Author Topic: Why are you not a sedevacantist? (Read 55059 times)

Matto · « **on:** January 04, 2016, 02:53:25 PM »

That is the question. I think the sedevacantists have better arguments than the R&R supporters, but I still have problems with both positions. The point of this thread is to point out the problems with sedevacantism. I am sure this has been done in other threads already so pardon me if this gets repetitive.

Here are a few of my problems with sedevacantism.

First is that if it as acceptable for Catholics to declare the Pope a heretic and therefore not a Pope, then when the Pope declares anything it is impossible to know if what the Pope declared was true or if he was wrong and is a heretic and therefore not Pope. If this principle were true then it would be impossible to know anything about the faith. For example, if a Pope can be declared a heretic and therefore a non-Pope, then there is no way of knowing if the Pope was right or if the Old Catholics were right when they denied Papal infallibility because there is the possibility that Pope Pius IX was a heretic and therefore an antipope. It seems to me that there must be a way for the Church to know infallibly that the Pope is really the Pope because otherwise it is impossible to know anything infallibly.

Also, a small point is that I have been told by the poster Nishant as well as others that if the whole Church accepts a man as Pope peacefully, that is infallible proof that the man is truly Pope. If that is true then you could say all of the conciliar popes were accepted by the whole Church so they must have been Popes. I mean everyone accepted Paul VI as Pope, even Padre Pio did after Vatican II, so how could he have been an antipope when he approved of Vatican II?

Another problem I have with sedevacantism is that if it was true the Church would be pretty much done. There has been no Pope for almost sixty years, there are almost no cardinals and all of the ones still living are very old and follow the antipopes. There are almost no Bishops left who were appointed by true Popes and all of those left are ancient and also following the antipopes. There are no orthodox clergy of Rome that we know of who do not follow the antipope and most of them are not really clergy at all if the sedevacantist are right that the new rites of ordination and consecration are invalid. So there seems to be no way of ever getting a functional Church back with a true Pope at its head.

Those are a few of the main reasons why I do not become a sedevacantist. I think there are more arguments against the R&R position, but I don't see the sedevacantist position to solve all the problems either. Since I have heard many sedevacantists say that their position is the only Catholic one and that it is the only position that solves all the problems in the Chuch, I welcome all the non-sedevacantists to give their reasons why they are not sedevacantists and say what their problems with the position are.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #1 on:** January 04, 2016, 03:29:57 PM »

Quote from: Matto

That is the question. I think the sedevacantists have better arguments than the R&R supporters, but I still have problems with both positions. The point of this thread is to point out the problems with sedevacantism. I am sure this has been done in other threads already so pardon me if this gets repetitive.

Here are a few of my problems with sedevacantism.

First is that if it as acceptable for Catholics to declare the Pope a heretic and therefore not a Pope, then when the Pope declares anything it is impossible to know if what the Pope declared was true or if he was wrong and is a heretic and therefore not Pope. If this principle were true then it would be impossible to know anything about the faith. For example, if a Pope can be declared a heretic and therefore a non-Pope, then there is no way of knowing if the Pope was right or if the Old Catholics were right when they denied Papal infallibility because there is the possibility that Pope Pius IX was a heretic and therefore an antipope. It seems to me that there must be a way for the Church to know infallibly that the Pope is really the Pope because otherwise it is impossible to know anything infallibly.

Also, a small point is that I have been told by the poster Nishant as well as others that if the whole Church accepts a man as Pope peacefully, that is infallible proof that the man is truly Pope. If that is true then you could say all of the conciliar popes were accepted by the whole Church so they must have been Popes. I mean everyone accepted Paul VI as Pope, even Padre Pio did after Vatican II, so how could he have been an antipope when he approved of Vatican II?

Another problem I have with sedevacantism is that if it was true the Church would be pretty much done. There has been no Pope for almost sixty years, there are almost no cardinals and all of the ones still living are very old and follow the antipopes. There are almost no Bishops left who were appointed by true Popes and all of those left are ancient and also following the antipopes. There are no orthodox clergy of Rome that we know of who do not follow the antipope and most of them are not really clergy at all if the sedevacantist are right that the new rites of ordination and consecration are invalid. So there seems to be no way of ever getting a functional Church back with a true Pope at its head.

