Confused-Sedevecantism

[phil19034]

I suggest you check out Dr Taylor Marshall and listen to why he says that Sedevecantism is false and why it can’t be true.

The idea of sedevecantism violates Vatican I (One)

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Sedevecantists

too long of a word.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I suggest you check out Dr Taylor Marshall and listen to why he says that Sedevecantism is false and why it can’t be true.

Could you link that video? I had no luck finding it on his channel.

The idea of sedevecantism violates Vatican I (One)

This. Vatican I defines that Popes have been set up to guard the Church in perpetuity and as such Sedevacantism violates this. I don’t necessarily think that they deny that, but in practice there is no way to elect new Pope anymore. Conclavists and those who believe that their “Pope” had a revelation to be the Pope have at least tried to solve that problem… which resulted into Anti-Popes.

 

[SheepsCousin]

To add to that an observation I’ve made is that when Protestant groups like this are set up it doesn’t take long for them to split (I mean Conclavists being split from sedes) and there is no unity amongst them. That’s why the church is necessary.

I think Jimmy Akin did a very good article on the perpetuity argument and it doesn’t necessarily prove Sedes wrong but he elaborates and shows Sedevecantism is probably not in God’s will.

Also Taylor Marshall is a Jedivecantist

And the article: National Catholic Register

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

To add to that an observation I’ve made is that when Protestant groups like this are set up it doesn’t take long for them to split (I mean Conclavists being split from sedes) and there is no unity amongst them. That’s why the church is necessary.

That’s very true.

Also Taylor Marshall is a Jedivecantist

 

[Bill_B_NY]

The only two other churches that really claim to be the original Catholic Church are the Sedevecantist

They have no authority to make that claim. Where do they get the authority? One sede group argues against the other - it’s total confusion.

 

[PrayForMe]

Sedevacantism is a heresy that essentially provides laypeople with powers they do not truly have - to decide that Popes universally accepted as the leaders of the Church are invalid due to some observed “heresy” they purportedly ascribe to. Laypeople do not have the authority to make these declarations. It has no basis in Catholic teaching, nor in historical precedent.

Canon Law says no one can authoritatively admonish the Pope. I have also never come across any source from Canon or Divine Law, or anyone else, saying the laity have the authority to declare a Pope to be in heresy and invalid. Sure, there are plenty of texts that say a heretic cannot be Pope, but the question of how to deal with a heretic who ascends to the Papacy is another matter entirely. Some Saints opined that God would never allow it. Pope Pius IX supposedly said “You just wouldn’t obey him” when asked what would happen if a heretic were to sit in the papal throne - notice he didn’t say “He wouldn’t be the Pope”. St. Robert Bellarmine, who sedevacantists seem to have an affinity for quoting, said that even kings and councils cannot depose the Pope in such a situation because they are not his superior, though he did argue they can resist him.

The only scenario I could imagine in which this is possible is if a Council condemns a Pope post mortem or damnatio memoriae . There are only two precedents for this in history that I am aware of. The first was when Pope Honorius was anathematized over 40 years after his death, only for Pope Leo II to eventually reverse this and say that Honorius merely acted “imprudently” by not more forcefully condemning the heresy of Monothelitism. The other was Pope Formosus, who was similarly condemned after death, only for the decision to be reversed later, since many of the charges levied against him were fabricated. Either way, there is no precedent for any layperson having the authority to make such a judgment against a Pope.

If any recent Popes were wrong, let a future Pope or Church Council make that determination, it’s not our place to do so.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Also Taylor Marshall is a Jedivecantist

I totally agree with him re the original trilogy. I can’t see anything after ROTJ either, which begs the question: Why did GL title the original Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope? If anything, it should have been Episode 1.

 

[JSRG]

The points you bring up are unfortunately rather vague, so one can only respond to them generally.

Dave Armstrong has a lot of stuff he’s written against “radical Catholic reactionaries” who, while not outright sedevacantist, make a lot of the same arguments so much of that should apply. This other site also has some of the same sorts of information; again, not really directed at sedevacantism but there’s enough overlap.

Post Vatican 2 church is counter-church: some saints have prophesied something like this happening. Saying that there would be so little in the church the religion would only be practiced on farms etc. And prophecising a new church coming about.

