T
thrasher59
Guest
I stumbled upon this hashtag on Twitter. I know part of it means “The seat is vacant”, in regards to the Pope. Most tweets that I’ve seen, say this started in 1958. Thoughts?
- Status
J
Jesuslover
Guest
Sedevacantism is heresy. It’s just not true. Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are all true popes.
O
otjm
Guest
I don’t mean to be harsh, but if you have to ask for thoughts on sedevecantism, you may not be informed enough concerning Vatican 2 to be able to substantiate your opinion that Vatican 2 changed the Church for the worse.
As an example: have you read Sacrosanctum Concilium in its entirety? You might note that 2,151 bishops of the world (which was nearly all the bishops of the world) voted on the acceptance of the document; out of that number, 2,147 voted in favor and four against.
And there are currently 5,304 Catholic bishops world wide and the vast majority, if not all accept the validity of Vatican 2.
You may be confusing some of the chaos that came about after Vatican 2, not by the documents (which were just beginning to be implemented), but by some priests and laity who went off the progressive end; and that was 50 years ago.
You may not like some of the changes; and that is perfectly fine (a prime example being that some people strongly prefer the EF to the OF), but you are in a very distinctly small minority. That, however, does not mean the Church changed for the worse; it means you don’t like the change - and the great majority do like the change.
However, making a blank charge is a bit hazardous, particularly when it puts one out of step with the Church at large. Again, opinions on the specifics of which form of the Mass are within reasonable bounds; blank charges “across the board” are out of step.
And tweets are an extremely poor source of information.
As an example: have you read Sacrosanctum Concilium in its entirety? You might note that 2,151 bishops of the world (which was nearly all the bishops of the world) voted on the acceptance of the document; out of that number, 2,147 voted in favor and four against.
And there are currently 5,304 Catholic bishops world wide and the vast majority, if not all accept the validity of Vatican 2.
You may be confusing some of the chaos that came about after Vatican 2, not by the documents (which were just beginning to be implemented), but by some priests and laity who went off the progressive end; and that was 50 years ago.
You may not like some of the changes; and that is perfectly fine (a prime example being that some people strongly prefer the EF to the OF), but you are in a very distinctly small minority. That, however, does not mean the Church changed for the worse; it means you don’t like the change - and the great majority do like the change.
However, making a blank charge is a bit hazardous, particularly when it puts one out of step with the Church at large. Again, opinions on the specifics of which form of the Mass are within reasonable bounds; blank charges “across the board” are out of step.
And tweets are an extremely poor source of information.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
An excellent well written post.
I gather you have read every document that came out of Vatican II?
Last edited:
P
phil3
Guest
It is not true. But that doesnt mean all Popes have been good Popes.
S
Servant31
Guest
I don’t think this is fair. 99.9985% of people form opinions on things they aren’t fully informed about.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
That is quite a generalisation.
The authority of the pope is the authority of Christ. How can the authority of Christ both say that religious freedom is a heresy and a right of all men. We know Christ can’t contradict himself so one of these positions is true and one must be false as it is impossible for truth to contradict truth. As Catholics, we have to believe that the first statement is true, otherwise, we might as well not believe any teaching.
B
BlushingOrange
Guest
Been through a sedevacantism phase about 8 months ago. 
I prayed on it a ton and found myself being led back to Catholicism through many proofs that people here provided me with. If someone was willing to call themselves a sedevacantist, then they are deciding that they ‘know better’ than God, and are ripping their roots of obedience from him, replanting themselves in tainted, sinful soil, and claiming that they have the right to make up the rules for themselves… hmm, smells like protestantism.
EDIT: this is my take, of course, I’m not very educated on the in’s and out’s of the issue at hand. This is just my testimony so take it as such.
I prayed on it a ton and found myself being led back to Catholicism through many proofs that people here provided me with. If someone was willing to call themselves a sedevacantist, then they are deciding that they ‘know better’ than God, and are ripping their roots of obedience from him, replanting themselves in tainted, sinful soil, and claiming that they have the right to make up the rules for themselves… hmm, smells like protestantism.EDIT: this is my take, of course, I’m not very educated on the in’s and out’s of the issue at hand. This is just my testimony so take it as such.
Last edited:
P
poche
Guest
Sedevacantism is not dealing with reality.
Let us review the facts. There was a conclave. At some point white smoke came out of the chimney. The dean of cardinals came to the window and said, “Habemos Papam…”
Most people who don’t agree with the Catholic Church and don’t agree with the Pope will say so. They will say, “Pope Francis is wrong, I don’t agree with him.” They are dealing with reality.
Sedevacantists will have you believe that there is no Pope. They don’t have the honesty to say< “I don’t agree with the Pope.” Instead they will tell you that the see is vacant. I guess that means they can do whatever they want.
Let us review the facts. There was a conclave. At some point white smoke came out of the chimney. The dean of cardinals came to the window and said, “Habemos Papam…”
Most people who don’t agree with the Catholic Church and don’t agree with the Pope will say so. They will say, “Pope Francis is wrong, I don’t agree with him.” They are dealing with reality.
Sedevacantists will have you believe that there is no Pope. They don’t have the honesty to say< “I don’t agree with the Pope.” Instead they will tell you that the see is vacant. I guess that means they can do whatever they want.
T
TheMortenBay
Guest
How many people have read all of Vatican II in its entirety? And out of those people who have, how many have read the entirety of the Council of Trent. In my view it seems that the people who really have a problem with Vatican II see a big difference between those two councils. I’ve read exactly zero of the documents, but that doesn’t mean I can’t learn about the documents from reputable sources.
That minority is growing and it has some very encouraging numbers for vocations compared to the rest of the Church.
The seat is not vacant. There’s a Pope sitting in the seat. This is the easiest way to disprove sedevacantism. Aside from that, sedevacantism is certainly based on the opinion of individuals and not Church teachings. That’s not a very Catholic view in things.
A
Annie
Guest
We do not force conversion, therefore people have a right to choose their own religion. This is a civil right.
However, we do not have a moral right to choose a religion other than Catholicism.
ETA: I have read the document
Last edited:
M
Mrchatsworth
Guest
You are asking in a Catholic forum if we think a sedevacantism idea is legit?
Um. No.
Um. No.
P
phil3
Guest
This is only in rare situations.
N
neophyte
Guest
Post deleted: wrong thread
Last edited:
C
C.Ray
Guest
It isn’t really heresy, is it? There’s no denial of doctrine.
It’s more schism than heresy.
The church has never forced conversion. The language used in the Vatican II documents is the same language used in Quanta Cura where the concept is defined as a heresy.Bataar:
We do not force conversion, therefore people have a right to choose their own religion. This is a civil right.
However, we do not have a moral right to choose a religion other than Catholicism.
ETA: I have read the document
Here’s the Vatican II information:
"The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person… This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."2 (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2)
Here’s the Quanta Cura information:
“And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society… Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church.”
How can both of these statements be true?
M
mythbuster1
Guest
See this article: Religious Liberty | Catholic Answers
Even Sspx puts a better clarification to it:
- Status