Those are a few of the main reasons why I do not become a sedevacantist. I think there are more arguments against the R&R position, but I don't see the sedevacantist position to solve all the problems either. Since I have heard many sedevacantists say that their position is the only Catholic one and that it is the only position that solves all the problems in the Chuch, I welcome all the non-sedevacantists to give their reasons why they are not sedevacantists and say what their problems with the position are.

The way we know what is truth or not, I read this in one of my old catechism books from my school days, remember Matto, I am just an old grandma. (Kidding You)
Anyway what I read makes sense to me. Whenever there is a dispute about the teachings of the Church we just go back to the beginning of the explanation, and that is the truth right there.

Also another point here is we need to define the term "Church". It is more than the buildings, don't you agree?

My question is this: Why is it that most agree the Freemasons infiltrated the Church, but most here also agree that it matters not if they voted for a Masonic pope? Read the Alta Vendita Masonic docuмent.

Going back to the vision of Pope Leo XIII, God allowed Satan 100 years of power to destroy his Church, maybe that 100 years began with Vatican II in 1969 when the Mass was destroyed. Or sooner when the Council began in 1962. This is when Pope Leo XIII composed the prayer to St. Michael Archangel, defend us in the battle, one of the first things the Modernist removed from the prayers after the low Mass.

In the Bible God tells us to leave the harlot, Interfaith.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #2 on:** January 04, 2016, 03:43:45 PM »

In my sentence above: "God allowed Satan 100 years of power to destroy his Church"
forgive me, for not capitalizing the word "his" should be His Church. So sorry that is a pet peeve of mine too when people forget that. Thank you God for humbling me!

Matto · « **Reply #3 on:** January 04, 2016, 03:46:58 PM »

Thank you Myrna. You know I love you, or at least I try to love the image I get from you and hope you all the best.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #4 on:** January 04, 2016, 03:54:36 PM »

Thank you Matto, I hope someone now will come along and try to answer our questions.

Gregory I · « **Reply #5 on:** January 04, 2016, 05:01:09 PM »

Because for the Church to know her head indirectly pertains to her infallibility. To be Sedevacantist means that Jesus Secretly deprived the Pope of his authority, but no one in the Church knew about it and that the Church has been subject to a false Pope this entire time since 1965 at LEAST.

Nope. Not possible. There could be a prolonged interregnum, but it has to be acknowledged by all the Church, it could not be secret. Otherwise Satan wins and the Church defects.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #6 on:** January 04, 2016, 05:06:59 PM »

I am not a sedevacantes because I don't have to be.

I have serious doubts about the post VatII popes. I don't believe they are valid popes, I believe they are heretics, that that should be obvious to anyone with eyes to see. HOWEVER, I don't identify with nor do I want to be identified with any sedevacantes groups. All the sedevacantes I have ever known were hot heads, their beliefs are based on emotions. Take for example the "Bishop"Sanborn group in Florida, at their seminary they don't allow any strangers communion unless they sign an agreement that they won't go to any other mass. I consider that nuts.

The problem with all sedevacantes is the same as that of the R&R people, they both teach others what they don't totally believe themselves. Ask any sedevacantes or R&R if they believe with certainty of faith that the pope is the pope. Certainty of faith is believing with the same conviction as a Catholic believes in the Divinity of Christ or the Holy Trinity.

I personally do not believe with certainty of faith that the VatII popes are heretics, on the other hand, I also do not believe with certainty of faith that they are valid popes. It is a mystery to me, but my sense of the Faith tells me to keep away from them.

I am not R&R and I am not sedevacantes, I am a Catholic, I get my sacraments at an SSPX chapel and that is all that I need from them.

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** January 04, 2016, 05:11:54 PM »

Quote from: Matto

First is that if it as acceptable for Catholics to declare the Pope a heretic and therefore not a Pope, then when the Pope declares anything it is impossible to know if what the Pope declared was true or if he was wrong and is a heretic and therefore not Pope.

In addition to what you said, if it is acceptable for Catholics to declare the Pope a heretic and therefore not Pope, then some pope and/or some council at some time necessarily would have had to be the one to teach such a thing, which they have never done - but if so, then what would there be to stop him from being declared a heretic and therefore not pope right after publishing such a teaching? Answer to that question is, nothing at all. The supreme authority on earth would be subject to the whims of his own subjects - which means that he is not the supreme authority on earth.