Again, no specific prophecies are given, so my answer must be very general. However, I should point out that many of these prophecies, if examined, fall into one of the following categories:

1. The prophecy appears to not be real… or at least no source is ever given that would allow one to verify it. Remember, as Abraham Lincoln wisely said, “many quotes you see on the Internet are not true.”
2. The prophecy is of dubious validity. You’ll see people often make much of the supposed prophecies of Melanie of La Salette… after all, Our Lady of La Salette was an approved apparition, right? That gives those prophecies a certain level of authority, right? So they quote stuff that talks about the church dramatically losing its way and that whole “seat of the antichrist” thing. What they do not note is that the approval was for the original messages she claimed to receive, and it was only much later she gave a bunch of other prophecies, which never received this approval–and it is these later prophecies that are focused on. Indeed, some of those later prophecies did not happen at all (see here, specifically starting with the paragraph that begins with “There is another problem: Some of the prophecies contained in Melanie’s secret are demonstrably false.”) Obviously this is just one example–and Melanie was never declared a saint, so perhaps you’re referring to different people–but I see Melanie’s later prophecies brought up in regards to things like this so much that it bears mentioning.
3. Sometimes, these prophecies could have easily applied to other things. I can’t remember the specifics, but I saw someone produce a supposed prophecy from I think the 12th/13th century that mentioned about how a false pope would arise and the church would be split over it. They tried to claim this was in effect now, but given the timing of the supposed prophecy, would it not be far more logical to apply it to the Western Schism?

Again, with only general assertions, only general answers can be given. But be cautious when you see “prophecies” thrown about for the above reasons.

 

[Montrose]

Our Lady of La Salette was an approved apparition, right? That gives those prophecies a certain level of authority, right?

An approved private revelation is just that. It is private. It has no authority. It does not bring new doctrine nor does it add to existing doctrine.

 

[CathBoy1]

I believe Sedevacantism itself if followed to its logical conclusion, proves Eastern Orthodoxy as the true faith.

I started a thread on exactly this a little while back and I got a lot of responses and seen many differing opinions on this subject, check it out if you are interested:

Why Don’t “Traditional Extremists” Convert To Eastern Orthodoxy? Non-Catholic Religions

Part of how I came to this conclusion was coming across a book written by a former sedevacntist:

Also John C Pontrello wrote a book on why he believes Sedevacantism supports Eastern Orthodoxy, and details his journey to EO from Sedevacantism:

https://www.amazon.com/Sedevacantist-Delusion-Sedevacantism-Supports-Orthodoxy/dp/1511768746

Personally I’ve looked East quite a bit and have personally come to the conclusion that the Church Christ founded lays somewhere between East and West, both churches being different sides of the same coin.

For the time being, I am comfortable remaining RC and attending Eastern Catholic Liturgy as often as I wish (or as often as the old lady allows for, as she still enjoys going to NO and EF mass, personally I would attend a Byzantine Catholic Church for the rest of my days, no problem), but personally if I were to ever consider looking elsewhere, the only logical direction is East, where Christ our King comes from.

IMHO, I think Sedevacantists are an odd bunch, some even approaching cult-like.

 

[AlNg]

Since vatican 2 has happened, there has been quite a lot of change and it’s still changing. Which I don’t get that at all, God doesn’t change, nor should the Church change.

That is something for me to think about. For one example, I don’t understand the watering down of requirements for marriage annulments.

 

[Montrose]

That is something for me to think about. For one example, I don’t understand the watering down of requirements for marriage annulments.

What specifically has been watered down?

 

[PrayForMe]

’ve been studying sedevantism for a couple years now and still learning, always be learning.

In that case, you may be interested to know that I used to be a sedevacantist. This was when I was younger and into a bunch of conspiracy theories and extremist views that I no longer subscribe to.

But I disagree with what you’ve said. You said, " that essentially provides laypeople with powers they do not truly have". That’s not true, laity has no say in that really

That was exactly my point though. I said that the laity do NOT have that say, but sedevacantism “empowers” them to feel as if they do.

Since vatican 2 has happened, there has been quite a lot of change and it’s still changing. Which I don’t get that at all, God doesn’t change, nor should the Church change. That’s why we have so many denominations out there, because someone said, I don’t like it this way, so I’ll change it.

Practices of the Church and the general behavior of Church clergy has changed throughout the entire history of the Church. But Dogma cannot and does not change. Vatican II did not change any Dogmas, nor did it really define anything new. The problem is many progressives in the Church used Vatican II as an excuse to peddle error and much of the hierarchy has been ill-equipped to adequately address it. It’s unfortunate, but blaming all of it on Vatican II is not an accurate depiction of the problem.

Sedevacism doesn’t change anything, the traditions and teachings of the Catholic church.

A Catholic layperson declaring that he rejects the Pope is not at all adhering to “the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church”.

Sedes believe that a future Pope and a church council similar to vat 2 more than likely won’t say that the current pope is wrong or a heretic, because first they don’t want to be excommunicated and slandered against. But they believe that the vatican 2 is a new religion (which makes sense in a lot of ways) and the current cardinals and bishops are going towards society/world instead of being the One Catholic Apostolic Church. Since Vatican 2 that has said by a lot of people, what it “actually” means.

