sedevacantists with the same scrutiny they look at the Novus Ordo. And I think it absurd to claim that the Church can go on for generations with no pope and no way of ever getting another pope without divine intervention, though sedeprivationism does not have this problem because in that system the Novus Ordo pope could convert and become the true Pope. And I see a big contradiction when they say the Church is indefectible, but they basically all believe that the Church defected and became a false sect and that now we can no longer follow it but instead we have to follow a few dozen self-appointed men who might have valid orders but were never sent by the Church. Sure some of them try to save indefectibility by claiming there is one or two faithful Bishops who have not defected but none of them can name them and none of them follow them. I do not know which position is right and I see problems with all of the positions so it is a mystery to me. I don't have the answers either but as far as I can tell, neither do you, you just claim to.
If I had to guess what the truth of the matter was I would guess there is a true Pope in hiding, but there are problems with that as well.
-
The main sedevacantist groups are the CMRI and the SSPV but they condemn each other and are not in communion with each other so they cannot both be the same Church (or at least the SSPV condemns the CMRI and refuses the sacraments to those who go to CMRI Masses, I don't know if the CMRI does the same to those who go to SSPV Masses). The SSPV did not exist until the 1980s so it seems more likely that the CMRI was the true Church because the CMRI existed earlier, but then the CMRI was generally considered a cult with old catholic orders led by a man who we all know had serious moral failings and reportedly wore a white cassock and some say claimed to be a pope. Or is Palmar de Troya the true Church? Or did the true Church exist in Archsbishop Thuc alone?
-
I should have added Thuc and his Bishops.
-
Are the sedevacantists "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic?" Are the sedevacantists infallible and indefectible and do they have authority from God? The Church is supposed to be all of these things but I do not see it in the sedevacantists. I think they have a point when they say the Novus Ordo might not be the Church, but I don't think they can reasonably argue that they are the Church either if they honestly look at the sedevacantists with the same scrutiny they look at the Novus Ordo. And I think it absurd to claim that the Church can go on for generations with no pope and no way of ever getting another pope without divine intervention, though sedeprivationism does not have this problem because in that system the Novus Ordo pope could convert and become the true Pope. And I see a big contradiction when they say the Church is indefectible, but they basically all believe that the Church defected and became a false sect and that now we can no longer follow it but instead we have to follow a few dozen self-appointed men who might have valid orders but were never sent by the Church. Sure some of them try to save indefectibility by claiming there is one or two faithful Bishops who have not defected but none of them can name them and none of them follow them. I do not know which position is right and I see problems with all of the positions so it is a mystery to me. I don't have the answers either but as far as I can tell, neither do you, you just claim to.
If I had to guess what the truth of the matter was I would guess there is a true Pope in hiding, but there are problems with that as well.
First, St. Athanasius was quoted as saying, "Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." Scripture also is very clear in stating that the path to heaven is narrow, and few find it. These are things we must keep in mind - only the minority will hold the truth.
We should also remember the Catholic Church is ONE in doctrine, so for example, the SSPX and the sedevacantist positions both cannot be right at the same time.
You give many examples of problems that exist with the groups today. This is EXPECTED. If you were alive 2000 years ago and witnessed Judas betray Jesus and St. Peter deny Him 3 times, would you say Jesus and His Apostles didn't hold the truth because they had problems? Of course not.
The bottom line again is that there MUST be one group, no matter how small, that is the true church. You obviously need to make a decision ASAP on which one it is. You need to rethink the discrepancies you have for each group - you are obviously mistaken on one of them.
-
You seem to be suggesting that my salvation depends upon solving the mystery of this crisis. After you spend most of your time here arguing for salvation for non-Catholics who do not even believe in Jesus, are you really going to try to argue outside of sedevacantism there is no salvation on me? That seems to be your point. How would I have to make a decision ASAP on it if it was not a matter of salvation?
-
You seem to be suggesting that my salvation depends upon solving the mystery of this crisis. After you spend most of your time here arguing for salvation for non-Catholics who do not even believe in Jesus, are you really going to try to argue outside of sedevacantism there is no salvation on me? That seems to be your point. How would I have to make a decision ASAP on it if it was not a matter of salvation?
