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

[Kristopher]

Sedevacantists do not reject the primacy of the Pope. …

No claim on my part was made, that sedevacantists reject the primacy of the pope: they say it is vacant. Heresy is obstinate doubt, obstinate denial of some Catholic teaching. Schism is the rejection of the primacy of St. Peter, or papal succession.

I have been given somewhat of an exposition by sedevacantists, with articles cited, that lay claim to the chair of St. Peter being vacated, and listened at length to Malachai Martin.

To my view, you are quibbling; furthermore, it is absurd that you would argue any support at all for whatever claim you might support in favor of sedevacantists, the point, that the chair is empty across a period of time, that a man is being nominated, and voted into the papacy. To me this is both quibbling, and absurd.

If you want to argue a more substantial claim about the vacancy of the chair of St. Peter–you could argue that the chair is vacant except on those very rare occasions, that the pope exercises his authority to be infallible.

Sedevacantist is not a theory in my opinion, but an absurdity. It has no substantial basis in any cogent historical event(s). It is at best an assertion based on intrigue, and speculation. What if anything could the term sedevacantist explain; were it to be regarded as a theory? As a theory, no pope may explain whatever behaviors are an issue to sedevacantists, on the basis of vacating the chair either for another pope to assume a role as a pope; let alone, explain their behavior as a consequence of choosing to avoid exerting infallible authority. Heresy, schism, sin, none of this is explainable by any meaning of the word “sedevacantist”, that I can imagine. The very meaning of the word “universal” synonymous with the word “catholic” is the ability of a person by will, by intelligence, and by the nature of being immortal to live the faith without regard to time, to place.

Let us assume: a man behind closed doors usurps the authority of a man legitimately elected, nominated, etc. as pope. This transgresses the requirement of a pope to hold his position in accordance with all proper authority requisite to the position; whatever the protocol, the propriety might be. Nonetheless, the behavior of the man, whom we assume usurped the authority of a legitimate pope, (Now living under the threat of death for the remainder of his days.), nonetheless, lives out his life in such a papal position without sin, either by commission, or omission and the priest to whom the man confessed; forgave him. The word “sedevacantist” explains nothing of this man’s behavior. If anything the very role of pope that a so-called “imposter” has attempted with whatever success to fulfill by the nature of the position, the role, would meet the demands of the role; according to some of the better aspects of theory that govern communication.

What theory, since you say there is one, can possibly be identified by the word “sedevacantist”?

No matter the extent of your complaints about my sentences, they nonetheless remain correct both with respect to semantics, and to syntax.

Additionally, the only requirement of the papacy is the following: the pope is to be male, and of a certain age; what is it–sixteen. This would exclude all matters related to an imposter. Clearly every pope since whomever anyone would like to cite as a possible imposter have all been male, and either sixteen years old, or older. Every male in the position of pope has met the requirement to be pope to the best of my knowledge. How is it possible except by word-play, that the chair should ever be regarded as vacant to the exclusion of what occurs behind closed doors as a consequence of papal succession in addition, to the chair only being occupied when the pope speaks ex cathedra?

 

[Kristopher]

… I’m inclined to think that rejection of the primacy of Peter is heresy; it is the refusal of communion with and submission to Peter that is properly schism. … Wouldn’t you say this is a personal attack that was really uncalled for? … Sedevacantists have valid concerns, and souls just like yours and mine. They are worth the attention.

Maria,

You are not reading my words, but taking them apart from how they are written, and how they are intended: Gorman has never been attacked, there is no ad hominem arguement on my part–I have not taken an attack to the person–I have stuck to the issue of what he is citing as sedevacantist; additionally, I again made no attack against any sedevacantist, Gorman or other, to say, they are unworthy of attention. His arguement of the chair being “vacant” across a period of time, that a pope is to succeed another pope is the only focus of my words, that I find to not be worth the attention, but undoubtedly I have gone to some length to explain this.

It would seem to me, that Gorman ought to be addressed: it is he; whom in my opinion used a tone toward bear06, that I found to be personal in nature; though, I might have been mistaken, that he actually used a term of endearment–just the same: I thought it a bit bitter. Undoubtedly it is an easy mistake; given the personal nature of his comment, and the lack of knowledge between he and bear06. I know that bear06 tends to favor this topic of SSPX, and sedevacantist, and is recognized by other “traditionalists” for lack of a better word.

I kept my language isolated to the issue.

 

[MTD]

You are not reading my words, but taking them apart from how they are written, and how they are intended: Gorman has never been attacked, there is no ad hominem arguement on my part–I have not taken an attack to the person–I have stuck to the issue of what he is citing as sedevacantist;

One of your original sentences was:
“You sound very much like you are quibbling and to the extent of being incredibly absurd in your rationale.”
It’s difficult to distinguish in this sentence exactly what is the victim of incredible absurdity: Gorman or his rationale. I realize I may have read meaning into this sentence that you did not intend, and I apologize for that.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Dear Kristopher,

Let me make a few observations:

No claim on my part was made, that sedevacantists reject the primacy of the pope: they say it is vacant. Heresy is obstinate doubt, obstinate denial of some Catholic teaching. Schism is the rejection of the primacy of St. Peter, or papal succession.

