Author Topic: A broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX (Read 16159 times)

Mabel · « **Reply #120 on:** March 14, 2013, 06:26:14 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.

With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?

He doesn't qualify for the papacy nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ, so no. The chair is still vacant, sadly.

Machabees · « **Reply #121 on:** March 14, 2013, 06:38:46 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: Machabees
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.

With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?

He doesn't qualify for the papacy nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ, so no. The chair is still vacant, sadly.

What do you mean by: He doesn't "qualify" for the Papacy...?

What do you mean by: nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ?

Did he not make the final decision with accepting the election and then put on white to manifest that to the whole world?

Emerentiana · « **Reply #122 on:** March 14, 2013, 06:41:21 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.

With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?

Maccabes, I think you know the answer to this. No need to ask.

Machabees · « **Reply #123 on:** March 14, 2013, 07:29:31 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote from: Machabees
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.

With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?

Maccabes, I think you know the answer to this. No need to ask.

No, actually do not know what you think of this new Pope; that is why I am asking. I know what many sedevacantist think of the other (past) popes, but this is a new one is he not?

Unless you are saying that sedevacantism is a dogma and applies perpetually to all Popes -the Chair is Vacant- until Christ comes in His second coming? At some point, do you not believe that there needs to be a Pope that you will recognition?

Simply, since Pope Francis is brand new (2-days), do you recognize him as Pope, or not?

Mabel · « **Reply #124 on:** March 14, 2013, 07:37:42 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Mabel
Quote from: Machabees
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.

With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?

He doesn't qualify for the papacy nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ, so no. The chair is still vacant, sadly.

What do you mean by: He doesn't "qualify" for the Papacy...?

What do you mean by: nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ?

Did he not make the final decision with accepting the election and then put on white to manifest that to the whole world?

I don't believe he professes the Catholic faith nor believes in the same papal office as the past. He may sit in the chair, but his beliefs and his god are not those of the Catholic Church. Since one must be a Catholic in order to be pope, I don't believe he could be elected, even if we currently had a real cardinals.

Catholics do not take part in the ceremonies of false religions, I don't see how Mr. Bergoglio has intended be united to the Church of all ages. Though it is not the basis of my rejection of his claim to be bishop of Rome (as he has not yet called himself Vicar of Christ, to my knowledge), I believe that a real pope would take back the tiara and recite the Oath against Modernism.

I'm not a dogmatic sedevacantist, but I know that if I believe the Catholic Faith to be true, this man cannot be pope and I cannot follow him.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #125 on:** March 14, 2013, 07:39:57 PM »

Sorry to say the chair is as empty as ever of a valid Pope, NUMBER ONE: Freemasons can't nor do they have any authority to elect a Pope. NUMBER TWO: Do you really believe the Holy Ghost was among all those Modernists, Freemasons, and enemies of God?
THREE: The reason this so called pretender does not believe he is valid, is he even told the Cardinals, "I hope God forgives you for what you just did"...

Also when a valid pope enters, the first thing he will say is, begone Vatican II, meaning begone Satan.

Mabel · « **Reply #126 on:** March 14, 2013, 07:45:36 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: Mabel
Quote from: Machabees
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.

With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?

He doesn't qualify for the papacy nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ, so no. The chair is still vacant, sadly.

What do you mean by: He doesn't "qualify" for the Papacy...?

What do you mean by: nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ?

Did he not make the final decision with accepting the election and then put on white to manifest that to the whole world?

I don't believe he professes the Catholic faith nor believes in the same papal office as the past. He may sit in the chair, but his beliefs and his god are not those of the Catholic Church. Since one must be a Catholic in order to be pope, I don't believe he could be elected, even if we currently had a real cardinals.

Catholics do not take part in the ceremonies of false religions, I don't see how Mr. Bergoglio has intended be united to the Church of all ages. Though it is not the basis of my rejection of his claim to be bishop of Rome (as he has not yet called himself Vicar of Christ, to my knowledge), I believe that a real pope would take back the tiara and recite the Oath against Modernism.

I'm not a dogmatic sedevacantist, but I know that if I believe the Catholic Faith to be true, this man cannot be pope and I cannot follow him.

**I meant Papal Coronation Oath (distracted typing)

Ambrose · « **Reply #127 on:** March 15, 2013, 03:08:14 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.

With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?

Based on the public evidence available, I withhold any acceptance of his claim to the papacy as I do not have any certainty that the man is a Catholic. There is evidence which casts serious doubt on whether he believes the Catholic Faith.

The onus is on him to assure of this fact as it has been with all of the Vatican II claimants. A Catholic does not have to accept the claim to the Petrine office of one who lacks a legitimate claim.

With all of the Cardinals now appointed by public heretics, who have claimed the office, the lawful electors are the remaining hierarchy who have a lawful claim to their offices and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy.

It is unclear if they accept him or not, but even if they do, as stated above, he also must be a Catholic, and that point is currently in dispute. A doubtful pope is no pope.

I hope that answers you question. God bless.