You are putting words in my mouth here. Catholics are to avoid heresy and schism, so wouldn't you want to make sure there are neither where you attend Mass? This is a no-brainer! There is 2000 years of Church teaching that gives us all the answers - you don't need to solve anything. The answers are there.
-
You are putting words in my mouth here. Catholics are to avoid heresy and schism, so wouldn't you want to make sure there are neither where you attend Mass? This is a no-brainer! There is 2000 years of Church teaching that gives us all the answers - you don't need to solve anything. The answers are there.
If the answers were so clear why are there a billion Catholics who are in the Novus Ordo? Why are there a million Catholics who are in the SSPX? Why are there a few dozen thousand sedevacantists all split into seperate warring factions who cannot even agree on which Masses are acceptable to go to and which missal they should use? It is certainly not clear at all. I think Bishop Sanborn and Father Cekada and Bishop Williamson and Bishop Pivarunas and Father Jenkins are all very bright men but they are all opposed to each other on key issues. So where are the answers?
-
If the answers were so clear why are there a billion Catholics who are in the Novus Ordo? Why are there a million Catholics who are in the SSPX? Why are there a few dozen thousand sedevacantists all split into seperate warring factions who cannot even agree on which Masses are acceptable to go to and which missal they should use? It is certainly not clear at all. I think Bishop Sanborn and Father Cekada and Bishop Williamson and Bishop Pivarunas and Father Jenkins are all very bright men but they are all opposed to each other on key issues. So where are the answers?
It's clear, when it is explained.
Holy Scripture foretold a great apostasy of Catholics. Our Lord said that in the end there will hardly be faith left on earth. Don't look at numbers. St. Bernard believed the Antichrist would likely be a false pope.
Then you use "condemn" and "warring" when it is just YOUR exaggeration for disagreements. It's dishonest if you keep that up. Even St. Paul had a disagreement with his partner and parted ways. The disagreements among sedevacantists are not about Vatican II and the false popes; it's how to handle other matters incidental in this unprecedented crisis.
-
I am not going to respond to you Bumphrey. As I said in the other thread I am ignoring you.
-
I am not going to respond to you Bumphrey. As I said in the other thread I am ignoring you.
Okay, don't. Just read.
-
If the answers were so clear why are there a billion Catholics who are in the Novus Ordo? Why are there a million Catholics who are in the SSPX? Why are there a few dozen thousand sedevacantists all split into seperate warring factions who cannot even agree on which Masses are acceptable to go to and which missal they should use? It is certainly not clear at all. I think Bishop Sanborn and Father Cekada and Bishop Williamson and Bishop Pivarunas and Father Jenkins are all very bright men but they are all opposed to each other on key issues. So where are the answers?
I never used the word "clear", I simply said the answers are there, meaning they are available. Some people try to say there is no way to know where the truth lies, and that is nonsense when the Church has already taught us everything we need to know for 2000 years.
The sedevacantists are not "warring", they have minor differences that are expected when there is no Pope they can ask about such things. These smaller issues will be fixed later when the crisis is over.
Your first task is to determine which position is true objectively speaking; Novus ordo, SSPX, or sedevacantism. Worry about the smaller details later after you've made your initial decision.
-
fff
"Warring" was not meant to be literal as the groups do not have armies but denying the sacraments to those who go to the competition on vacation, denying that the others are Catholic, denying the validity of the others' orders. attacking the reputations of the Bishop who they derive their orders from, making those who come over from the competition make general confessions because you deny the validity of their orders. Those are some of the things I described as "warring." I have mentioned some of my concerns with sedevacantism and the crisis and will read the responses you make to them if you do. I am ignoring Bumphrey for reasons I will not enumerate but I am not ignoring you.
-
"Warring" was not meant to be literal as the groups do not have armies but denying the sacraments to those who go to the competition on vacation, denying that the others are Catholic, denying the validity of the others' orders. attacking the reputations of the Bishop who they derive their orders from, making those who come over from the competition make general confessions because you deny the validity of their orders. Those are some of the things I described as "warring."
The "problems" you speak of are expected and quite normal. It is the duty of the pastor to warn his flock about people that he believes are not Catholic, or where he thinks ordinations and sacraments are doubtful. These are GOOD attributes - it shows the pastor is looking out for his flock. If a pastor DOESN'T do these things, then is when you have to worry!
