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

[maurin]

if I might interject, but isn’t one of the teachings of our faith that the Pope is infallible in the areas of faith and morals?
This is a little too general, to the point of being untrue or at least misleading.
To wit:
VATICAN COUNCIL I
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION “PASTOR AETERNUS”
CHAPTER IV
(On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff)

"…we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, i.e., when exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals which must be held by the universal Church, enjoys, through the divine assistance, that infallibility promised to him in blessed Peter and with which the divine Redeemer wanted His Church to be endowed in defining** doctrine** of faith and morals; and therefore that the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church. “If anyone should presume to contradict this definition of ours - may God prevent this happening - anathema sit.”​

We see clearly that “the Pope is infallible in the areas of faith and morals” is not what is taught, but ONLY in the above stated circumstances, briefly, when he Defines + Requires Belief by the Universal Church.
There are many encyclicals that do not pass this test, even more so homilies, greetings and addresses.​

How does the changing of the Liturgy …fit into these areas of faith and morals, and how would this render the Popes since John XXIII antipopes?

The Liturgy is the supreme act & actions of Faith Defined + Required for the Church in each Rite.
Therefore, it falls under the Infallibility requirements.

So, if a pope defined a Liturgy that was corrupted in the Faith to the point of heresy or the odor of heresy, he would be Ipso facto, not the pope, as such is not possible by a true pope using the charism of infallibility, but a fallen away heretic with no power over the Church.
The Council of Trent tells us that the rites & sacraments of the Church cannot be harmful to the Faithful, and anyone who says otherwise is Anathema.​

In other matters such as “encyclicals, homilies, greetings and addresses” he may indeed profess heresy and thus Ipso facto depose himself as pope should he fail to retract same when he knows they are heretical to the perennial Magisterium.​

And,
NO, sedevacantism or even extended-time sedevacantism is not a heresy, and never was.
It has nothing to do with the visibility of the Church, as the Church is visible not only in its faithful hierarchy, but in its baptized faithful members who hold fast, or intend to hold fast, to the teachings of the perennial Magisterium & wherever they may be.​

That’s my take on it all as I understand it.

TNT,

thanks for responding, but I tend to agree with pnewton. I had no idea that you too are sedevacantist, though.

I must admit that this is very, very, very confusing to me, and if I were not already convinced that the sedevacantist position is incorrect, and in my opinion dangerous, I fear that my own faith in Christ and in His Church would be shaken to its very foundation.

I remain thoroughly unconvinced by any of the pro-sedevacantist arguments on this and other threads.

 

[MTD]

If Peter’s chair is empty, and there are only, let’s say for the sake of argument because the sedevacantists have not supplied us a number, 5 good men left in the hierarchy, that either the gates of hell are just this close from prevailing, or the only place the gates of hell are prevailing is in the collective imagination of those who hold the sedevacantist view.

I would point out, however, that sedevacantists don’t regard Catholic bishops as necessarily being restricted to sedevacantist bishops. All validly ordained bishops, regardless of their position on sedevacantism, are Catholic if they profess themselves as Catholic and act in good faith. Thus I would think that they believe many SSPX bishops to be Catholic.

I understand your view of sedevacantism basically meaning the gates of hell have prevailed, for I do share that view. However, like the visibility argument, it is too general and vague and open to private interpretation. They concern side effects, accidentals. We really need to get to the bottom of sedevacantism, which is whether the last 5 papal claimants were indeed manifest heretics.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

I will quote my own post, because the post above is such a clear example. The writing of St. Robert Bellarmine is deemed more authoritative than legitimate Church authority, popes, church councils, and conclaves. Why? Because it says what he wants to here. Authority is based on content. I am no saint, but I recognize false appeal to authority when I see it, even in a saint.

Dear pnewton,

You can’t answer my post. St Robert Bellarmine is a Saint and Doctor of the Universal Church. His teaching and the teaching of all the Church Fathers is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction…

Fr. Harrison was the one misreading Bellarmine and worse yet…dismissing him altogether.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[TNT]

Dear pnewton,

You can’t answer my post. St Robert Bellarmine is a Saint and Doctor of the Universal Church. His teaching and the teaching of all the Church Fathers is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Yours,

Gorman

To wit:
“At the first Vatican Council, the bishops of the Catholic Church mainly used the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine to finally chisel out the definition of papal infallibility.” *Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

• **--------------
  Pope Paul V ** recalled him to Rome where he was appointed the Official Theologian for the Holy See and became a constant companion to the Pontiff, being positioned as a member of almost every Congregation of the Holy Office.

