How does one talk to a sedevacantist, and still be loving and sincere?

[maurin]

By the sound of it, your “friend” did right to hold you accountable for your comment–there is no leaving the Church for an orthodox one. The sacraments are all valid according to the priests in the area where I live, and the bishops office as well, and I believe that you can find more than a little information about this available online as well.

I am unfamaliar with why you are using this term “sedevacantist”. Are you saying, this person does believe that the chair of St. Peter is vacant? Or are you simply falsely labelling this person, because in your opinion, and a fairly ill informed one from what I understand; someone is leaving the church?

no kristopher–unlike you I asked before i shot my guns!!!

 

[maurin]

Dear Bear,

So you don’t really know then…and then one would rightly say that you have no basis to either state or even worse, imply, that I am “outside the fold”.

Do we agree? Or are you going to hold on to this “guessing game” that we might be heretics.

The idea that sede vacante itself is a heresy is of course ridiculous…as the seat is vacant at times that we all agree on. Even you, dear bear, were a “sedevacantist” in 2005…I presume for about 3 weeks? Did you feel like you were “outside the fold”?

Yours,

Gorman

hi Gorman. (did you know that one of the Bishops of Dallas was Bishop Gorman? The Catholic High School in Tyler, Tx is named for him.)

I remain as thoroughly unconvinced by this line of argument above as you remain by my original OP.

Interesting conversation, though. And I appreciate that it has, for the most part, remained respectable!!!

 

[gorman64]

I guess we’d now have to start using the term radical sedevacantism to denote those who believe in the standard form of sedevacantism and those who believe that 5 men have been elected who are fooling the world and are not really popes.

Or, and here’s a novel idea, you could just defend your position by showing us some sources for it…instead of just slapping a new label on me (radical sedevacantist?)

And yep, I will continue to guess that there is heresy attached to radical sedevacantism. The Visible Church isn’t obscured.

And I’ll continue to think (and not guess) you are a Catholic.

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

maurin:

hi Gorman. (did you know that one of the Bishops of Dallas was Bishop Gorman? The Catholic High School in Tyler, Tx is named for him.)

Dear maurin,

No, I did not. My name is not really Gorman, btw…for me, the name has no significance.

I remain as thoroughly unconvinced by this line of argument above as you remain by my original OP.

What exactly are you unconvinced of? That bear06 has no sources for her claims? Or is it something else?

Interesting conversation, though. And I appreciate that it has, for the most part, remained respectable!!!

I think we are obligated to keep it respectable.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[maurin]

Dear maurin,

No, I did not. My name is not really Gorman, btw…for me, the name has no significance.

What exactly are you unconvinced of? That bear06 has no sources for her claims? Or is it something else?

I think we are obligated to keep it respectable.

Yours,

Gorman

I did not think your real name was Gorman. It just brings back fond memories of living in Tyler, Texas!!!

I remain unconvinced that the sedevacantist claims are tenable in light of what the Evangelist wrote in Matthew 16 and 17. My opinion, and I’m still listening. I would like to make it clear though, that although I do not agree in my heart with all that happens in the Church, I have a responsibility to Christ and to His Church to strive to understand the things that go on around me, and be thankful for and take advantage of the options that have been opened up for me. To be a student of Church History is to understand, I think, that many changes come at glacial speeds, and not those of lightning.

I agree we are obligated to keep it respectable. And would like state uncategorically that I respect you because you are a gentleman. thanks.

m

 

[maurin]

The Orthodox may have the sacraments but they are in schism/heresy; they do not believe in the primacy of Peter and so of course are not in communion with the pope. For a Catholic to join the Orthodox is nothing less than leaving the Catholic Church, which alone is the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Orthodoxist and the sedevacantist are two separate people. Maurin made his original comment to an Orthodoxist; a sedevacantist took up maurin’s comment and challenged him on it. It is this sedevacantist whom maurin is talking about.

