Help, I don't want to be a Sedevacantist

[FlaviusGratian]

So, I learned about sedevacantism recently, and they really hit a vein with me, and for a while I though they might be right. But I was never fully convinced of what they were saying, and after an enormous intellectual struggle, I decided I would never be one of them, but remain a Traditionalist Catholic. Most of the problems that sedevacantists have with the “Novus Ordo” Church or the “Vatican II Sect” is ambiguous wording, weak leadership, and heretics in high-level positions, that have nothing to do with the Pope and Vatican Dogmas. I fought off sedevacatism, that is, until I read this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

841: The Church’s relationship with the Muslims: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

This bothers me immensely. If this is saying that Muslims can be saved by being Muslims then I have no other choice but to become a sedevacantist. This contradicts numerous papal decrees and Vatican statements concerning the Muslims and other religions in general and even the Bible itself, and if this really is saying Muslims are saved, then I will be forced to believe that the Sedevacantists are right, which is something I really don’t want to do.

I am trying to interpret this in a way not to say what I think it’s saying, but this seems uncharacteristically direct for today’s church, and that scares me.

Help if you have something to add, thanks.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Muslims, protestants, jews, atheists, all of these people can be saved. They will NOT be saved “by” their religions (or non religion in the case of atheists) but in “spite” of it. It is God who saves. His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the only way this is possible. That was revealed to us. But God is God and can do as He pleases. Protestants will not be saved because of their man made religion. Muslims will not be saved by their satanic inspired religion. Those that are saved (might be none, might be some) will be saved because of their ignorance of Catholic Truth and because they sought God with all their hearts. Only He is the judge and can know if they honestly tried their hardest to find Him or not. I can understand your concern but I’m telling you, Catholicism is it. Sedevacantists are heretics. You don’t want to throw in with their kind. You’ll be standing against Christ.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

catholictradition.org/Papacy/sedevacantism.htm
I hope this link will help you. It is too late for me to go in depth tonight, but I might post more tomorrow if it is needed.
God bless you,
Iggy.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Muslims, protestants, jews, atheists, all of these people can be saved. They will NOT be saved “by” their religions (or non religion in the case of atheists) but in “spite” of it. It is God who saves. His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the only way this is possible. That was revealed to us. But God is God and can do as He pleases. Protestants will not be saved because of their man made religion. Muslims will not be saved by their satanic inspired religion. Those that are saved (might be none, might be some) will be saved because of their ignorance of Catholic Truth and because they sought God with all their hearts. Only He is the judge and can know if they honestly tried their hardest to find Him or not. I can understand your concern but I’m telling you, Catholicism is it. Sedevacantists are heretics. You don’t want to throw in with their kind. You’ll be standing against Christ.

To put this in the words of Pope St.Pius X:

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism,** or at least has the implicit** desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation [Emphasis mine]

(Link)

 

[LUVArchangelati]

To be honest, I considered it for a time too … I spent about a month in deep prayer & frequent Eucharistic adoration but was continually guided back to the One True Church.

What this means is that IF a Muslim dies AND never had access/knowledge of Catholicism/Christianity, he may POTENTIALLY be a candidate for Purgatory. This does not mean that they will be considered equally with Catholics, Apostolic Christians, etc. According to St Augustine’s teachings, all religions that do not worship *our/I] God are, in actuality, worshiping demons Islam does worship our God… not demons… but they are still incredibly wrong. . . simply less wrong than some others… We cannot assume to know God’s will.

Don’t get me wrong, I am very traditional and I try very hard to conform myself (in both views and practices) to Christ’s Church [rather than picking & choosing or trying to change the Church to fit my invalid notions] … But it seems to me that SSPX has a tendency to be like modern-day Pharisees, they reject the hierarchy that Jesus himself put into place, constantly assuming they are in a better position to interpret doctrine and statutes of Canon Law - they often miss the big picture though.

You should look at these 2 webpages [PLEASE]
Kelopi.net
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/

Hopefully these two (and LOTS of prayer!) can help guide you to Truth. Before you make any decisions, you should begin a novena (my mother just finished a 54 day rosary novena- I’d recommend that one… it would give you ample time to consider this and this devotion is supposed to be the bees’ knees.)