---

 

[pnewton]

I must admit that this is very, very, very confusing to me, and if I were not already convinced that the sedevacantist position is incorrect, and in my opinion dangerous, I fear that my own faith in Christ and in His Church would be shaken to its very foundation.

Then let me show you one more reason to stand firm in your faith. It is the logical absurdity of the arguement that a heretical pope = sedevacantism. First, no one who has been pope in the disputed period who was excommunicated. The disputed period is defined to mean the period in which an individual does not like what the church is doing, so they make it sedevacant. So the real issue is manifest heresy and what qualifies. We have no pope that has taught heresy that would be recognizable by 99% of Christendom. We have no pope that taught heresy as recognizable by the conclave the elected him. So manifest heresy can only be used (and is used) by an individual Catholic who decides that he thinks something heretical, always on an obscure point, and therefore that man is no longer pope (to him.)

This is crazier and more slippery by far than the Protestant who interprets each scripture for himself. It is also a sin of slander, because in doing so, they are condemning as a heretic a man who is the Vicar of Christ. Only in today’s information age and modern society can such arrogance and presumption flourish whereby every individual has a right to judge a man a heretic for himself and deprive him of his position (in his own eyes).

If you choose to pursue such arguements, then realize that you will likely not win an arguement or thea person. However I symathize with the need. I consider the Holy Father my spiritual head. When he is falsely slandered, I take it personally as I would any family member.

 

[MTD]

Fr. Harrison is wrong here. A public heretic is not a member of the Church. He is also ipso facto excommunicated. The first fact is a matter of divine law. The second fact is a matter of ecclesiastical law. St. Pius X (and afterwards Pius XII) altered only the ecclesiastical law. This is very simple and obvious, and it seems to me that the only way one could be confused about it is if one were familiar with only one or two documents, so that the significance of them was not fully grasped, or if one were incapable of distinguishing between divine and ecclesiastical law.

I’d like to do a little explaining to clarify why Fr. Harrison is wrong.

Heretics belong in two classes: occult and manifest. An occult heretic is one whose wrong belief and pertinacious will are secret/unknown. A manifest heretic is one whose wrong belief and pertinacious will are public/known.

An occult heretic, though internally separated from the Church by reason of his pertinacious wrong belief, is still a member of the Church because his heresy is secret and thus he is externally united with the Church. As a true heretic, he incurs latae sententiae excommunication; however, although one of the effects of excommunication is loss of jurisdiction, an occult heretic does not lose jurisdiction because the Church supplies necessary jurisdiction in the case of occult excommunication. Therefore, because of external/public union with the Church, an occult heretic retains jurisdiction.

A manifest heretic is not only internally separated from the Church by reason of his pertinacious wrong belief but also externally separated by public manifestation of his wrong belief and pertinacious will; therefore he is not a member of the Church in any way. He also incurs latae sententiae excommunication; however, although one of the effects of excommunication is loss of jurisdiction, the manifest heretic does not lose jurisdiction primarily through excommunication, which is by ecclesiastical law, but through non-membership in the Church caused by manifest wrong belief and pertinacious will, which is by Divine law. Thus a manifest heretic loses jurisdiction by both Divine and ecclesiastical law.

It is the wrong belief and pertinacious will themselves which cause the internal separation from the Church; if made manifest/externalized, they also cause external separation. Thus, in the case of manifest heretics, it is the wrong belief and pertinacious will, having been made manifest, which cause loss of membership in the Church, which non-membership in turn causes loss of jurisdiction.

So Fr. Harrison cites excommunication as not being an impediment to active and passive participation in the conclave. He is correct in that; the Church, being the maker and enforcer of her own laws, has the right to make exceptions to those laws. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty; thus the Church has the authority to waive that penalty in the case of cardinals participating in the conclave.

However, the Church has no power to make exceptions to Divine law. Thus the Church is powerless to make an exception to the Divine law that manifest heretics are cut off from the Church. Thus a cardinal who is an occult heretic and only suffering from excommunication by the Church has the ability to actively and passively participate in the conclave; he can validly become pope. But a cardinal who is a manifest heretic cannot participate because he is laboring not only under the penalty of excommunication by ecclesiastical law but also under being cut off from the Church by Divine law. And the Church has no power to dispense such a cardinal from that Divine law; thus a manifest heretic cannot validly become pope.

And this is what Fr. Harrison fails to take into account. It is not the excommunication that prevents manifest heretics from being pope; it is the non-membership in the Church under Divine law which prevents them from being valid matter for the papacy.