Quote from: Matto

Also, a small point is that I have been told by the poster Nishant as well as others that if the whole Church accepts a man as Pope peacefully, that is infallible proof that the man is truly Pope. If that is true then you could say all of the conciliar popes were accepted by the whole Church so they must have been Popes. I mean everyone accepted Paul VI as Pope, even Padre Pio did after Vatican II, so how could he have been an antipope when he approved of Vatican II?

I think you meant "how could he *not* have been antipope when he approved of Vatican II?" Much can be said about this, but for the sake of brevity, I refer you to your own correct understanding above.

Quote from: Matto

Another problem I have with sedevacantism is that if it was true the Church would be pretty much done.

You are right, if sedevacantism was true, the Church *by design* would be pretty much done.

Quote from: Matto

Those are a few of the main reasons why I do not become a sedevacantist. I think there are more arguments against the R&R position, but I don't see the sedevacantist position to solve all the problems either. Since I have heard many sedevacantists say that their position is the only Catholic one and that it is the only position that solves all the problems in the Chuch, I welcome all the non-sedevacantists to give their reasons why they are not sedevacantists and say what their problems with the position are.

Actually, I disagree that there are more arguments against R&R position. Aside from a few papal quotes that teach R&R, this below quote that Fr. Cekada and other sede's like to use actually supports R&R and it's brief summary is supportive of R&R. Note the author Franz Wernz and editor Pietro Vidal are theologians that Fr. Cekada calls "big gun theologians":

Quote from: Wernz/Vidal

Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected ... or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church.

(Franz Xaver Wernz, Ius Canonicuм, ed. by Pietro Vidal [Rome: Gregorian University, 1937], vol. 7, p. 398

songbird · « **Reply #8 on:** January 04, 2016, 05:52:38 PM »

When Russia forced their gov't on Czechoslovakia and other countries, Russia forced the Catholic Clergy OUT. If the clergy did not support the Gov't/State of Russia, the clergy was put in labor camps, murdered. The Pope at the time (1944) Pius XII was known to have said, Any clergy that follows Russia is Excommunicated. And any Laity that follow those clergy are also excommunicated.

We can not align ourselves with what we see today, clergy who support Communism and that is right here in the USA. The dioceses support State Programs that support abortion, and they also support the Federal Gov't. The CHURCH set up by Christ is for God and souls. The job of Pope is to protect what was given to us from Christ to Peter. Pope can not change things at a whim. NO.

All dioceses support Federal and State. Federal is the agenda of Communism. The dioceses survive $$ wise because for every $1. $3 is returned through grants. Your proof is right there that all dioceses are not serving God, they have no desire to. They are putting on a staged show to keep the people in a corral of lies to keep them ignorant and the $$$ there.

The enemy knows how to destroy. You take away the power. The POWER is in the BLOOD. The BLOOD is in all the sacraments. Take that away and what do you get? A saint once said, it would be better to take away the sun, than the Mass.

All those clergy who say a New Order mess, are excommunicated, and therefore have no Sanctifying Grace. They have the Holy Orders changed in word and to the point that they are not priest for consecration. They are ministers like those of Luther.

When you go to an Indult, you get dioceses==nothing. The bible states Chpt. 12 Daniel that the Mass will come to an end.

We should be just as the people of Jesus' times, read and listen to the prophets!

We don't have to give ourselves a name, but we do know from our catechism what makes one excommunicated and how one gets their souls back to the church.

I will not align myself with those excommunicated.

McCork · « **Reply #9 on:** January 04, 2016, 06:00:37 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Because for the Church to know her head indirectly pertains to her infallibility. To be Sedevacantist means that Jesus Secretly deprived the Pope of his authority, but no one in the Church knew about it and that the Church has been subject to a false Pope this entire time since 1965 at LEAST.

Nope. Not possible. There could be a prolonged interregnum, but it has to be acknowledged by all the Church, it could not be secret. Otherwise Satan wins and the Church defects.

Your messages really give the creeps now.