If you’d like to discuss this more personally, you can message me on YouTube * or you can like our Facebook page “Archangelati” (an online Catholic community which has several ex-SSPX members)- and post more questions there (as messages or on our wall if you don’t mind other people seeing) …

I hope this helps… For the record- I was stumped by this (a little) but even more so about the use of Latin… I’m glad that you have the courage to ask rather than just quietly leaving.
May God guide you to the Truth now and forever!
-Stephanie**

 

[Rocky24]

It is true that Muslims acknowledge a single God. But beyond this, they get everything practically wrong. God is merciful and therefore wants all to be saved. His plan of salvation includes them, but it does not mean or point out that Islam is a salvific religion (it is a false religion). Those who acknowledge that God is one and created the universe have a “headstart” but still, they need to come to the Holy Roman Catholic Church because it is necessary to be a Catholic to be saved. Because muslims believe in one creator, they simply have a headstart advantage from, say pagans, but not the full truth.
Here is a video which explains and goes further into the subject: youtube.com/watch?v=2Dcfj0PU_JQ

 

[Jeffgo]

Tim Staples does an excellent job disproving Sedevacantism in this episode of Catholic Answers Live: catholic.com/node/5330/7269 Skip the first five minutes, and listen from there onwards. As Tim points out, it’s simply impossible for sedevacantism to be true.

 

[Cathhsmom]

If you are going to look at the Catechism, you really need to read the whole section so that it is in context. This is my problem with some Christians who take verses out of the context of the Scripture that they are in. Here is the section of the CCC starting with what you posted. I really think that if you read the rest of the section, that you should get what it is talking about. It really makes sense when put back in its written context.

"841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

(continued below)

 

[Cathhsmom]

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

Mission - a requirement of the Church’s catholicity

849 The missionary mandate. “Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be ‘the universal sacrament of salvation,’ the Church, in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality, strives to preach the Gospel to all men”: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and Lo, I am with you always, until the close of the age.”

850 The origin and purpose of mission. The Lord’s missionary mandate is ultimately grounded in the eternal love of the Most Holy Trinity: "The Church on earth is by her nature missionary since, according to the plan of the Father, she has as her origin the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit."341 The ultimate purpose of mission is none other than to make men share in the communion between the Father and the Son in their Spirit of love.342

851 Missionary motivation. It is from God’s love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on."343 Indeed, God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”;344 that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.

852 Missionary paths. The Holy Spirit is the protagonist, “the principal agent of the whole of the Church’s mission.” It is he who leads the Church on her missionary paths. “This mission continues and, in the course of history, unfolds the mission of Christ, who was sent to evangelize the poor; so the Church, urged on by the Spirit of Christ, must walk the road Christ himself walked, a way of poverty and obedience, of service and self-sacrifice even to death, a death from which he emerged victorious by his resurrection.” So it is that “the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians.”

853 On her pilgrimage, the Church has also experienced the “discrepancy existing between the message she proclaims and the human weakness of those to whom the Gospel has been entrusted.” Only by taking the “way of penance and renewal,” the “narrow way of the cross,” can the People of God extend Christ’s reign. For “just as Christ carried out the work of redemption in poverty and oppression, so the Church is called to follow the same path if she is to communicate the fruits of salvation to men.”

854 By her very mission, “the Church . . . travels the same journey as all humanity and shares the same earthly lot with the world: she is to be a leaven and, as it were, the soul of human society in its renewal by Christ and transformation into the family of God.” Missionary endeavor requires patience. It begins with the proclamation of the Gospel to peoples and groups who do not yet believe in Christ, continues with the establishment of Christian communities that are “a sign of God’s presence in the world,” and leads to the foundation of local churches. It must involve a process of inculturation if the Gospel is to take flesh in each people’s culture. There will be times of defeat. “With regard to individuals, groups, and peoples it is only by degrees that [the Church] touches and penetrates them and so receives them into a fullness which is Catholic.”

855 The Church’s mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity. Indeed, “divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects.”

856 The missionary task implies a respectful dialogue with those who do not yet accept the Gospel. Believers can profit from this dialogue by learning to appreciate better “those elements of truth and grace which are found among peoples, and which are, as it were, a secret presence of God.” They proclaim the Good News to those who do not know it, in order to consolidate, complete, and raise up the truth and the goodness that God has distributed among men and nations, and to purify them from error and evil “for the glory of God, the confusion of the demon, and the happiness of man.” "

I got this from scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#841

 

[Genesis315]

The plan of salvation includes all men, that doesn’t mean all will be saved. In context, the section in the OP is merely describing the seeds of truth found among non-Catholics that can serve as a preparation for reception of the saving Gospel. Keep reading as Catholic Mom shows.

 

[Timothysis]

If you are going to look at the Catechism, you really need to read the whole section so that it is in context.

Agreed. It is amazing to me that some are willing to throw out the Church lock, stock and barrel all because they misread a statement or document that they are not educated enough to understand. “Faith believes, nor questions how” isn’t just a quaint statement. Is it a “traditionalist” trait to believe one is more Catholic than the pope?

 

[1AugustSon7]

This is what concerns me about modern Traditionalism. There is a legitimate traditional movement in the Church that encourages and promotes traditional Catholic practices of devotion and worship. This is good and serves as a check against those who might degrade the OF (they will lose worshippers to more reverent celebrations that impart a sense of the sacred).