Don't get bogged down with the smaller details - put them aside and focus on which position holds the truth objectively speaking.
-
I am not satisfied with your points. I believe the sedevacantists have good arguments against the Novus Ordo, but I do not think they have good arguments FOR the sedevacantists being the Church. The Church has to be one holy catholic and apostolic and infallible and indefectible and it has to have jurisdiction and the power to bind and loose and govern and teach the faithful and it has to be lead by Bishops sent by the Church and it should have a Pope or at least the power to elect a Pope which all submit to. In my opinion these are all problems for sedevacantism. That is why I believe if a form of sedevacantism is true it would make more sense if there were a true Pope with a true hierarchy in hiding such as in the Siri thesis. But I have no evidence that this is true. Some sedevacantists argue that part of the Novus Ordo is still the Church, but none of them actually know where this part of the Novus Ordo is and which bishops it is composed of, nor do they follow this part of the Novus Ordo and they are not in any meaningful communion with this part of the Novus Ordo as if it really were the Church.
-
Anyway thanks for discussing this with me. I haven't made so many posts in a while. I will continue to follow the thread but I will probably not post much more tonight. I am not really against sedevacantism and I consider most sedevacantists to be Catholics. My best friend is a sedevacantist and I have a number of other sedevacantist friends from Church, but I still think there are some problems with the theory which I try to point out but I do not think I am very good at making my points.
-
I still think there are some problems with the theory which I try to point out but I do not think I am very good at making my points.
So true.
-
I am not satisfied with your points. I believe the sedevacantists have good arguments against the Novus Ordo, but I do not think they have good arguments FOR the sedevacantists being the Church. The Church has to be one holy catholic and apostolic and infallible and indefectible and it has to have jurisdiction and the power to bind and loose and govern and teach the faithful and it has to be lead by Bishops sent by the Church and it should have a Pope or at least the power to elect a Pope which all submit to. In my opinion these are all problems for sedevacantism. That is why I believe if a form of sedevacantism is true it would make more sense if there were a true Pope with a true hierarchy in hiding such as in the Siri thesis. But I have no evidence that this is true. Some sedevacantists argue that part of the Novus Ordo is still the Church, but none of them actually know where this part of the Novus Ordo is and which bishops it is composed of, nor do they follow this part of the Novus Ordo and they are not in any meaningful communion with this part of the Novus Ordo as if it really were the Church.
For clergy to be from "the Church" they just need apostolic succession and to have proper ordination/consecration.
Looking at what Pope Francis is saying publicly is obviously not Catholicism. The Church has taught should this ever happen, the quotes at this link are the result:
http://francisquotes.com/church-teaching.html
The local dioceses are teaching the same as Pope Francis, so I don't know how anyone could consider that "the Church".
-
The Catholic Church MUST exist someplace since it cannot be extinguished, so the true church must be either in the Novus ordo, SSPX, or with the sedevacantists. Saying, "each position has its own problems" is to imply everyone is in error and that truth cannot be found anywhere on the earth, which is absurd. One of them, and ONLY one of them, holds the truth. You need to find out which one it is and put complete faith behind them.
Indeed, as St. Nikephorus of Constantinople said in the 9th century-
"Even if false hierarchs, while being in heresy, “will succeed in deceiving and enticing a certain number of ignorant ones and in gathering even a considerable number of followers, then they are outside the sacred walls of the Church just the same. But even if very few remain in orthodoxy and piety, they are in the Church, and the authority and the protection of the ecclesiastical institution resides in them. And if they should suffer for true piety, then this will undoubtedly contribute to their eternal glory and salvation of their souls.”
St. Nicephorus the Confessor [ PG 100, 844D]
-
Nado needs to be banned for signing back up as Bumphrey after being banned by Matthew.
-
I am not satisfied with your points. I believe the sedevacantists have good arguments against the Novus Ordo, but I do not think they have good arguments FOR the sedevacantists being the Church. The Church has to be one holy catholic and apostolic and infallible and indefectible and it has to have jurisdiction and the power to bind and loose and govern and teach the faithful and it has to be lead by Bishops sent by the Church and it should have a Pope or at least the power to elect a Pope which all submit to. In my opinion these are all problems for sedevacantism. That is why I believe if a form of sedevacantism is true it would make more sense if there were a true Pope with a true hierarchy in hiding such as in the Siri thesis. But I have no evidence that this is true. Some sedevacantists argue that part of the Novus Ordo is still the Church, but none of them actually know where this part of the Novus Ordo is and which bishops it is composed of, nor do they follow this part of the Novus Ordo and they are not in any meaningful communion with this part of the Novus Ordo as if it really were the Church.