Ambrose · « **Reply #128 on:** March 15, 2013, 03:24:22 AM »

Machabees wrote:
(Your words in brackets)

Quote

The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. [No. Look at Church history; of Pope Honduras, other Popes, Bishops, Priests in the Catholic Church who had erred. In the Old Testament with the Pharisees, they told the people not to follow the Divine Lord, the Truth, and His Teachings.] The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.

I still stand by my assertion that a pope never gave the universal Church an evil law. This is impossible for a pope to do. If I am wrong on this, then please cite the law. It is impossible for the Church to give evil universal laws, a holy Church cannot give evil.

Regarding Pope Honorius, have you ever read this, it may be an eye opener for you, as it dispels common calumnies against him:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oJoNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Supposed+Fall+Honorius+Condemnation&source=bl&ots=9wDXALs6Yt&sig=p_MPCVnrMKh_MIGhcIq37OXRDMI&hl=en&ei=lbd-Ttz0D6fY0QGw2r3dDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Supposed%20Fall%20Honorius%20Condemnation&f=false

Ambrose · « **Reply #129 on:** March 15, 2013, 03:40:34 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

Sedevacantists, in likeness though a different application, do not believe in the correct understanding of the Church's "Divine constitution" (like you had written above); so they believe in something else and eventually fall away. Like in many cases into different kinds and tenets of sedevacantism -like Gerry Mattitics...and others. The road is difficult and requires a strong Faith in God's Divine attributes of His Church -which cannot err- only men can."]

Machabess,

I disagree with this conclusion. The reason why sedevacantism is not united is due to the lack of unity that comes through the Pope and the bishops in union with him. When this breaks down, unity suffers. This is why Our Lord established the Church with the office of St. Peter, to unite the Church in Faith and charity. The Pope is the center of the unity of the Church, hence the axiom, "where Peter is, there is the Church."

It is inevitable that during a period of long term sedevacante, with a heretical anti-pope deceiving the flock of Christ, and no members of the hierarchy leading the remaining Catholics, that all order has broken down and will keep breaking down. It is a fact that heresy, error, and schisms are everywhere.

But, with respect, it is a fantasy to only look at the sedevacantists regarding the breakdown. There is a constant breakdown in unity among those who adhere to the anti-pope. Some adhere to the anti-pope more than others, and that leads to constant divisions. The Society of St. Pius X has suffered divisions and still does to this day.

This is natural and it is a living proof that the Papacy is essential to the Church. We are witnessing the necessity of this doctrine before our very eyes.

When you say, "only men can (err)," that is true, but, the Church cannot err on matters of Faith and moral. She cannot teach heresy to the universal Church as happened at Vatican II. She cannot give evil laws to the universal Church. She is spotless and Holy. Evil cannot come from the Catholic Church.

Regarding Gerry Matatics, does he actually disagree on any matter of Faith and morals? From what I see he only disagrees on the judgment of whether epikeia can be used in our present circuмstance regarding the justification of the traditional clergy, i.e. bishops without a mission from the Pope, and priests not sent by bishops with a mission.

While I disagree with him on this, he is not bound to the judgment on epikeia that we have formed. He should at least be consistent though, and explain how he can publicly teach and write on matters of Faith relying on the principle of epikeia himself. To my knowledge, he has never done this.

Ambrose · « **Reply #130 on:** March 15, 2013, 03:49:40 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Machabees
What is also very important to understand in this crisis, is that Vatican II was a "Pastoral" council.

Which means:

- Everything "pastoral" that is in it, you are not bound to follow.
- Anything that is ambiguous, gets through out the window. The Church is Holy and clear. She does not speak with "two tongues"; only sinful man does. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that if a "law is unjust, it is not a law at all, and needs not be followed.
- Anything that comes out later as a "dogmatic" interpretation of a "pastoral" nature is false and also not to be followed (Lumen Gentium, Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, etc...).

Likewise, anything that a conciliar Bishop, Priest, or Pope wants to "promote" in this "false pastoral doctrine", is not obliged to follow, like Aaron in the Old Testament when he erred; however, it does not mean that they have no authority from God in the position that they were ordained in.

Vatican II by itself -is self condemned- and is waiting for God's Providence to manifest the "mysterious good" that will come out of that evil.

Until then, we need to have Faith in God, do our duties of state faithfully, and be patient for God's plan to work the way He is allowing it to happen.

There was an excellent article published by John Daly several years ago which studied the question about whether Vatican II taught in the manner in which the Church teaches infallibly. I would urge you to read the article, and then if you still believe that Vatican II did not teach in the manner in which the Church teaches, we could discuss it further. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267

Now, I am not arguing that Vatican II is the infallible teaching of the Church, but I am arguing that the man who approved it teaching could not have been a Pope.

I agree that Vatican II is self condemned. It is not part of the teaching of the Church. It could not be. The theology of Vatican II is divorced from the deposit of Faith. From the moment it was promulgated, December 7th 1965, new doctrine was taught not found and in conflict with the Sacred Deposit.

It is impossible that Vatican II came from the Church, and from that it is impossible that the "pope" who imposed it on the Church was truly a pope.