Maria

 

[TNT]

TNT,

thanks for responding, but I tend to agree with pnewton. I had no idea that you too are sedevacantist, though.

I must admit that this is very, very, very confusing to me, and if I were not already convinced that the sedevacantist position is incorrect, and in my opinion dangerous, I fear that my own faith in Christ and in His Church would be shaken to its very foundation.

I remain thoroughly unconvinced by any of the pro-sedevacantist arguments on this and other threads.

How does anyone apply the following from the CCC:
The Church’s ultimate trial
675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God that of the Antichrist, and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

---

And, How will they discern it if it is a “supreme religious deception”?

But, there’s more from the CCC:
**677 **The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

 

[maurin]

TNT,

really, if this is the best you’ve got, maybe you can provide real life context for what you have posted. I mean, make it real for us.

Can you?

 

[TNT]

TNT,

really, if this is the best you’ve got, maybe you can provide real life context for what you have posted. I mean, make it real for us.

Can you?

If the CCC is “unreal”, I have no where to go for you as a catholic.
In the meantime, humor me with an answer to the question in the post.

At that point, if you like, give me a specific on “maybe you can provide real life context” and I’ll try to accommodate you.

 

[Walking_Home]

TNT,

really, if this is the best you’ve got, maybe you can provide real life context for what you have posted. I mean, make it real for us.

Can you?

---

Just take a look around. What is happening within the Church and out. The focus is being shifted from God —to man.

 

[MTD]

If you choose to pursue such arguements, then realize that you will likely not win an arguement or thea person.

It might be good to note a couple things.

1. We don’t engage in these arguments so much to “win” the argument or another person as much as to pursue the truth. If this is kept at the forefront of our minds, the argument can remain both honest and charitable.
2. We can present the truth to the erring, but in the end it is not we who win but God. The truth cannot be accepted without the grace of God. As St. Joan of Arc said, “The soldiers will fight, and God will give the victory.” This victory, of course, comes at a price; we cannot content ourselves with presenting the truth; we have to offer ourselves in prayer and sacrifice for the grace of accepting the truth, both on our own part and the part of those to whom we present the truth.

Maria

 

[MTD]

How does anyone apply the following from the CCC:
The Church’s ultimate trial
675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God that of the Antichrist, and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

---

And, How will they discern it if it is a “supreme religious deception”?

TNT,

This certainly looks like what is happening today, but can you really say that it conclusively proves sedevacantism? We need to be careful when interpreting prophesy. I mean, the non-SV’s quote St. John Bosco’s dream as proving their position, but does that really mean the saint’s dream was meant to be interpreted that way? We can’t know. We really need to be careful of wresting meanings from Scripture and prophecies to our own destruction.

Let’s get down to facts, not guesses based on private interpretations of the visibility of the Church, the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church, and the final trial.

Maria

 

[pnewton]

At that point, if you like, give me a specific on “maybe you can provide real life context” and I’ll try to accommodate you.

I can answer the question, since I have been trying to assist the original poster in dealing with difficult questions. First, I would like to point out, as I do with all the anti-Catholics who point to the pope as the Antichrist, that the AntiChrist as presented in the Bible and in the CCC is a man. So, which pope is/was/will be false. Once you say, “There he is” as many did at Pope JP II, then you lose the ability to say it to the next, as you were proven wrong at his death. Second, I do not believe the “apostacy from the truth” will be so vague and obscure that only a small part of one percent will see it. I doubt Pope Michael and his ilk will have a corner on the market of recognizing apostacy from the truth. I would look for such a departure from truth to be obvious and clear. Many will be deceived only because many want to be deceived. After all, the idea that we can be our own God is attractive to many.

I disagree strongly that we have slipped toward glorifying God instead of man. I wonder what kind of parish some attend sometimes. There is no doubt at my parish that we honor God and worship Him alone. We are in no danger of mistaking the creature for the Creator.

 

[pnewton]

It might be good to note a couple things.

Thank you for your insightful points. I hope the original poster finds them useful.

 

[TNT]

I can answer the question…

that the AntiChrist as presented in the Bible and in the CCC is a man. So, which pope is/was/will be false. Once you say, “There he is” as many did at Pope JP II, then you lose the ability to say it to the next, as you were proven wrong at his death.
Well, Your in direct conflict with the CCC, Remember?
“The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.”

It is an …ISM, not a particular person. So, your thesis above is unconvincing when compared to the CCC.