I privately hold the sedevacantist position, but I don't believe that sedevacantists are the Church. I am reminded of the definition of the Church being all baptized persons who follow the teachings, traditions and Sacraments passed on by the Apostles through the Popes. In other words, I personally believe that the Church is made up of all the various traditional Catholic groups combined throughout the world who follow the True Faith and Sacraments.
I think that a lot of people tend to get wrapped up a bit too much in trying to make the decision of whether the current popes are popes or aren't popes...
Can't everyone just agree that we can't follow them or listen to them and leave the rest to be officially decided later? :)
-
I privately hold the sedevacantist position, but I don't believe that sedevacantists are the Church. I am reminded of the definition of the Church being all baptized persons who follow the teachings, traditions and Sacraments passed on by the Apostles through the Popes. In other words, I personally believe that the Church is made up of all the various traditional Catholic groups combined throughout the world who follow the True Faith and Sacraments.
I think that a lot of people tend to get wrapped up a bit too much in trying to make the decision of whether the current popes are popes or aren't popes...
Can't everyone just agree that we can't follow them or listen to them and leave the rest to be officially decided later? :)
I referred you not long ago to the second-to-last chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin", but I really think you need to read it again carefully in light of what I am going to say now...
Just because one is a "card-carrying Catholic", so to speak, does not make what he personally believes is automatically OK, nor is it some kind of "immunity-from-criticism" card. A Catholic, though technically still in the Church, can hold dangerous beliefs that harm others. In proportion to the danger and influence, we should condemn their error, even up the point of calling them heretics and keeping away from them. This is what was done in Catholic history. The day before Fr. Martin Luther was excommunicated, he was a Catholic. Yet, it was appropriate to shun him for the danger he was. The same with the Arian clergy before they were officially condemned by the Church. The Arians, regardless of whether they had the true Sacraments and whether an individual priest didn't sermonize about their one error, the direct association with the error was enough to completely shun them and risk bodily harm in the mountains to have the Mass.
'Believing a man is a true pope and totally shunning him and his bishops' is inconsistent in conviction, and its consequences are very seriously damaging to the faith of others. A prime example of this was when St. Paul publicly criticized St. Peter. This was God's working to keep the head of the Church from error before it spread from a local problem to the Church. It a Providential working of the Infallibility of the Church. There is difference of opinion whether St. Peter was guiltless, or whether it was a venial sin, but the point is, when you read the words of St. Paul in Scripture, regardless of intention, the objective serious consequences of failure to act consistently on a belief should be excoriated with strong language to protect others from the same mistake.
St. Peter was having the Jews and Gentiles eat separately. This was at variance with his conviction. Here are the strong words of St. Paul in Galatians 2:11-18 (my emphasis):
"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circuмcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners. But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. But if while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners; is Christ then the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build up again the things which I have destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator."
-
I referred you not long ago to the second-to-last chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin", but I really think you need to read it again carefully in light of what I am going to say now...
Just because one is a "card-carrying Catholic", so to speak, does not make what he personally believes is automatically OK, nor is it some kind of "immunity-from-criticism" card. A Catholic, though technically still in the Church, can hold dangerous beliefs that harm others. In proportion to the danger and influence, we should condemn their error, even up the point of calling them heretics and keeping away from them. This is what was done in Catholic history. The day before Fr. Martin Luther was excommunicated, he was a Catholic. Yet, it was appropriate to shun him for the danger he was. The same with the Arian clergy before they were officially condemned by the Church. The Arians, regardless of whether they had the true Sacraments and whether an individual priest didn't sermonize about their one error, the direct association with the error was enough to completely shun them and risk bodily harm in the mountains to have the Mass.