Schism is also refusing communion with other Catholics.

I have been given somewhat of an exposition by sedevacantists, with articles cited, that lay claim to the chair of St. Peter being vacated, and listened at length to Malachai Martin.

That explains a great deal of your confusion, IMHO.

To my view, you are quibbling; furthermore, it is absurd that you would argue any support at all for whatever claim you might support in favor of sedevacantists, the point, that the chair is empty across a period of time, that a man is being nominated, and voted into the papacy. To me this is both quibbling, and absurd.

I don’t have any idea at what you are getting at here.

If you want to argue a more substantial claim about the vacancy of the chair of St. Peter–you could argue that the chair is vacant except on those very rare occasions, that the pope exercises his authority to be infallible.

Actually, that would be a completely incredible claim. No one who knows Catholic doctrine very well would make such a claim. You need to do some additional study.

Sedevacantist is not a theory in my opinion, but an absurdity.

Your argument is duly noted.

It has no substantial basis in any cogent historical event(s). It is at best an assertion based on intrigue, and speculation.

The effects flowing from the promulgation of Vatican II and the introduction of the Novus Ordo were very significant and like any effects they demand a proportionate cause. If the doctrines of Vatican II were orthodox, and the Novus Ordo is per se good and conducive of good in souls, then what was the cause which was proportionate to the catastrophic effects we have witnessed? Everyone instinctively feels the force of this argument. It is therefore implicit in all treatments of the crisis - the “liberals” deny the facts of the crisis (it’s a new springtime); the “conservatives” deny the seriousness of the facts (it’s not as bad as you chicken-little traditionalists make it out to be); and the non-sedevacantist traditionalists tend to deny the teaching of the theology manuals regarding the infallibility of the Church in her universal disciplinary provisions and her liturgy (although to be fair, they generally haven’t heard of these things - or at least, with any kind of precision).

What if anything could the term sedevacantist explain; were it to be regarded as a theory? As a theory, no pope may explain whatever behaviors are an issue to sedevacantists, on the basis of vacating the chair either for another pope to assume a role as a pope; let alone, explain their behavior as a consequence of choosing to avoid exerting infallible authority. Heresy, schism, sin, none of this is explainable by any meaning of the word “sedevacantist”, that I can imagine. The very meaning of the word “universal” synonymous with the word “catholic” is the ability of a person by will, by intelligence, and by the nature of being immortal to live the faith without regard to time, to place.

Let us assume: a man behind closed doors usurps the authority of a man legitimately elected, nominated, etc. as pope. This transgresses the requirement of a pope to hold his position in accordance with all proper authority requisite to the position; whatever the protocol, the propriety might be. Nonetheless, the behavior of the man, whom we assume usurped the authority of a legitimate pope, (Now living under the threat of death for the remainder of his days.), nonetheless, lives out his life in such a papal position without sin, either by commission, or omission and the priest to whom the man confessed; forgave him. The word “sedevacantist” explains nothing of this man’s behavior. If anything the very role of pope that a so-called “imposter” has attempted with whatever success to fulfill by the nature of the position, the role, would meet the demands of the role; according to some of the better aspects of theory that govern communication.

This could very well be the result of listening to Malachi Martin.

continued…

 

[gorman64]

What theory, since you say there is one, can possibly be identified by the word “sedevacantist”?

A non-Catholic is not valid matter for the papacy. Manifest heretics are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction by their own sentence.

No matter the extent of your complaints about my sentences, they nonetheless remain correct both with respect to semantics, and to syntax.

I merely asked you to explain your statements.

Additionally, the only requirement of the papacy is the following: the pope is to be male, and of a certain age; what is it–sixteen. This would exclude all matters related to an imposter. Clearly every pope since whomever anyone would like to cite as a possible imposter have all been male, and either sixteen years old, or older. Every male in the position of pope has met the requirement to be pope to the best of my knowledge.

Really? Needn’t he also be a member of the Church of which he will be the Head?

How is it possible except by word-play, that the chair should ever be regarded as vacant to the exclusion of what occurs behind closed doors as a consequence of papal succession in addition, to the chair only being occupied when the pope speaks ex cathedra?

I don’t know what you mean here…maybe a further explanation is in order.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[Kristopher]

One of your original sentences was:
“You sound very much like you are quibbling and to the extent of being incredibly absurd in your rationale.”
It’s difficult to distinguish in this sentence exactly what is the victim of incredible absurdity: Gorman or his rationale. I realize I may have read meaning into this sentence that you did not intend, and I apologize for that.

