Author Topic: What good is Sedevacantism? (Read 11825 times)

GottmitunsAlex · « **Reply #30 on:** March 27, 2017, 05:43:47 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart on March 27, 2017, 05:40:37 PM

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.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #31 on:** March 27, 2017, 05:45:14 PM »

Quote from: GottmitunsAlex on March 27, 2017, 05:43:47 PM

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?

tdrev123 · « **Reply #32 on:** March 27, 2017, 05:50:32 PM »

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.

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.

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.

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.

tdrev123 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 27, 2017, 05:51:30 PM »

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #34 on:** March 27, 2017, 05:57:03 PM »

No thanks for an article by Atila Sinke Guimarãess

tdrev123 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 27, 2017, 06:34:21 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart on March 27, 2017, 05:57:03 PM

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.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #36 on:** March 27, 2017, 06:39:34 PM »

Quote from: tdrev123 on March 27, 2017, 06:34:21 PM

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.

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 27, 2017, 07:17:01 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on March 27, 2017, 03:08:30 PM

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.)

tdrev123 · « **Reply #38 on:** March 27, 2017, 07:35:09 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart on March 27, 2017, 06:39:34 PM

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?

ranlare · « **Reply #39 on:** March 27, 2017, 08:50:08 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart on March 27, 2017, 12:29:23 PM

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...

ranlare · « **Reply #40 on:** March 28, 2017, 04:00:05 AM »

Mr. Bum,
When you and Cekada are done contemplating your navels together, can you provide your "urgent" Plan B of your vacant narrative?

AMDGJMJ · « **Reply #41 on:** March 28, 2017, 11:32:30 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on March 26, 2017, 03:06:58 PM

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...

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #42 on:** March 29, 2017, 07:07:17 PM »

Since Matthew couldn't answer the question I'm hoping any non sedevacantist can answer a simple question...is your pope catholic

Augustinus · « **Reply #43 on:** March 29, 2017, 07:16:05 PM »

Quote from: sedevacantist3 on March 29, 2017, 07:07:17 PM

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.

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 29, 2017, 08:15:22 PM »

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

Author Topic: What good is Sedevacantism? (Read 11825 times)

GottmitunsAlex

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

BumphreyHogart

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

tdrev123

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

tdrev123

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

BumphreyHogart

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

tdrev123

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

BumphreyHogart

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

sedevacantist3

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

tdrev123

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

ranlare

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

ranlare

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

AMDGJMJ

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

sedevacantist3

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

Augustinus

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?

sedevacantist3

Re: What good is Sedevacantism?