I’m afraid I don’t understand your point here.

You said that laity can’t say this about a Pope or anyone else, but people say stuff like that.

I said the laity don’t have the authority to judge a Pope to be “invalid”. They are free to say whatever they like, but it doesn’t mean their opinions have any clout.

 

[AlNg]

What specifically has been watered down?

In 1929, the rules allowed 9 marriage annulments in the USA for that whole year.
In 1991, under the rules which expanded the grounds of invalid consent, there were more than 63,900 per that year (1991) in the USA .

 

[PrayForMe]

In 1929, the rules allowed 9 marriage annulments in the USA for that whole year.
In 1991, under the rules which expanded the grounds of invalid consent, there were more than 63,900 per that year (1991) in the USA .

Divorce is a bit more common nowadays than it was in 1929.

 

[CathBoy1]

Sedevacism doesn’t change anything, the traditions and teachings of the Catholic church.

Yet it subscribes to changes that were made within Catholicism up until Vatican II, it seems to me that SV’s want to have their cake and eat it too, if SV’s have come to the conclusion that the papacy is now false (at least every pope since Vatican II) then logically they prove EO correct (weather they acknowledge it or not) as they have been saying the same thing for much, much longer, the difference being SV’s claim to believe in the papacy until X point in history. The problem is that if SV’s ever truly believed in the papacy then they must believe that the papacy cannot fall into heresy (as this is a prerequisite of believing in the papacy), yet this is exactly what they claim has happened, it’s an oxymoron, again you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

 

[CathBoy1]

Divorce is a bit more common nowadays than it was in 1929.

Sadly this is true, yet should secular divorce be so closely tied to Catholic Annulment?
It’s a resounding no, IMHO.
Yet here we are, I almost feel it is dishonest to say that we (RC’s) don’t have divorce seeing how easily annulments are seemingly obtained.

 

[AlNg]

Divorce is a bit more common nowadays than it was in 1929.

This is true. A bit more common. For example in the US the rate was
1.7 per 1000 in 1929
5.1 per 1000 in 80’s
4 per 1000 in 90’s

So the US divorce rate increased by about thee times at most during this period.

How does that compare with the Catholic annulment numbers:
9 marriage annulments in the US in 1929
63,930 marriage annulments in the US in 1991.
This increase in Catholic marriage annulments over this period seems like it is more than a bit more, No?
To get the rate per 1000, - divide the number of annulments by the population, I am not sure if you would use US population or US Catholic population, and then multiply by 1000. In any case the difference is huge. Does this not reflect upon the change of rules which expanded the grounds for marriage annulments granted by the Roman Catholic Church?

The number of marriage annulments has decreased recently to as low as 20,000+ or so, but then again, fewer Catholic couples are getting married. More are just living together and raising families without being married. So annulment would not be indicated for them, since they never got married in the first place. Still the US annulment numbers today of 20,000+ are pretty high in comparison with the 1929 or even the later 1950 statistics, No?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I believe Sedevacantism itself if followed to its logical conclusion, proves Eastern Orthodoxy as the true faith.

Not entirely… but Orthodox aren’t unified on this. Some hold somewhat Sedevacantist position.
For example, an EO saint, Symeon of Thessalonica from a few decades before Council of Florence, wrote the following (as quoted in Meyendorff, et al’s Primacy of Peter):

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff…Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him , not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself ."

But then there are some that would dispute this. In the end if Pope before Schism had authority “as the Saviour Himself” then why would there be no authority to include Filioque? Only valid reasoning is that heretical Pope automatically loses office. Does that sound familiar? Because that is exactly what Sedevacantists are saying. Only difference is between deciding which Pope actually still had authority and which did not.

Standard Eastern Orthodox position is that Popes never had such authority. Then anything in-between really.

Personally I’ve looked East quite a bit and have personally come to the conclusion that the Church Christ founded lays somewhere between East and West, both churches being different sides of the same coin.

Well that is position of Catholic Church. Church is Universal- not Western, not Eastern (or at least not exclusively either of those). Only real deal is that we do not recognize those not in visible communion with us to actually be Catholics. Doing so basically supports Protestant notion of Branch Theory- Church is One but it is divided in between X amount of denominations and we are all correct, right and we are all infallible One True Church collectively.

Catholicism does have problems with Branch Theory because it disputes St. Paul’s words of Church being “pillar and foundation of Truth” as well as Nicene definition that Church is “One” as well as our Lord’s words where He has established Church, not multiple Churches. Funnily enough, Sedevacantism does kind of boil down to this because various sects can’t agree on stuff.