At the same time, there are a lot of Traditionalist errors that, though minor and insignificant generally, can be grabbed hold of by SSPX/Sede apologists, exaggerated in significance and finally lead the traditionalist towards heterodoxy and even shism. The worst apologists for the Church against, e.g., SSPX and Sedevacantist tracts are “Traditionalists”. The reason is because most SSPX’ers and Sedes were themselves once “Traditionalists”. They know how you think: if you’ve accepted that there’s anything at all inherently wrong, heterodox or bad about the OF then almost certainly there’s some underlying error or misunderstanding there. If you criticize the OF on this or that point, often this reveals an underlying error or misunderstanding of the Mass that can then be exploited.

841: The Church’s relationship with the Muslims: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

This bothers me immensely. If this is saying that Muslims can be saved by being Muslims then I have no other choice but to become a sedevacantist. This contradicts numerous papal decrees and Vatican statements concerning the Muslims and other religions in general and even the Bible itself, and if this really is saying Muslims are saved, then I will be forced to believe that the Sedevacantists are right, which is something I really don’t want to do.

I am trying to interpret this in a way not to say what I think it’s saying, but this seems uncharacteristically direct for today’s church, and that scares me.

Help if you have something to add, thanks.

Baptism of Desire has been explicitly taught and at least implicitly belived by the Church for a long, long time.

So it was, when they came, that he looked at Eliab and said, “Surely the Lord’s anointed is before Him.” But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” So Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, “Neither has the Lord chosen this one.” Then Jesse made Shammah pass by. And he said, “Neither has the Lord chosen this one.” Thus Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. And Samuel said to Jesse, “The Lord has not chosen these.”

The LORD looks at the heart. This is good news for 99% of the human population: Muslims included.

The Catechism:

1397 The Eucharist commits us to the poor. To receive in truth the Body and Blood of Christ given up for us, we must recognize Christ in the poorest, his brethren:

You have tasted the Blood of the Lord, yet you do not recognize your brother,. . . . You dishonor this table when you do not judge worthy of sharing your food someone judged worthy to take part in this meal. . . . **God freed you from all your sins **and invited you here, but you have not become more merciful.236

---

Hosea 6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

---

What is the knowledge of God, then? That He is merciful; that He is Love and loving-goodness. He who knows and has tasted the love and mercies of God knows God. Consequently, he himself will become more loving, more merciful; and this is what the Lord desires. Do you see the relationship here? God puts the fruit of the Spirit (mercy) before its cause (the knowledge of God): for neither you nor I could ever see inside a man’s heart or mind; we can, however, see his “fruits”: in this case, if we see a merciful, loving man then we see the fruits of the Holy Spirit there. The Church, in her liturgy, links this to the Lord’s preaching about spiritual blindness: the Pharisees could not see that they were blaspheming by claiming that the good fruits of the Spirit (miraculous cures resulting in joy and in men praising God, e.g.) were the works of some malicious or delivish spirit, or even the devil himself.

This is how Christians fulfill the prophecy that all of God’s people would know the Lord and have his laws, ordinances and commandments written on their hearts : by knowing that God has been merciful to us we ourselves become more merciful toward others and thus bear fruits and become living sacrifices to God. I know God because He has forgiven me my sins. I know that He is merciful and forgiving, loving; consequently, I know Him intimately, I know his essence. Thus I have the knowledge of the Lord; when I myself act according to this wholesome knowledge by being kind, merciful, forgiving, etc., to others - and by praising God for His forgiving me - then I fulfill the whole of the Law in my good works of mercy and charity, which is truly written on or in my heart.

Gal 5.22-3
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Doctrine is only secondarily related to this “knowledge” which comes sometimes by experience, as directly in receiving the sacraments, or simply by belief/hope: an internal conviction that God is good and Goodness Itself.

 

[Lormar]

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Agreed. It is amazing to me that some are willing to throw out the Church lock, stock and barrel all because they misread a statement or document that they are not educated enough to understand. “Faith believes, nor questions how” isn’t just a quaint statement. Is it a “traditionalist” trait to believe one is more Catholic than the pope?

Let us try to remember that this is not an apologetic debate against a hostile party, but rather a cry for help from someone in a difficult spiritual situation. It is easy to see the paths through the valley from the top of the mountain, but not so much in the thick of the thorns, pits, and stones.

 

[Lormar]

To be honest, I considered it for a time too … I spent about a month in deep prayer & frequent Eucharistic adoration but was continually guided back to the One True Church.

…
You should look at these 2 webpages [PLEASE]
Kelopi.net
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/

-Stephanie

Thanks for the links, Stephanie. It is easier for someone who has not been with either one or both of these groups an extended period of time (decades) to rid themselves of their “teachings” and acquired reactions to everything and anything that comes forth from the Vatican. Not so easy for others. These links are helpful.

