Question For Sedevacantists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lormar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s easy enough in this day. I watched the conclave on television.

Hypocricy - Claiming your priest are all validly ordained because they followed proper form while denying the same for the Holy Father.
No, I mean you cannot personally verify anything. It is not our job to, nor should we (like sedevacantists) presume to do so. We are to believe the Sovereign Pontiff is the Sovereign Pontiff unless a future Pope or a council says otherwise.
 
I can’t remember the last person who question the validity of either Mass. Such a thing is a rarity and usually easily answered. I have never seen anything at all about this Thuc Line.
Then you have not been reading the right websites. 😉

Believe me, I have seen more than my fair share of arguments on all the above. Straining at a gnat.
 
Pope Michaels says the first false Pope was Pope John XXIII and the chair has been empty since then, until him, of course.
Stop quoting Pope Michael. We all know it was Cardinal Siri was the real pope. Now the real pope is Pius XIII (aka Lucien Pulvermacher). This was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

What’s crazier is the nonesense that Malachi Martin wrote (i.e. that members of Paul VI’s curia had a black mass at St. Peter’s in which they enthroned Satan). Unlike the sede vacantist stuff, Martin’s dreck makes its way into the legitimate media. In fact, selling tapes of Malachi Martin interviews seems to be Art Bell’s primary source of revenue.
 
<<< Then you have not been reading the right websites >>>

<<<< No, I mean you cannot personally verify anything. It is not our job to, nor should we (like sedevacantists) presume to do so. We are to believe the Sovereign Pontiff is the Sovereign Pontiff unless a future Pope or a council says otherwise. >>>>>

Personal conviction for a claimant doesnt a valid claimant make as over 30 confirmed anti Popes in the history of the Catholic Church will attest. In fact we have to look no further than Scripture to confirm that we must in fact scrutinize those who claim ecclesiastic authority. Certainly the Pharisees claimed ecclesiastic authority in the time of our LORD did they not? Yet our LORD didnt condemn them for the office they held - but rather for how they exercised the authority. So why is today any different?

The Holy Gospel According to St Matthew

7:15. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

7:16. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

7:17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

7:18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.

7:19. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.

7:20. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

So is this passage rendered meaningless? We are to follow anyone in colorful robes because of the colorful robe?
 
<<< Then you have not been reading the right websites >>>

<<<< No, I mean you cannot personally verify anything. It is not our job to, nor should we (like sedevacantists) presume to do so. We are to believe the Sovereign Pontiff is the Sovereign Pontiff unless a future Pope or a council says otherwise. >>>>>

Personal conviction for a claimant doesnt a valid claimant make as over 30 confirmed anti Popes in the history of the Catholic Church will attest. In fact we have to look no further than Scripture to confirm that we must in fact scrutinize those who claim ecclesiastic authority. Certainly the Pharisees claimed ecclesiastic authority in the time of our LORD did they not? Yet our LORD didnt condemn them for the office they held - but rather for how they exercised the authority. So why is today any different?

The Holy Gospel According to St Matthew

7:15. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

7:16. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

7:17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

7:18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.

7:19. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.

7:20. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

So is this passage rendered meaningless? We are to follow anyone in colorful robes because of the colorful robe?
I do not follow you, what point are you trying to make?
 
Stop quoting Pope Michael. We all know it was Cardinal Siri was the real pope. Now the real pope is Pius XIII (aka Lucien Pulvermacher).
“Pius XIII” died last November.

BTW, at some point he changed his name from Pius XIII, to Pope Peter II, presumably in order to fulfill the prophecy of St. Malachi.

“When the shepherd is struck, the sheep will be scattered”.
 
“Pius XIII” died last November.

BTW, at some point he changed his name from Pius XIII, to Pope Peter II, presumably in order to fulfill the prophecy of St. Malachi.

“When the shepherd is struck, the sheep will be scattered”.
Really? I do not believe I had heard that. However misguided, may he Rest in Peace.
 
Personal conviction for a claimant doesnt a valid claimant make as over 30 confirmed anti Popes in the history of the Catholic Church will attest
None of these “false prophet” assumed leaderships of the entire Catholic Church, with a miniscule exception, for fifty years over the course of four successors, or anything even close to matching that, for that matter. So, if the Catholic Church has fallen, and the Holy Spirit failed, we know who the Holy Father is.

Furthermore, It is not applicable to use examples from an era when all news was sketchy and uncertain and apply it to today, when as I said earlier, the whole world can watch events live. The day of the antipope is over, with the exception of that 0.0001% that is so intent on being an exceptional “remnant” that any conspiracy is possible.
 