Maria

thanks for clarifying that for me, Maria!!!

 

[St_Isidore]

I never argued that we don’t believe in sedevacantism. I guess we’d now have to start using the term radical sedevacantism to denote those who believe in the standard form of sedevacantism and those who believe that 5 men have been elected who are fooling the world and are not really popes.

You have got to be kidding me!
This is typical pretext. You are reaching, far.

And yep, I will continue to guess that there is heresy attached to radical sedevacantism. The Visible Church isn’t obscured.

The guessing game. Not that I am taking sides but I still do not see any references for your claims. If you and your colleagues are making claims you should at least provide one reference to substantiate it. If you cannot corroborate your statements you fall into the category called ‘no credibility’.

 

[bear06]

Or, and here’s a novel idea, you could just defend your position by showing us some sources for it…instead of just slapping a new label on me (radical sedevacantist?)

And I’ll continue to think (and not guess) you are a Catholic.

Gorman

Gorman, dear, you are the one who said you believe in the Visible Church but it was obscured. You and I agree that one must believe in the Visibility of the Church. I just don’t agree that you can in one paragraph say that it is visible and obscured. What do I have to defend?

And as far as labels…If you are going to point out that we are all sedevacantists at some point then I’d have to use something to clarify between your beliefs and mine.

Sorry but I can’t say that I don’t believe that there isn’t heresy attached to radical sedevacantism when I do think that it’s probably the denial of the Visibility of the Church. I’ve given the link to the part of the article on Visibility of the Church before but here goes again. Scroll down.
newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

 

[bear06]

You have got to be kidding me!
This is typical pretext. You are reaching, far.

The guessing game. Not that I am taking sides but I still do not see any references for your claims. If you and your colleagues are making claims you should at least provide one reference to substantiate it. If you cannot corroborate your statements you fall into the category called ‘no credibility’.

You’ve participated in pleny of threads where I’ve given links. See above thread for yet another repost.

What I’m still waiting for is for you to answer if you are a sedevacantist or not? I answered your question but you never got a chance to answer mine. Gorman is very upfront about his positions and I admire this even though I don’t agree with them.

 

[gorman64]

Gorman, dear, you are the one who said you believe in the Visible Church but it was obscured. You and I agree that one must believe in the Visibility of the Church. I just don’t agree that you can in one paragraph say that it is visible and obscured. What do I have to defend?

And as far as labels…If you are going to point out that we are all sedevacantists at some point then I’d have to use something to clarify between your beliefs and mine.

Sorry but I can’t say that I don’t believe that there isn’t heresy attached to radical sedevacantism when I do think that it’s probably the denial of the Visibility of the Church. I’ve given the link to the part of the article on Visibility of the Church before but here goes again. Scroll down.
newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

Dear Bear,

Can you p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly where your point is made in that 13 section CE reference? You can’t just say it’s in there somewhere…or can you?

Sorry but I can’t say that I don’t believe that there isn’t heresy attached to radical sedevacantism when I do think that it’s probably the denial of the Visibility of the Church.

Can you tell us what you can say you do believe is the point of heresy? Implicit denial of the visibility of the Church? How can this be when I explicitly believe it is visible.

Read Mystici Corporis Christi…it’s in there somewhere.

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

Gorman, dear, you are the one who said you believe in the Visible Church but it was obscured. You and I agree that one must believe in the Visibility of the Church. I just don’t agree that you can in one paragraph say that it is visible and obscured. What do I have to defend?

And as far as labels…If you are going to point out that we are all sedevacantists at some point then I’d have to use something to clarify between your beliefs and mine.

Sorry but I can’t say that I don’t believe that there isn’t heresy attached to radical sedevacantism when I do think that it’s probably the denial of the Visibility of the Church. I’ve given the link to the part of the article on Visibility of the Church before but here goes again. Scroll down.
newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

Dear Bear,

Can you p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly where your point is made in that 13 section CE reference? You can’t just say it’s in there somewhere…or can you?