Maria

In your reasoning, in your rationale, in your arguement, not Gorman personally, but his reasoning. I’m from (Minnesota) MN. Always have maintained a usage of prepositions more particular of MN–you’re lucky that I know more prepositions than the word “for”, for crying-out-loud!

 

[Kristopher]

A non-Catholic is not valid matter for the papacy. Manifest heretics are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction by their own sentence. … Really? Needn’t he also be a member of the Church of which he will be the Head? I don’t know what you mean here…maybe a further explanation is in order. …

Gender and age are the only requirements to meet the position of being pope, that’s it.

In order to be a heretic, you have to be a Catholic. Heretic is a term not applicable to anyone outside Catholicism, hence the reason God in the face of an atheist, and agnostic does maintain existence–doubt and denial are inadequate foes even for the obstinate! But as a matter of propriety as advocated by the Catechisim of the Catholic Church (CCC), you are not to exclude heretics at mass, but to include heretics at mass, and incessantly encourage them to confess to a properly ordained priest. There is no “outside” the CC for heretics, or schismatics; though, there is excommunication–being cutoff from God, in terms of the Eucharist. All Christians, perhaps to the exclusion of Mormons, though, doubtful are Catholics; hence the reason that they are regarded to be either schismatic, or heretical, or both heretical and schismatic.

You did not address the scenario of an imposter pope, but you ask for explanations of what I find difficult to put any more plainly than what you see stated.

What is there that you would like explained?

 

[gorman64]

Gender and age are the only requirements to meet the position of being pope, that’s it.

In order to be a heretic, you have to be a Catholic. Heretic is a term not applicable to anyone outside Catholicism, hence the reason God in the face of an atheist, and agnostic does maintain existence–doubt and denial are inadequate foes even for the obstinate! But as a matter of propriety as advocated by the Catechisim of the Catholic Church (CCC), you are not to exclude heretics at mass, but to include heretics at mass, and incessantly encourage them to confess to a properly ordained priest. There is no “outside” the CC for heretics, or schismatics; though, there is excommunication–being cutoff from God, in terms of the Eucharist. All Christians, perhaps to the exclusion of Mormons, though, doubtful are Catholics; hence the reason that they are regarded to be either schismatic, or heretical, or both heretical and schismatic.

You did not address the scenario of an imposter pope, but you ask for explanations of what I find difficult to put any more plainly than what you see stated.

What is there that you would like explained?

Where did you get the [edited by Moderator] you posted above? Did you come up with it on your own…or did you read it somewhere?

From Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

1. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

1. Let every one then abhor sin, which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better “to be cured within the Church’s community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members.” [21] “As long as a member still forms part of the body there is no reason to despair of its cure; once it has been cut off, it can be neither cured nor healed.” [22]

 

[Kristopher]

…

You still quibble and leave your claims unsubstantiated. Contact me when you choose to do more than make bland assertions. As it is now: you remain without any arguements that are the least bit cogent.

Yes of course, it is tacit, that the pope must be selected from the Roman Rite; though, where do you stand, with respect to the Roman Rite? It is on account of this “theory” you call “sedevacantist”, that those within SSPX are threatened by heresy within their membership in SSPX chapels, according to at least one document at the EWTN website, from the Vatican.

It is sad, perhaps even a great affliction, that you find Vatican II problematic to your faith.

There is a wonderful book by a Jose of Granada, I believe; who was the author to the Queen of Spain throughout the saintly lives of St. John, and other high profile saints, that could do nothing but advocate “The Sinner’s Guide”.

It is within the preface, or foreward of this book, that a story is told of some 200 Japanese people in the mountains who under great persecution endured in their faith, from one generation to the next as a consequence of adherence to the contents of this beautiful text, without any priests for 200 years. In the 1800’s a missionary came to Japan, amazed to discover these people alive-and-kicking in their faith. Without any admonishment toward you: according to the Code of Canon Law, at least for the diocese, wherein I live, a church may remain open under at least two conditions: at least one parishioner is in attendance in the church, or it has been unoccupied for less than one hundred yrs. I believe. No church may be closed within these two limits at least, where I live as I recall. This would seem to make the SSPX completely unnecessary in the face of even a persecution as great, as what the Japanese faced. Oddly enough, I picked the book-up when attending an SSPX chapel. No confusion on my part, with respect to Malachi Martin, another one of your unsubstantiated claims–not I, but yourself remains sedevacantist: the confusion therefore is on your part, [edited by Moderator]. Hopefully it is more clear to you now, that no matter the persecution against the church either with or without priests–there is no need to persist with any view about sedevacantisim; let alone for any mass prior to 1963 to be recognized either as inferior, or inferior to any mass–past, present or future. The point is plain: why complain? The church is extant, not due to SSPX, but to the Trinity, and you regard Vatican II as sufficient of a foe, to tackle her?