 

[AnotherFriend33]

Thanks for the links, Stephanie. It is easier for someone who has not been with either one or both of these groups an extended period of time (decades) to rid themselves of their “teachings” and acquired reactions to everything and anything that comes forth from the Vatican. Not so easy for others. These links are helpful.

In order for a Pope to be called Anti-Pope, there must be another Cardinal claiming that He was chosen Pope instead of the one believed to be valid.

Pope or AntiPope refers to who won the race?

A Pope can be wonderful, or maybe not so wonderful, but still remains Pope.

Think about it as a President after a failed or not failed military coup.

Has He the power or not?, if yes He is President, if not, He’s not.

A different Question would be then: Is He a Wonderful President?

Another extra Question would be: Do I agree with the President’s Policies?

And so on…

But all Popes, since John XXIII, until Benedict XVI are Popes.

Not one single Cardinal has come out and say: “It’s not Him, is me!”.

That is why sedevacantism is wrong.

I am an independent.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I am an independent.

Please tell me you aren’t referring to being a member of one of the rogue sects calling themselves “Independent Catholics”.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

So, I learned about sedevacantism recently, and they really hit a vein with me, and for a while I though they might be right. But I was never fully convinced of what they were saying, and after an enormous intellectual struggle, I decided I would never be one of them, but remain a Traditionalist Catholic. Most of the problems that sedevacantists have with the “Novus Ordo” Church or the “Vatican II Sect” is ambiguous wording, weak leadership, and heretics in high-level positions, that have nothing to do with the Pope and Vatican Dogmas. I fought off sedevacatism, that is, until I read this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

841: The Church’s relationship with the Muslims: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

This bothers me immensely. If this is saying that Muslims can be saved by being Muslims then I have no other choice but to become a sedevacantist. This contradicts numerous papal decrees and Vatican statements concerning the Muslims and other religions in general and even the Bible itself, and if this really is saying Muslims are saved, then I will be forced to believe that the Sedevacantists are right, which is something I really don’t want to do.

I am trying to interpret this in a way not to say what I think it’s saying, but this seems uncharacteristically direct for today’s church, and that scares me.

Help if you have something to add, thanks.

Calm down. It’s not saying that Islam as a religion can save Muslims. Obviously it can’t.

It’s simply pointing out that Muslims believe that there is only one God, Whom they acknowledge to be transcendent, that they identify the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as that One True God, and that it is to that God that they intend to direct their prayers and worship.

It doesn’t mean all their beliefs about God are correct. It doesn’t mean the Qur’an was divinely inspired. Obviously both of those are false from the Catholic point of view.

To put it in a way that might resonate with you: Muslims know who the One True God is (i.e. the Being who revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) but misunderstand Him and reject certain critically important truths about Him (i.e. the Trinity, that the Word of God is Incarnate, etc.)

Make sense?

 

[FlaviusGratian]

Thanks, everybody for responding, and you helped me to clear this up a bit. I apologize, but I am not going to go back and quote every post that somebody had, so if I mention your post then I hope you know who you are.

Thank you, Inego de Loyola, for posting the excerpt from Pope Saint Pius X’s catechism. It’s things like that which made me hesitant to embrace sedevacantism. The sedes, especially Most Holy Family Monastery, see Pius X as being a true pope, and believe that all true popes are protected from any and all heresy. Yet they also believe that there is absolutely no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, even for those who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith, even though legitimate popes in their eyes embraced doctrines that they view as heretical. Logically inconsistent, right?

I decided I wasn’t a sedevacantist the moment I read an encyclical (I can’t remember which one) from Pope Pius XII (another pope that sedes view as legitimate, the last one in fact) in which he says those invincibly ignorant have a chance of salvation.

But still, that Catechism passage seems to suggest that Muslims will be saved. So what does it mean when it says they are in the “plan of salvation”. Is this just more ambiguous wording that plagues the Church these days?

Also, do I not understand Papal Infallibility correctly? Does it mean that every single word that comes out of the Supreme Pontiff’s mouth is protected from heresy, or does it mean that only when he speaks ex cathedra is he protected from heresy? I thought it was the former, and ex cathedra applied to dogmatic declarations.

Further, I don’t agree with the slander of Traditionalists and the SSPX. I have sympathies for the SSPX, and don’t disagree with them on most matters. Their biggest mistake was consecrating bishops against the will of the Holy See, which sealed their fate. I’m also unsure if they are in schism or not. I don’t need more explanation about their current status, since I have spent hours researching this topic and I have read opinions from both ways and am genuinely confused on the matter.

Thank you all who responded, and with surprising speed and with a hefty amount of detail. You cleared this up for me.

 

[triumphguy]

The Most Holy Family Monastery is a schismatic heretical group of people fraudulently pretending to be Benedictine monks when they are not.