Sorry but I can’t say that I don’t believe that there isn’t heresy attached to radical sedevacantism when I do think that it’s probably the denial of the Visibility of the Church.

Can you tell us what you can say you do believe is the point of heresy? Implicit denial of the visibility of the Church? How can this be when I explicitly believe it is visible.

Read Mystici Corporis Christi…it’s in there somewhere.

Gorman

 

[jbuck919]

I learned this lesson from my dear mother. She had a close friend who was a Jehovah’s Witness. They’re required, you know, to proselytize, so maybe twice a year my mother would get a letter from her (which was probably not actually drafted by her) presenting the Witness’ line. Mom just ignored it and continued to cherish her as a friend.

There are few people in the world who have the privilege of having only like-minded friends. The rest of us have to deal with the more normal situation, which is that we are surrounded by people who have dumb ideas and we can choose to cope by ignoring the ideas (which rarely affect the preponderance of the other person’s life) or live in self-imposed solitary confinement. If the other person is intruding on the friendship by harping on the looney idea, then they have a screw loose anyway and it would show up as some other discomfitting aberration if it were not sedevacantism.

 

[gorman64]

I learned this lesson from my dear mother. She had a close friend who was a Jehovah’s Witness. They’re required, you know, to proselytize, so maybe twice a year my mother would get a letter from her (which was probably not actually drafted by her) presenting the Witness’ line. Mom just ignored it and continued to cherish her as a friend.

There are few people in the world who have the privilege of having only like-minded friends. The rest of us have to deal with the more normal situation, which is that we are surrounded by people who have dumb ideas and we can choose to cope by ignoring the ideas (which rarely affect the preponderance of the other person’s life) or live in self-imposed solitary confinement. If the other person is intruding on the friendship by harping on the looney idea, then they have a screw loose anyway and it would show up as some other discomfitting aberration if it were not sedevacantism.

Dear jbuck,

If I didn’t think you meant well I’d be offended by your post.

If you don’t mind, can you explain why the sede vacante thesis is a “discomfitting aberration” and exacly where my “loose screw” is located?

I can tell you exactly where and why a Jehovah’s Witness is in error. You ought to be able to do the same for me…if you can’t, then you should hold your comments until you reach some certainty about what you are saying and implying.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[jbuck919]

Dear jbuck,

If I didn’t think you meant well I’d be offended by your post.

If you don’t mind, can you explain why the sede vacante thesis is a “discomfitting aberration” and exacly where my “loose screw” is located?

I can tell you exactly where and why a Jehovah’s Witness is in error. You ought to be able to do the same for me…if you can’t, then you should hold your comments until you reach some certainty about what you are saying and implying.

Yours,

Gorman

I’ve been away from the forums for a few months and thought I knew where the general spectrum was. I have usually tried to avoid intruding my own tendency toward cafeteria Catholicism because I know that this, like most Catholic sites, has a strong conservative bias. But the last I was here, sedevacantism was beyond the pale here, as it is even on as already bizarre a site as traditio.com, which I read occasionally for amusement. If things have changed, by all means let me know, but as far as I am able to determine, these are the Catholic forums, and Catholic still means you think the pope is the pope no matter what else you might think.

 

[guanophore]

The Orthodox may have the sacraments but they are in schism/heresy; they do not believe in the primacy of Peter and so of course are not in communion with the pope. For a Catholic to join the Orthodox is nothing less than leaving the Catholic Church, which alone is the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Orthodoxist and the sedevacantist are two separate people. Maurin made his original comment to an Orthodoxist; a sedevacantist took up maurin’s comment and challenged him on it. It is this sedevacantist whom maurin is talking about.

