A
AlNg
Guest
And is there any support for that statement? I would like to see the data and statistics for that.
Do you have any links to data which would support what you claim here?
Last edited:
- Status
X
Xarto
Guest
To quote Highlander, “there can be only one”… One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, that is.
Now if the Sedes (word is too long to spell) are the THE Catholic Church why then are there so many of them, should there be only one? After all the trusth is the truth.
Now if the Sedes (word is too long to spell) are the THE Catholic Church why then are there so many of them, should there be only one? After all the trusth is the truth.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I was told so by someone closely related to Church Tribunal. It does seem quite apparent from my observation of my surroundings though. Then again I don’t live in the US.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Thanks to that I discovered another branch of “Sedevacantism” (or another branch of same Schismatic tendency to deny current Pope), Sedeprivationism. It is apparently position that current Pope is validly elected Pope but they are not Catholic so they do not hold any authority to teach or exercise Papacy until they return to Catholicism. In other words, if Pope converts to Catholicism then Pope has full authority and everything is great. (I don’t hold this view and I don’t believe that Pope is not Catholic)
It is interesting compromise because in the end, this does not deny that there is possibility of return of Papacy. Real problem this theory poses is with marks of the Church. They who deny obedience to Roman Pontiff are outside the Church and if Anti-Pope was sitting on Chair of Peter then Sedevacantism is real option. Sedeprivationism has no historical precedent and it does make True Church impossible to distinguish because apparently Cardinals who aren’t Catholic have ability to elect the Pope of the Church… this is clearly false as heretic can not hold any position inside the Church and hence can not validly participate in election of Roman Pontiff.
Sedeprivationism makes Church not Holy, not One, and not Catholic because it is now impossible to even speak about “True Church” until some Pope decides to “become Catholic”. Still, it is an interesting theory.
It is interesting compromise because in the end, this does not deny that there is possibility of return of Papacy. Real problem this theory poses is with marks of the Church. They who deny obedience to Roman Pontiff are outside the Church and if Anti-Pope was sitting on Chair of Peter then Sedevacantism is real option. Sedeprivationism has no historical precedent and it does make True Church impossible to distinguish because apparently Cardinals who aren’t Catholic have ability to elect the Pope of the Church… this is clearly false as heretic can not hold any position inside the Church and hence can not validly participate in election of Roman Pontiff.
Sedeprivationism makes Church not Holy, not One, and not Catholic because it is now impossible to even speak about “True Church” until some Pope decides to “become Catholic”. Still, it is an interesting theory.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
IOW, it is an unsupported opinion by some anonymous person somewhere?
It seems apparent to you, but you don’t live in the US?
Perhaps your anonymous word of mouth source that no one has ever heard about is reliable, but OTOH, I referred to published data indicating that the number of Catholic marriages was declining, while the number of marriage annulments was increasing over the same period.
Last edited:
B
Butterfly46107
Guest
I don’t know how to put what you’ve said and answer it.
“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.”
I’d like to talk to you more about this. Though I don’t want to it to be public.
" 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."
Sedes don’t say that they have the power to do that. It’s done by the bishops from the past and what the saints have said and what even canon law and catechisms have said. They take that to say what they believe, backed with evidence.
“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.”
…
"A Catholic layperson declaring that he rejects the Pope is not at all adhering to “the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church”.
…
“I’m afraid I don’t understand your point here.”
I was just babbling a little bit. But what I was trying to say was. Sedes believe that a future pope can denounce vatican 2 council/pastoral council and go back to the older ways instead of how it is in society and how it is now in the church, vatican 2. Does that make sense? I’ll try another way if you don’t understand.
“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.”
So a pope can do and say whatever he wants and it’s ok, because nobody can judge him? He/any pope could be the antichrist and do whatever he wants.
“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.”
I’d like to talk to you more about this. Though I don’t want to it to be public.
" 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."
Sedes don’t say that they have the power to do that. It’s done by the bishops from the past and what the saints have said and what even canon law and catechisms have said. They take that to say what they believe, backed with evidence.
“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.”
…
"A Catholic layperson declaring that he rejects the Pope is not at all adhering to “the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church”.
…
“I’m afraid I don’t understand your point here.”
I was just babbling a little bit. But what I was trying to say was. Sedes believe that a future pope can denounce vatican 2 council/pastoral council and go back to the older ways instead of how it is in society and how it is now in the church, vatican 2. Does that make sense? I’ll try another way if you don’t understand.
“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.”
So a pope can do and say whatever he wants and it’s ok, because nobody can judge him? He/any pope could be the antichrist and do whatever he wants.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I understand that. I can’t contribute with that though.
B
Butterfly46107
Guest
If someone had the position of Sedeprivationism? It would be a perfect logical answer. But the people that believes that and has the authority would have to be either a Bishop or Priest. They’ve been ordained pre vatican 2.
They don’t deny the Papacy, they take it for what it was. francis is not an anti-pope, that would mean that there is a real pope out there for what they believe.