What do you think of the approved Catholic books that say a pope can become a manifest heretic and automatically cease to be pope? Do you say those sources are wrong even when they are approved by Rome, and are from a Saint and Doctor of the Church? Come clean with yourself.

Gregory I · « **Reply #10 on:** January 04, 2016, 06:11:50 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Gregory I
Because for the Church to know her head indirectly pertains to her infallibility. To be Sedevacantist means that Jesus Secretly deprived the Pope of his authority, but no one in the Church knew about it and that the Church has been subject to a false Pope this entire time since 1965 at LEAST.

Nope. Not possible. There could be a prolonged interregnum, but it has to be acknowledged by all the Church, it could not be secret. Otherwise Satan wins and the Church defects.

Your messages really give the creeps now.

What do you think of the approved Catholic books that say a pope can become a manifest heretic and automatically cease to be pope? Do you say those sources are wrong even when they are approved by Rome, and are from a Saint and Doctor of the Church? Come clean with yourself.

They all say the WAY he becomes a heretic is by falling into private heresy. I agree with all those theologians, but it simply doesn't apply Mccork, why?

Here is why: you must posit that Christ removed the visible head of the Church invisibly and nobody knew about it and the Church became immediately and entirely subject to a false head.

That's the consequence and it is unacceptable. Just think it through, it makes no sense.

How can the entirety of the Church be wrong when acclaiming her head? How? And how can the entirety of the Church FAIL to see that there is no head? Where do the theologians teach such a thing is possible?

McCork · « **Reply #11 on:** January 04, 2016, 06:15:00 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Gregory I
Because for the Church to know her head indirectly pertains to her infallibility. To be Sedevacantist means that Jesus Secretly deprived the Pope of his authority, but no one in the Church knew about it and that the Church has been subject to a false Pope this entire time since 1965 at LEAST.

Nope. Not possible. There could be a prolonged interregnum, but it has to be acknowledged by all the Church, it could not be secret. Otherwise Satan wins and the Church defects.

Your messages really give the creeps now.

What do you think of the approved Catholic books that say a pope can become a manifest heretic and automatically cease to be pope? Do you say those sources are wrong even when they are approved by Rome, and are from a Saint and Doctor of the Church? Come clean with yourself.

They all say the WAY he becomes a heretic is by falling into private heresy. I agree with all those theologians, but it simply doesn't apply Mccork, why?

Here is why: you must posit that Christ removed the visible head of the Church invisibly and nobody knew about it and the Church became immediately and entirely subject to a false head.

That's the consequence and it is unacceptable. Just think it through, it makes no sense.

How can the entirety of the Church be wrong when acclaiming her head? How? And how can the entirety of the Church FAIL to see that there is no head? Where do the theologians teach such a thing is possible?

So, you are saying Pius IX was wrong to approve of St. Francis de Sales as Saint and Doctor of the Church for saying that a pope can become a manifest heretic and automatically cease being pope? Yes, or no?

Gregory I · « **Reply #12 on:** January 04, 2016, 08:45:47 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Gregory I
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Gregory I
Because for the Church to know her head indirectly pertains to her infallibility. To be Sedevacantist means that Jesus Secretly deprived the Pope of his authority, but no one in the Church knew about it and that the Church has been subject to a false Pope this entire time since 1965 at LEAST.

Nope. Not possible. There could be a prolonged interregnum, but it has to be acknowledged by all the Church, it could not be secret. Otherwise Satan wins and the Church defects.

Your messages really give the creeps now.

What do you think of the approved Catholic books that say a pope can become a manifest heretic and automatically cease to be pope? Do you say those sources are wrong even when they are approved by Rome, and are from a Saint and Doctor of the Church? Come clean with yourself.

They all say the WAY he becomes a heretic is by falling into private heresy. I agree with all those theologians, but it simply doesn't apply Mccork, why?

Here is why: you must posit that Christ removed the visible head of the Church invisibly and nobody knew about it and the Church became immediately and entirely subject to a false head.

That's the consequence and it is unacceptable. Just think it through, it makes no sense.

How can the entirety of the Church be wrong when acclaiming her head? How? And how can the entirety of the Church FAIL to see that there is no head? Where do the theologians teach such a thing is possible?

So, you are saying Pius IX was wrong to approve of St. Francis de Sales as Saint and Doctor of the Church for saying that a pope can become a manifest heretic and automatically cease being pope? Yes, or no?