Ambrose?

Though I agree, however, you did say in two other posts:

Quote
"The Pope is the center of unity of the Church, his teachings are the rule of faith, and we are bound to believe him, even in his non-infallible teaching. We are bound to adhere to the laws he gives to the universal Church, also called Sacred laws, or Sacred Canons."

Quote
The Pope being the Supreme Teacher of all. When the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith and morals, all must believe what he says, even when he is teaching in a non-infallible manner.

Quote
Whenever the Pope teaches the universal Church all must believe what he teaches. They are bound the teaching, but the level of assent may differ. The Pope's non-infallible teaching to the universal Church binds Catholics under pain of sin to believe him and is always safe although it is not infallible.

Quote
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.

Machabees,

There is no such thing as "pastoral doctrine." When the Pope teaches on matters of the Faith and morals we are bound to what he teaches. I would ask you to explain "pastoral doctrine" using pre-Vatican II theology. It didn't exist and is a novelty used to explain away Vatican II.

Vatican II taught in the manner that the Church teaches. John Daly explains the point in great and accurate detail. If you have a chance to read this article, it would greatly advance discussion on this point. If you disagree with what he says, at least we could see the nature of our disagreement. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267

Ambrose · « **Reply #131 on:** March 15, 2013, 03:54:51 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

[I understand. What you have not admitted to is that Archbishop Lefebvre has NOT taken that position to the end; sedevacantist, on their own, have.]

I agree with you, and I do not dispute that. But, what I am saying is this: Archbishop Lefebvre taught the same principles that I am stating here.

Ambrose · « **Reply #132 on:** March 15, 2013, 04:05:52 AM »

Machabees wrote:
(your words in brackets)

Quote

When the bishops were consecrated in 1988, all of those present made the judgment that they must go against the express will of the "pope," for the common good of the Church. As sedevacantists, we are not the only ones making judgments on our own, without the benefit of authority. In every case, the Society has acted to preserve the Faith by resisting the anti-popes, but they have done this in the absence of authority relying on their own judgment of what to do and when to resist. [No. It is on the Authority of the Church in what the Church has always done. Archbishop Lefebvre had explained very well in his sermon of the 1988 consecrations.]

But, a judgment was still made that they were doing "what the Church has always done." At no time in the history of the Church has a bishop had to consecrate bishops to preserve the Faith and the apostolic succession from the Pope.

When a Catholic during the crisis resists the man they call pope, they are relying on their judgment that they must resist, how far the must resist, and exactly what they must resist. This is a fact. They are not relying on any living authority to tell them anything, they are relying on themselves.

Now, I know you are going to say, they are relying on the previous Popes, Councils, Canon Law, Doctors and theologians. If you say that then we agree, we as Catholics must preserve the same Faith and reject abominations and evil and impious laws and sacramental rites. But, that is all the sedevacantists are doing, we are rejecting this evil, and we are applying pre-Vatican II theology and law to a publicly heretical "pope."

We both agree that we must reject the heresies of Vatican II, the area that we are not agreeing on is that you do not seem willing to concede that we can reject a papal claim of a public heretic. Archbishop Lefebvre taught that we could, the Code teaches it, pre-Vatican II theology teaches it, but I cannot convince you of it.

Ambrose · « **Reply #133 on:** March 15, 2013, 04:12:16 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

[This is not true. “Non-infallible” teaching, outside of what the Church has always taught, is pastoral. Pastoral teaching is not bound to follow, just like Vatican II, it was a pastoral council, you are not bound to follow it.]

When the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith, it is safe, that is why you must believe it.

But, in the case of Vatican II, the teaching was given in the manner the Church uses to teach. I will wait until you have time to read John Daly's article and docuмentation on this to see exactly where you differ on this.

I wish you well and God bless. I hope for both of our sakes that we will once again have a pope soon, so that we will not ever have to think about these things again. :)

Machabees · « **Reply #134 on:** March 15, 2013, 03:58:21 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Machabees
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.

With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?

Based on the public evidence available, I withhold any acceptance of his claim to the papacy as I do not have any certainty that the man is a Catholic. There is evidence which casts serious doubt on whether he believes the Catholic Faith.

The onus is on him to assure of this fact as it has been with all of the Vatican II claimants. A Catholic does not have to accept the claim to the Petrine office of one who lacks a legitimate claim.

With all of the Cardinals now appointed by public heretics, who have claimed the office, the lawful electors are the remaining hierarchy who have a lawful claim to their offices and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy.

It is unclear if they accept him or not, but even if they do, as stated above, he also must be a Catholic, and that point is currently in dispute. A doubtful pope is no pope.

I hope that answers you question. God bless.

If you "vote no" to the new Pope because you have a doubt whether he is a Catholic, based of the public evidence available, then why do you "vote yes" without any doubt to say that the conciliar neo-modern Cardinals are "lawful electors [that] are the remaining hierarchy who have a lawful claim to their offices and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy'?

If all of these groups profess "public heresy", why do you only separate the Pope not to have a lawful office and not the rest?