Maria

There are several errors in this post. The first one is that the Orthodox are not heretics, according to Roman CAtholic teaching. Secondly, they do believe in the primacy of the bishop of Rome. While it is true they are not in communion with Rome, resulting in schism, Rome recognizes the valid sacraments and orders of the Orthodox. Thirdly, the mystical body of Christ is much larger than the Catholic (Roman) church, and includes the Orthodox and faithful protestants as well. All these facts can be found in the Catholic Catechism.

 

[maurin]

Helllooooooooooo,

maurin here—the sedevacantists have asked repeatedly for at least one corraborative piece of evidence against their position, and I provided one small one, maybe just as a starting point–and it’s possible I COULD be wrong—but it seems everyone either missed it or ignored it.

thanks for listening!

 

[maurin]

Helllooooooooooo,

maurin here—the sedevacantists have asked repeatedly for at least one corraborative piece of evidence against their position, and I provided one small one, maybe just as a starting point–and it’s possible I COULD be wrong—but it seems everyone either missed it or ignored it.

thanks for listening!

 

[MTD]

If you and your colleagues are making claims you should at least provide one reference to substantiate it. If you cannot corroborate your statements you fall into the category called ‘no credibility’.

Uh, I don’t really know if bear06 has any colleagues in that Visible Church argument; at least you can’t count me as one. If you’ve noticed, I’ve not debated sedevacantism at all in this thread. And I can assure you, I’m one of Gorman’s main opponents on this forum!

There are several errors in this post. The first one is that the Orthodox are not heretics, according to Roman CAtholic teaching.

Even if they weren’t heretics, they’re still schismatics, and schismatics are cut off from the Church just like heretics. This, of course, refers to the body of schismatics; individual schismatics may be acting in invincible ignorance and thus still united interiorly to the Church by desire.

Secondly, they do believe in the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

I do not think so. How can they if they don’t believe they need to be in communion with him? That’s a contradiction.

While it is true they are not in communion with Rome, resulting in schism, Rome recognizes the valid sacraments and orders of the Orthodox.

Yes, and Rome recognized the validity of the sacraments of Arius too. Heresy and schism do not necessarily affect the validity of the sacraments but they always affect the liceity.

Thirdly, the mystical body of Christ is much larger than the Catholic (Roman) church, and includes the Orthodox and faithful protestants as well. All these facts can be found in the Catholic Catechism.

Perhaps you could point me to some texts that say the Mystical Body of Christ is larger than the Catholic Church and that the Orthodox and Protestants are members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Maria

 

[guanophore]

Helllooooooooooo,

maurin here—the sedevacantists have asked repeatedly for at least one corraborative piece of evidence against their position, and I provided one small one, maybe just as a starting point–and it’s possible I COULD be wrong—but it seems everyone either missed it or ignored it.

thanks for listening!

That is off topic. The OP was asking for advice on how best to interact with someone with different beliefs, not a doctrinal treatise on the nature of the differences!

I also thought Sedavacantist topics were banned, but now that I look, I cannot find it, or remember where I read that. However, I think the way this thread has departed from the OP is one of the main reasons that it might be discouraged. It always seems to result in faithful Catholics calling one another heretics.

 

[maurin]

That is off topic. The OP was asking for advice on how best to interact with someone with different beliefs, not a doctrinal treatise on the nature of the differences!

I also thought Sedavacantist topics were banned, but now that I look, I cannot find it, or remember where I read that. However, I think the way this thread has departed from the OP is one of the main reasons that it might be discouraged. It always seems to result in faithful Catholics calling one another heretics.

hi guanophore,

as the original poster, I had asked how to speak with a sedevacantist, and while I agree that it is absolutely unnecessary and contradictory to all of our dignities as children of God to allow a conversation to devolve into namecalling, I am hoping to find a good way to speak with my sedevacantist co-locutor (I’m so glad I bought Roget’s!!!).

So, as guanophore says, stop the name calling–or ignore it and maybe it will go away–and let’s try to have as fruitful a conversation about Christ’s Body as we can!

m