Before this question arises (and my answer is I agree with him) you ought to examine the allegations I lay against your position. Ignoring them is not a real solution.

McCork · « **Reply #13 on:** January 04, 2016, 09:40:39 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Gregory I
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Gregory I
Because for the Church to know her head indirectly pertains to her infallibility. To be Sedevacantist means that Jesus Secretly deprived the Pope of his authority, but no one in the Church knew about it and that the Church has been subject to a false Pope this entire time since 1965 at LEAST.

Nope. Not possible. There could be a prolonged interregnum, but it has to be acknowledged by all the Church, it could not be secret. Otherwise Satan wins and the Church defects.

Your messages really give the creeps now.

What do you think of the approved Catholic books that say a pope can become a manifest heretic and automatically cease to be pope? Do you say those sources are wrong even when they are approved by Rome, and are from a Saint and Doctor of the Church? Come clean with yourself.

They all say the WAY he becomes a heretic is by falling into private heresy. I agree with all those theologians, but it simply doesn't apply Mccork, why?

Here is why: you must posit that Christ removed the visible head of the Church invisibly and nobody knew about it and the Church became immediately and entirely subject to a false head.

That's the consequence and it is unacceptable. Just think it through, it makes no sense.

How can the entirety of the Church be wrong when acclaiming her head? How? And how can the entirety of the Church FAIL to see that there is no head? Where do the theologians teach such a thing is possible?

So, you are saying Pius IX was wrong to approve of St. Francis de Sales as Saint and Doctor of the Church for saying that a pope can become a manifest heretic and automatically cease being pope? Yes, or no?

Before this question arises (and my answer is I agree with him) you ought to examine the allegations I lay against your position. Ignoring them is not a real solution.

Your allegations are invalid because you precisely reject what top approved Catholic sources teach. It's either Yes, or No.

Gregory I · « **Reply #14 on:** January 04, 2016, 10:13:08 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Gregory I
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Gregory I
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Gregory I
Because for the Church to know her head indirectly pertains to her infallibility. To be Sedevacantist means that Jesus Secretly deprived the Pope of his authority, but no one in the Church knew about it and that the Church has been subject to a false Pope this entire time since 1965 at LEAST.

Nope. Not possible. There could be a prolonged interregnum, but it has to be acknowledged by all the Church, it could not be secret. Otherwise Satan wins and the Church defects.

Your messages really give the creeps now.

What do you think of the approved Catholic books that say a pope can become a manifest heretic and automatically cease to be pope? Do you say those sources are wrong even when they are approved by Rome, and are from a Saint and Doctor of the Church? Come clean with yourself.

They all say the WAY he becomes a heretic is by falling into private heresy. I agree with all those theologians, but it simply doesn't apply Mccork, why?

Here is why: you must posit that Christ removed the visible head of the Church invisibly and nobody knew about it and the Church became immediately and entirely subject to a false head.

That's the consequence and it is unacceptable. Just think it through, it makes no sense.

How can the entirety of the Church be wrong when acclaiming her head? How? And how can the entirety of the Church FAIL to see that there is no head? Where do the theologians teach such a thing is possible?

So, you are saying Pius IX was wrong to approve of St. Francis de Sales as Saint and Doctor of the Church for saying that a pope can become a manifest heretic and automatically cease being pope? Yes, or no?

Before this question arises (and my answer is I agree with him) you ought to examine the allegations I lay against your position. Ignoring them is not a real solution.

Your allegations are invalid because you precisely reject what top approved Catholic sources teach. It's either Yes, or No.

You're not thinking here. Clearly I agree with the saints and theologians. I just don't see how you can determine privately when they do and do not apply. You turn to the hierarchy for scripture, you turn to the hierarchy for tradition but turn to yourself for analyzing the times.

McCork, this is just being Luther with a theological manual instead of the Bible. It's more picking and choosing.

For example, the canonical part of Sedevacantism undergoes an epic fail in the following way:

You hold that Paul VI fell into heresy and ceased to be Pope. That leads to a question:

Since he is no longer Pope is he subject to canon law? A yes or no will suffice. Ought an imperfect general council deal with him canonically and call him to court at some point?