Second, I do not believe the “apostasy from the truth” will be so vague and obscure that only a small part of one percent will see it.
… I would look for such a departure from truth to be obvious and clear.
Again the CCC disagrees:
“supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism…”

How do you define the special superlative …“SUPREME” + deception?
Wouldn’t be SUPREME if it was easily detectable, would it? No.
The point being that if this supreme deception was outside the confines of or excludes the members of, the One True Church, then it would be an utter failure as any true pope would see it & make it known to all the Faithful…hardly a deception let alone a Supreme one.
You do not know what percent of a percent in the whole world, so I’ll overlook that special claim to knowledge.

Many will be deceived only because many want to be deceived. After all, the idea that we can be our own God is attractive to many.

That has been true for countless centuries. But the CCC notes this a unique circumstance, so it can’t be just the same old same since at least Antiocus or the gold calf.

I disagree strongly that we have slipped toward glorifying God instead of man.

I know you mean:
I disagree strongly that we have slipped toward glorifying man instead of God.

Have you read every address and writing of Paul VI & JP II?
After you read them all, at least the ones relating to this GOD/Man point, you may have to reconsider.

I wonder what kind of parish some attend sometimes. There is no doubt at my parish that we honor God and worship Him alone. We are in no danger of mistaking the creature for the Creator.

Good for you. May it always stay that way for you and yours.

 

[pnewton]

Have you read every address and writing of Paul VI & JP II?
After you read them all, at least the ones relating to this GOD/Man point, you may have to reconsider.

Oh, man. If that is what it takes to discern…

As far as the Antichrist being an “ism”, that is intriguing. I wonder how long the Church has taught that and at what level. I will have to look into that this summer. I will have to see how this idea is reconciled with the Bible. Right off the top of my head, I can’t see how it will be done.

In the meantime, I think I will go elsewhere and go fishing for answers.

 

[Walking_Home]

I can answer the question, since I have been trying to assist the original poster in dealing with difficult questions. First, I would like to point out, as I do with all the anti-Catholics who point to the pope as the Antichrist, that the AntiChrist as presented in the Bible and in the CCC is a man. So, which pope is/was/will be false. Once you say, “There he is” as many did at Pope JP II, then you lose the ability to say it to the next, as you were proven wrong at his death. Second, I do not believe the “apostacy from the truth” will be so vague and obscure that only a small part of one percent will see it. I doubt Pope Michael and his ilk will have a corner on the market of recognizing apostacy from the truth. I would look for such a departure from truth to be obvious and clear. Many will be deceived only because many want to be deceived. After all, the idea that we can be our own God is attractive to many.

I disagree strongly that we have slipped toward glorifying God instead of man. I wonder what kind of parish some attend sometimes. There is no doubt at my parish that we honor God and worship Him alone. We are in no danger of mistaking the creature for the Creator.

---

I know you meant—I disagree strongly that we have slipped toward
glorifying man instead of God.

Let me give you an example by our late Pope’s own words—that reflect where protecting our Lord from “deplorable lack of respect” is secondary—because–some people do receive reverently. What was more important to our late Pope—that he let the practice of communion in the hand continue–even thought he knew what was happening. Who trumps the “deplorable lack of respect” that happens to our Lord.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

 

[gorman64]

Thank you for your insightful points. I hope the original poster finds them useful.

Dear pnewton,

Do you think that these points were possibly directed at towards you as well?

Yours,

Gorman

 

[maurin]

If the CCC is “unreal”, I have no where to go for you as a catholic.
In the meantime, humor me with an answer to the question in the post.

At that point, if you like, give me a specific on “maybe you can provide real life context” and I’ll try to accommodate you.

I’m sorry that I was not clearer for you, TNT. I asked that you take an example from real life–maybe from JPII or BXVI or JPI, and show us how the quote from the Catechism has been fulfilled.

Please don’t offend me by saying “If the CCCis ‘unreal,’ [sic] I have no where to go for you as a catholic [sic].” That was absolutely unnecessary, well beneath both our dignities, and those that fight with fire ought to stay out of the conversation, in my not so humble opinion.

thanks for playing fair!

 

[pnewton]

Dear pnewton,

Do you think that these points were possibly directed at towards you as well?

This thread is not about me, but and helping this fellow Catholic deal with a dangerous false doctrine. In any case, of course, I recognize I was quoted. It doesn’t change the quality of the content. MTD did not really contradict me, but addded two important things to bear in mind. The battle is the Lord’s after all. I forget that sometimes. Perhaps that is why I felt her comments resonate with me.