I always knew someday we would all be SEDEVACANTIST!

Today is that day...

Looks like all of CatholicInfo's members are now sedevacantists for the first time in forum history.  

I thought of this too, yesterday. I fully agree that it's a bit silly to claim "we're all sedevacantists".  Let's see -- actual Sedevacantists believe the Interregnum has gone on for over 50 years, and the rest of us think it just started. How are we all the same again?


Please don’t say “We’re all sedevacantists now”

by John Vennari

It is usually said in light-hearted jest: “We’re all sedevacantists now,” in reference to the resignation of Pope Benedict. Yes, I am as ready for humor as the next man; and yes, I smile when it is said to me, but usually out of courtesy rather than genuine amusement.

The truth is we are not “all sedevacantists now,” but simply Catholics living through the normal cycles of Church history, one of which is that short interval between when a Pope dies and a new one elected.

The 2013 drama is different in the sense that we have never had a Pope reign for eight years – and one who had been head of a leading Vatican discatersry for more than 20 years prior to his Papal election – simply resign because he feels his health does not permit him to carry on. Even Cardinal Pell and others express unease with this novelty.

“Sedevacantism,” however, is a position taken by a small number of traditional Catholics who believe that those who call themselves post-conciliar popes are guilty of formal manifest heresy and have thus lost their office. The average traditional Catholic has little in common with this position, since it comprises the belief that none of the Cardinals gathered are true Cardinals, and most of the world’s bishops are not even bishops. The Papal Election of 2013 will not change anything for sedevacantists, since the men in the Sistine Chapel are fraudulent Cardinals with no authority to elect a Supreme Pontiff.

Sedevacantism is a position I have never even been tempted to embrace. I see it as a kind of despair that ends up asking more questions than it answers.

Yet the main cause of sedevacantism, I believe, is not the sedevacantists themselves. Rather, it is the post-Conciliar Popes who give the impression that there can be some transformation of the dogmatic teaching of the Church over time – that there is one form of “Catholic Truth” for the 19th Century, and an updated and different form of “Catholic Truth” for the 20th and 21st centuries; that in the 19th Century, it was good to have the 1864 Syllabus of Errors, but in the 20th Century, it was good that Vatican II was a countersyllabus.

The guiding principle of any Pope must be what is defined infallibly at Vatican I and spelled out in the Oath Against Modernism: to teach the Catholic Faith “in the same meaning and in the same explanation” as the Church always taught throughout the centuries.

This principle is a head-on collision with what Vatican II produced.

By some miracle may we be granted a Pontiff who will eventually recognize Vatican II for the catastrophe that it is, who will put all human respect and modernist trends behind him, and who will govern the Church according to the immutable Catholic truths of the centuries.

It's a good thing the Archbishop didn't have the dogmatic anti-sedevacantist position, otherwise the SSPX probably would have gone under quickly after his death.

Dogmatic anti-sedes who act as though the position is unspeakable, unthinkable, should acknowledge they depart from the position of the Archbishop and Bishop Castro Mayer.

John Vennari's treatment of Bishop Williamson's expulsion unfortunately shows us where he stands.

It's very important for Catholics to understand who their friends and enemies are.

All this talk of "we can't judge" becomes very dangerous when it is used to excuse enemies and condemn friends.

I watched a little of the news today about this issue, and couldn't help notice a couple of times when the anchor person struggled to say the word "sedevacantist" and asked the "Catholic priest" if he had pronounced the word correctly.  The priest quickly changed the subject and did not even answer the question, as if, he was to frightened to pronounce the word himself.  

Lets notice these next few days, how even the word sedevacantist frightens the Modernists there.   :tv-disturbed:

The speaker neglected to mention that the one thing that Benedict XVI
failed to accomplish as pope he has achieved by resigning -

unity with sedevacantists!  





wait................. I just realized that Archbishop Broglio's chasuble has the
design of a Freemason apron right across the chest area, very prominently.

Hey Neil, you need to be careful to say "the Archbishop" only when you mean Archbishop Lefebvre -- considering the board you're on.

All you have to do is include the full name -- Archbishop Broglio, for example.
(Yes, I fixed a couple of your posts, above).

You know how St. Thomas Aquinas, throughout his Summa Theologica, uses "The Philosopher" to mean Aristotle? Imagine if he occasionally used the term to mean a few other philosophers -- ("hey, he was a philosopher!"). It would just cause confusion.

I always knew someday we would all be SEDEVACANTIST!

Today is that day...

 :smile:

Well, for a few days we can all be at peace.