Re: Question For Sedevacantists

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malleus 01
<<< Then you have not been reading the right websites >>>

<<<< No, I mean you cannot personally verify anything. It is not our job to, nor should we (like sedevacantists) presume to do so. We are to believe the Sovereign Pontiff is the Sovereign Pontiff unless a future Pope or a council says otherwise. >>>>>

Personal conviction for a claimant doesnt a valid claimant make as over 30 confirmed anti Popes in the history of the Catholic Church will attest. In fact we have to look no further than Scripture to confirm that we must in fact scrutinize those who claim ecclesiastic authority. Certainly the Pharisees claimed ecclesiastic authority in the time of our LORD did they not? Yet our LORD didnt condemn them for the office they held - but rather for how they exercised the authority. So why is today any different?

The Holy Gospel According to St Matthew

7:15. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

7:16. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

7:17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

7:18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.

7:19. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.

7:20. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

So is this passage rendered meaningless? We are to follow anyone in colorful robes because of the colorful robe?

I do not follow you, what point are you trying to make?

Mal: The point I make is that when you say that we are to " believe the Sovereign Pontiff is the Sovereign Pontiff" is nonsense. The above Scriptural passage is evidence of that.

Re: Question For Sedevacantists

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malleus 01
Personal conviction for a claimant doesnt a valid claimant make as over 30 confirmed anti Popes in the history of the Catholic Church will attest

None of these “false prophet” assumed leaderships of the entire Catholic Church, with a miniscule exception, for fifty years over the course of four successors, or anything even close to matching that, for that matter. So, if the Catholic Church has fallen, and the Holy Spirit failed, we know who the Holy Father is.

Mal: Actually that isnt correct. From a historical standpoint a True Pope Has always existed and today you presuppose that if Benedict isnt a True Pope then one doesnt exist. During the Western Schism - the vast majority of lay catholics living then believed that Anti Pope John the XXIII (Cossa) or Anti Pope Benedict in Avignon was the True Pope and of course the True Pope Gregory XII had been driven from Rome. The Catholic Church did not fall then the Holy Ghost didnt fail then and to assume that it has failed today is simply baseless rhetoric. Anti Popes come and Anti Popes go and the Church remains and for you to say you know who the Holy Father is smacks of pride - St Vincent Ferrer thought he knew as well and he backed the Anti Pope. St Vincent Ferrer raised people from the dead. Yet he was fooled by an Anti Pope but of course you say it couldnt possibly happen to you. It could happen to him but not you. Thats the point. It comes down to your opinion which of course you are welcome to have - but essentially thats all it is is your opinion. And of course you would deny anyone else theirs.

" Furthermore, It is not applicable to use examples from an era when all news was sketchy and uncertain and apply it to today, when as I said earlier, the whole world can watch events live."

Mal: And the Holy Ghost was absent then but he is here only now? Have you forgotten that the Holy Ghost is GOD? GOD guides his Church and HE led it out of the Western Schism - Men didnt do it. No matter how technologically advanced man becomes - GOD still reigns above. Your opinion that The Holy Ghost’s power is somehow diminished by the advance of technology is a weak position to hold in theological circles. People see what they want to see and the current state of the world is a product in large part of mans dependance on technology. Perhaps a little less technology and a little more spirituality is in order.

" The day of the antipope is over, with the exception of that 0.0001% that is so intent on being an exceptional “remnant” that any conspiracy is possible. "

Mal: Yes the day of the Anti Pope is over and the day of belief in the existance of Satan is over and the advance of Man beyond the need for the Teachings of Holy Mother the Church in antiquity must be put in its historical context. Yes we have heard the party line.
 
The following is a possible answer this thread would recieve from a sedevacantist. I post this with the hope that i’m not banned, i’m enjoying the good discussion and am learning a lot. 🙂

Essentially, the Church’s theologians and canonists (whom we’re obliged to obey when there is consensus) teach that a Pontiff is deposed of his office through manifest heresy, and a papal claimant is prevented for acquisition of office through manifest heresy.

Heresy is simply the pertinacious post-baptismal denial or doubt of an article of faith, by an individual claiming to be a Christian.

A heresy is manifest if its existence is exposed in a public manner which can happen in a number of ways including through a document which by its very nature is vulnerable to the inspection of many individuals etc. (General audiences, Encyclicals all count for manifest.)

An example of such a heresy committed by Benedict XVI is the document entitled, “ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION” published in 1992. This document is signed and therefore officially supported in full by Benedict XVI. It was written while he was the head of the Congregation for the doctrine of faith. As noted earlier, manifest heresy would prevent the acquisition of Papal office.