Don’t you believe that it could be possible that since vatican 2 there could be corrupt people in the hierarchy and elect anyone that they choose? Even if they have studied freemasonry for example in the past and still talk to those people. If someone is a heretic in the catholic church, they are instantly excommunicated. It can be a spiritual excommunication. If someone is so corrupt, they will allow a heretic to be in place of the church. Laity can say whatever they want it seems, but they don’t have a say in really anything.
They believe in the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC. They believe in ONE church, not any other religions being ok to get to heaven. If you don’t follow Jesus, you follow Satan. Other religions don’t follow Jesus as Catholics(the first christians) do. The Catholic church is definitely HOLY. But I think a lot of people are confused on the current catholic church, as not being holy. Because of what has happened. It’s CATHOLIC, though they believe that the vatican 2 people are catholic in name only. They believe in Apostolic tradition, just they don’t believe that the current popes since John XXIII have been legit, because he was ok with freemasonry for one, and that is illegal to be ok with that in the Catholic church. I think maybe it has been more lenient in today’s time though.
Hope this makes sense, if not, sorry. I can try to explain better.
They don’t deny the Papacy, they take it for what it was. francis is not an anti-pope, that would mean that there is a real pope out there for what they believe.
Don’t you believe that it could be possible that since vatican 2 there could be corrupt people in the hierarchy and elect anyone that they choose? Even if they have studied freemasonry for example in the past and still talk to those people. If someone is a heretic in the catholic church, they are instantly excommunicated. It can be a spiritual excommunication. If someone is so corrupt, they will allow a heretic to be in place of the church. Laity can say whatever they want it seems, but they don’t have a say in really anything.
They believe in the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC. They believe in ONE church, not any other religions being ok to get to heaven. If you don’t follow Jesus, you follow Satan. Other religions don’t follow Jesus as Catholics(the first christians) do. The Catholic church is definitely HOLY. But I think a lot of people are confused on the current catholic church, as not being holy. Because of what has happened. It’s CATHOLIC, though they believe that the vatican 2 people are catholic in name only. They believe in Apostolic tradition, just they don’t believe that the current popes since John XXIII have been legit, because he was ok with freemasonry for one, and that is illegal to be ok with that in the Catholic church. I think maybe it has been more lenient in today’s time though.
Hope this makes sense, if not, sorry. I can try to explain better.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Yes, that is Sedeprivationism. That Popes are validly elected but until they renounce Vatican II they hold no authority… or it is just opinion that Vatican II should be “revised” and some confusing/false things should be changed.
Well our Lord and Savior did promise Peter that his Faith won’t fail and that gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church…
Yes it is possible. We had bad Popes in history… and they were fully valid and held full authority of Papacy.
Main question on which Sedevacantism, Sedeprivationism and Sedeimpedism fail is “Where is the True Church?”.
Last edited:
B
Butterfly46107
Guest
I don’t think there are many different sects of them. There are just as many Catholics in different sects as well that are ok now. Some are just name only. A few of them actually follow a “pope”, he says some good stuff, but he’s not the pope. That would actually mean that they are thinking francis is an antipope. Most sedes don’t believe that this group of Catholics are legit, but he does have some good things to say as does everyone.
There are millions of Christians out there too, all set up with different laws if you will. But protestantism isn’t Catholic. They need to convert in order to inside the Catholic church.
There are millions of Christians out there too, all set up with different laws if you will. But protestantism isn’t Catholic. They need to convert in order to inside the Catholic church.
B
Butterfly46107
Guest
What is EO?
In the past the papacy has fell into heresy and the catholic church. They follow everything before 1954 usually. If things have changed, they don’t follow it, because it’s not Catholic, based off of what saints, popes, bishops, priests, etc have said in the past. It’s contradictory, and the Catholic church cannot be that.
In the past the papacy has fell into heresy and the catholic church. They follow everything before 1954 usually. If things have changed, they don’t follow it, because it’s not Catholic, based off of what saints, popes, bishops, priests, etc have said in the past. It’s contradictory, and the Catholic church cannot be that.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Mark 9:40-41: for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
Feeneyism is a heresy condemned by the Church. Read up on that.
Of course. But corruption does not mean that Pope is also a heretic. I understand that Cardinals won’t declare Pope heretic but because Church is infallible, if Pope became heretic and therefore lost Papacy, Church would be able to tell and recognize that Church has lost the Head (as She recognizes when Pope dies or resigns).
Sounds a lot like Protestant doctrine of Church being spiritual but not real. True Catholic Church must be One - unified and in communion with each other, not Sedevacantist cults. Church is visible institution with Pope as Her visible Head.
EO=Eastern Orthodox
Yes I am aware, but what makes everything before 1954 worthy of following?
There were many changes (in practice, not substance) made to Catholicism before 1954 that Sedevacantists have no issue excepting, so why not except changes (in practice) made after Vatican II?