 

[gorman64]

You still quibble and leave your claims unsubstantiated. Contact me when you choose to do more than make bland assertions.

Kristopher,

My question is this; where did you get the material you posted above? Do you have a source that identifies it as Catholic doctrine…or did you just come up with it on your own?

I quote Pope Pius XII in an encyclical explicitly addressing The Mystical Body of Christ…which is the Catholic Church. My claim is substantiated. Yours is not.

Yours in Christ,

Gorman

 

[Kristopher]

Read your Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Check the index under the headings discussed. I provided you with another source: “The Sinner’s Guide” available through Tan Books. Additionally, I provided reasonable arguements to address your empty assertions. I probably pulled an item or two from an encyclical as well.

There is no substantial basis for sedevacantism. Everything you have written remains without any cogent basis. You avoid the arguements. There is nothing further to discuss with you until you choose to be more reasonable, than simply making bland and rather empty assertions. 'Til then, au voire!

Now you have questions, and you want what is plainly written explained to you. Nonetheless, you leave my questions unanswered. My arguements unaddressed, and you demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge about the contents of the CCC; yet, you admonish liberals and conservatives as a whole, and an entire body of work that produced over some fifty years, since Pope John XXIII, Vatican II. You appear to be riding a band wagon, more than anything else, and boldly or foolishly carrying forward someone elses agenda–I am left without much of a reason, even from charity, to do anything further for you! It would seem: anything beyond what already has been done for you–cogent arguements, reasonable conclusions on the basis of my own experiences, which you only criticize and hastily condemn, in addition to the use of language familiar to those who read the CCC and still, within the structure of standard English–anything beyond this would appear to be spoiling you.

You appear, judging by your last post, to have a need to vent: perhaps this is the thread; where you can do this.

Someone initiated this thread, to ask: how does one talk with a sedevacantist–I have done my best through demonstration. You have proven to be the same as other sedevacantists: full of accusations, irrational judgements, highly loaded charges, and no willingness to reason. You sound and behave like nothing short of a troublemaker, a sedevacantist. Even priests within SSPX chapels warn newcomers, and longtime members of SSPX chapels to discuss nothing with sedevacantists, and to avoid their company in general.

You should already be aware that a CCC is available online at the following URL: vatican.va.

Those who have an interest in what transpired between Gorman and I to this point, the following quotes are for you–I have done my best to keep the quotes within the limits advocated either by this forum, or other forums, and their guidelines:

Where did you get the [edited by Moderator] you posted above? Did you come up with it on your own…or did you read it somewhere?
From Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII:

A non-Catholic is not valid matter for the papacy. …

Sedevacantists do not reject the primacy of the Pope. …

… My claim is substantiated. Yours is not. …

P.S. The topic of heresy in my opinion is not associated with sedevacantist arguements, but isolated to heresy as a topic. No pope has been justified as heretical in behavior, only controversial, and certainly reasonable. Whatever behaviors on the part of a pope constitute heresy would arguably need to be demonstrative of heresy to such an extreme, that a Catholic could then at some point declare: the chair is vacant! This according to those sedevacantists with whom I have spoken: would need to be deomstrated for each pope, since whom? Pope Paul VI?

How do we recognize sedevacantist as anything reasonable under Pope Benedict XVI? We have a new pope. Do we declare: the chair remains vacant? Did he commit heresy the moment he sat upon the chair?

I have no idea how it is possible for sedevacantists to remain extant. Pope John Paul II is dead; been dead for about a year now it seems, or more is it now–two years?

If sedevacantistism can be regarded to be a thesis, then what is the opinion: the chair of Saint Peter is vacant? As a consequence of what: invalid sacraments especially as it concerns Holy Orders, since Vatican II, or heretical behavior of each pope as a person?

It would seem the entire council of Vatican II is regarded to be “bunk” for lack of a better word, by sedevacantists, that this entire council might actually be “bunk” is hardly an issue, when we consider the historical event that took place against the church for some 200 hundred years in the mountains of Japan, as provided within “The Sinner’s Guide”.

 

[Kristopher]

Here is one more reference from the Vatican admonishing the point of view held by sedevacantists, and a head of SSPX sometime ago–PLEASE: reference the following URL and item number three in the letter at the EWTN library to better recognize the consequences of your own attitude toward Vatican II, thank you:ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM " … adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, … , has publicaly stated that he deplores the ‘liberalism’ of ‘those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God,’ … " With such an attitude the society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff … ".

This is the appearance of Gorman’s attempt to argue in favor of sedevacantistism.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has veered way off the original topic–that of talking to a sedevacantist “and still be loving and sincere.” If you want to discuss the merits/demerits of sedevancantism, please start a new thread. And, as always, keep the discussion polite and civil.