'Believing a man is a true pope and totally shunning him and his bishops' is inconsistent in conviction, and its consequences are very seriously damaging to the faith of others. A prime example of this was when St. Paul publicly criticized St. Peter. This was God's working to keep the head of the Church from error before it spread from a local problem to the Church. It a Providential working of the Infallibility of the Church. There is difference of opinion whether St. Peter was guiltless, or whether it was a venial sin, but the point is, when you read the words of St. Paul in Scripture, regardless of intention, the objective serious consequences of failure to act consistently on a belief should be excoriated with strong language to protect others from the same mistake.
St. Peter was having the Jews and Gentiles eat separately. This was at variance with his conviction. Here are the strong words of St. Paul in Galatians 2:11-18 (my emphasis):
"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circuмcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners. But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. But if while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners; is Christ then the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build up again the things which I have destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator."
Whatever happened to the rule of the Church that the faithful are not bound to withdrawn from communication with someone until the Church makes an official proclamation?
Obviously that is not going to happen in the current status of things though... So, we will keep praying... :)
-
Whatever happened to the rule of the Church that the faithful are not bound to withdrawn from communication with someone until the Church makes an official proclamation?
Obviously that is not going to happen in the current status of things though... So, we will keep praying... :)
You still don't get it?
We are not bound by "Church law", which means one would immediately follow a command without understanding the circuмstances.
This is not the case. MORALLY, we are bound to judge a danger, and, with conviction, stay away from the danger and warn others of that danger.
Do you REALLY understand, and accept, that chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin"?
-
You still don't get it?
We are not bound by "Church law", which means one would immediately follow a command without understanding the circuмstances.
This is not the case. MORALLY, we are bound to judge a danger, and, with conviction, stay away from the danger and warn others of that danger.
Do you REALLY understand, and accept, that chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin"?
Lol... We aren't bound by Church law? :facepalm:
Then what is the point of having it in the first place? :o
I completely agree that everyone should stay away from Francis and the Concilliar claimants to the papacy. I just don't agree that we have the authority to be the ones to actually denounce him. That requires a higher authority of a pope or perhaps a Church Council like during the Western Schism... :incense:
-
Lol... We aren't bound by Church law? :facepalm:
Then what is the point of having it in the first place? :o
I completely agree that everyone should stay away from Francis and the Concilliar claimants to the papacy. I just don't agree that we have the authority to be the ones to actually denounce him. That requires a higher authority of a pope or perhaps a Church Council like during the Western Schism... :incense:
We are bound by Church law. My point is, without the law, we are bound by the moral law.
You still, in effect, reject the chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin". Do you realize that? It says that "reason" is an authority.
-
We are bound by Church law. My point is, without the law, we are bound by the moral law.
You still, in effect, reject the chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin". Do you realize that?
I try to follow the Faith as best I can, if I am at fault I pray that God lead me back to the truth...
As for the book "Liberalism is a Sin" the basic description and summary of the book is that it:
"Refutes every aspect of the deadly error that one religion is as good as another and that a person has a moral right to choose whichever religion suits him best. Cuts through the foggy religious thinking rampant today!"
What the book is writing about on is the subject of Ecuмenism, saying that there is nothing wrong with condemned religions. The situation of traditional Catholicism is a bit different because the modern claimants to the papacy have never been officially condemned by the Church. So, it is the duty of the faithful to separate themselves from those who seem to be in error until they are able to be judged properly by the proper authority. That is the normal way things have been done in the Church, if I am not mistaken.
-
I try to follow the Faith as best I can, if I am at fault I pray that God lead me back to the truth...
As for the book "Liberalism is a Sin" the basic description and summary of the book is that it:
"Refutes every aspect of the deadly error that one religion is as good as another and that a person has a moral right to choose whichever religion suits him best. Cuts through the foggy religious thinking rampant today!"
What the book is writing about on is the subject of Ecuмenism, saying that there is nothing wrong with condemned religions. The situation of traditional Catholicism is a bit different because the modern claimants to the papacy have never been officially condemned by the Church. So, it is the duty of the faithful to separate themselves from those who seem to be in error until they are able to be judged properly by the proper authority. That is the normal way things have been done in the Church, if I am not mistaken.
"So, it is the duty of the faithful to separate themselves from those who seem to be in error until they are able to be judged properly by the proper authority."
This is correct, but you appear at times to speak against it. Yes, it is the duty of you and me "to separate ourselves from those who seem to be in error" until higher authority decides otherwise. But in the meantime, we judge and speak with conviction about the danger as being the truth.