B
Butterfly46107
Guest
Mark 9:40-41: for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
Yea, I understand, but their reward doesn’t mean heaven. You cannot be any other religion other than Catholic to be in heaven. There isn’t any saints that aren’t catholic. You can lie too for your own benefit, but outwardly it looks like you’re doing good. Protestants don’t believe in the four marks of the church. Jews don’t believe in Jesus, etc etc.
I’ve read some things about Freeney, I’ll read up more about it after Sunday. But even sedes think he’s a heretic too. But a real actual definition of it was said before Freeney. per vatican 2, everyone has said what they think it means. For the actual Church to say something about it it has to be looked into and said not at a drop of a hat. Like some pope or bishop can’t say what it means and then that’s that. it doesn’t work like that.
Infallibility doesn’t mean you can’t ever be wrong in what you’ve said publicly. Popes many times have said the wrong things and against church dogma and tradition. To say that a cardinal won’t say anything that a pope says is heretical because of the wrong definteion of infallibility is setting itself up for disaster.
Cult meaning not exactly sure what you mean, but all religion are cults as in there is a head/leader. And a ‘radical cult’ if you mean that, sede is not radical. Jesus was radical too in a lot of examples that have been in the bible. But most people don’t think Jesus was extreme or radical. But if you look it outside the church completely… that’s another story.
" Church is visible institution with Pope as Her visible Head."
There have been times that there hasn’t been a Pope at all. Then everyone has been sede for that time, I think it was 4 years once in the earlier church. Anything can be possible with Christianity. God is not limited as we are. We can’t KNOW God’s mind. Though some people think you can.
Some things I’m sure I’m totally off with, but from what I’ve been studying for 4 years about Vatican 2 and other Catholic sects in the Church. I need evidence of most everything, because I just don’t believe it unless I have that. For most sedes that position makes sense to them. And, like you said in the first bible verse, it’s for everyone…
Yea, I understand, but their reward doesn’t mean heaven. You cannot be any other religion other than Catholic to be in heaven. There isn’t any saints that aren’t catholic. You can lie too for your own benefit, but outwardly it looks like you’re doing good. Protestants don’t believe in the four marks of the church. Jews don’t believe in Jesus, etc etc.
I’ve read some things about Freeney, I’ll read up more about it after Sunday. But even sedes think he’s a heretic too. But a real actual definition of it was said before Freeney. per vatican 2, everyone has said what they think it means. For the actual Church to say something about it it has to be looked into and said not at a drop of a hat. Like some pope or bishop can’t say what it means and then that’s that. it doesn’t work like that.
Infallibility doesn’t mean you can’t ever be wrong in what you’ve said publicly. Popes many times have said the wrong things and against church dogma and tradition. To say that a cardinal won’t say anything that a pope says is heretical because of the wrong definteion of infallibility is setting itself up for disaster.
Cult meaning not exactly sure what you mean, but all religion are cults as in there is a head/leader. And a ‘radical cult’ if you mean that, sede is not radical. Jesus was radical too in a lot of examples that have been in the bible. But most people don’t think Jesus was extreme or radical. But if you look it outside the church completely… that’s another story.
" Church is visible institution with Pope as Her visible Head."
There have been times that there hasn’t been a Pope at all. Then everyone has been sede for that time, I think it was 4 years once in the earlier church. Anything can be possible with Christianity. God is not limited as we are. We can’t KNOW God’s mind. Though some people think you can.
Some things I’m sure I’m totally off with, but from what I’ve been studying for 4 years about Vatican 2 and other Catholic sects in the Church. I need evidence of most everything, because I just don’t believe it unless I have that. For most sedes that position makes sense to them. And, like you said in the first bible verse, it’s for everyone…
But Vatican II didn’t change the RCC’s doctrine, if you believe that it did, please provide proof of which doctrine(s) have changed.
Catholics pre and post Vatican II should (in practice) have exactly the same stance, love the sinner hate the sin.
As far as I am aware the Church post Vatican II still teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
Correct, but when a Pope speaks with authority, backed by a council (which is what Vatican II was), it is infallible, in fact this is partially where papal infallibility is gleaned pre Vatican I
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I understand that. If anyone gets to Heaven they understand the Truth and hence they are Catholic.
Exactly. But feeneyism is somewhat prevalent among Sedevacantists. Anyway, we agree on that so that’s fine.
Alright. Is Papacy necessary for the Church or not? Can Church exist without Papacy?
I understand Vatican II’s document on other religions is not very well drafted. I understand that some things may be very, very unclear. But read about Haec Sancta- it was promulgated at Ecumenical Council of Constance yet subsequent Popes rejected it. Council of Constantinople codified Ecumenical Patriarchate yet Popes have rejected it. Popes rule over Councils.
Technically, Vatican II is not necessarily infallible. Pope Paul VI said that Vatican II does not carry mark of infallibility.
Even to “Vatican II Church”, Vatican II is NOT infallible!
- Status