The alleged manifest heresy is contained in p. 7-10; esp. p. 17.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html

It is the teaching that non-Catholic communities (churches/sects) are in partial communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

This is pertinacious because Benedict (then ratzinger) is aware of its contrary nature to pre-vatican II teaching. It’s manifest because this document by nature is susceptible to public exposure, and was intended as such. This is heresy because it is directly contrary to the following teachings of the Magisterium:

1.) Iam vos Omnes.

2.) Satis Cognitum.

#1 says, “None [of these religious societies differing among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church], not even taken as a whole, constitutes in any way and are not that one, Catholic Church founded and made by Our Lord and which He wished to create. Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity.” (Apostolic Letter Iam vos omnes, September 13, 1868, Pius IX.)

#2 says,

"Every Revealed Truth, without Exception, Must be Accepted
  1. The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Satis Cognitum, p. 9, June 29, 1896, Leo XIII)

God bless
 
What Popes do you reject and why, with an example or two of the heresy?:
Another interesting question for a sedevacantist, since they reject not only the pope but every bishop in the Roman Catholic Church, is this: “What bishop(s) do you accept?” If you want to press harder, if there is a bishop that they accept, you can ask them: “What would you do if this bishop you accept started teaching something on faith and morals that you don’t agree with?”
 
None of these “false prophet” assumed leaderships of the entire Catholic Church, with a miniscule exception, for fifty years over the course of four successors, or anything even close to matching that, for that matter. So, if the Catholic Church has fallen, and the Holy Spirit failed, we know who the Holy Father is.

Mal: Actually that isnt correct. From a historical standpoint a True Pope Has always existed and today you presuppose that if Benedict isnt a True Pope then one doesnt exist. During the Western Schism - the vast majority of lay catholics living then believed that Anti Pope John the XXIII (Cossa) or Anti Pope Benedict in Avignon was the True Pope and of course the True Pope Gregory XII had been driven from Rome.
" Furthermore, It is not applicable to use examples from an era when all news was sketchy and uncertain and apply it to today, when as I said earlier, the whole world can watch events live."
Let us see who is correct and who needs to bone up on history. I invite everyone to check out the details.

The AntiPope John XXIII convened his council in 1412. He died in 1419. There were no successors after his six-seven years reign. Even if a majority followed him, statistics of which I can not verify, it was nothing like the almost universal (Catholic) acceptance of the last four Popes.
Mal: And the Holy Ghost was absent then but he is here only now? Have you forgotten that the Holy Ghost is GOD? GOD guides his Church and HE led it out of the Western Schism - Men didnt do it.
Of course not. That is why I simple can not fathom sedevacantism. That is the path that forgets that God guides His Church.
" The day of the antipope is over, with the exception of that 0.0001% that is so intent on being an exceptional “remnant” that any conspiracy is possible. "
Mal: Yes the day of the Anti Pope is over and the day of belief in the existance of Satan is over and the advance of Man beyond the need for the Teachings of Holy Mother the Church in antiquity must be put in its historical context. Yes we have heard the party line.
Straw man, as well as slanderous. The fact that the claims of anitpapacy today cannot be justified as in days of the past has nothing, nothing, to do with the existence of Satan or the advance of Man. At not point (consider this a challenge to my accusation of slander) have I denied the existence of Satan. If so, then show us all where I, or anyone here denied the existence of Satan.

If you got this idea from elsewhere, then it becomes evident who is following a party line.
 
Anti Popes come and Anti Popes go and the Church remains and for you to say you know who the Holy Father is smacks of pride -
And for a sedevacantist to think he is one in a million who can sniff our an antipope smacks you as humble?
 
WhatisCharity, that’s where I think they go too far.

Would Our Lord leave millions of Catholics without His Presence and a source of Grace due to no validly ordained priests or consecrated bishops?

Also, can a sedevacantist tell us how he and/or she reconciles the universal and peaceful acceptance of the Popes with their theory?
 
Would Our Lord leave millions of Catholics without His Presence and a source of Grace due to no validly ordained priests or consecrated bishops?
If anyone is saved it is because they belong to the RCC in some fashion. This can be through actual membership or desired membership. Desired membership can be either explicit like catechumens or implicit for the invincibly ignorant.

I don’t think the current state of affairs stunts God’s universal salvific will.
Also, can a sedevacantist tell us how he and/or she reconciles the universal and peaceful acceptance of the Popes with their theory?
I’m not sure there is a reason to reconcile this fact. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a papal claimant is not based on who accepts him to be valid or not.

Further, I don’t think the sedevacantist has to account for the reason so many clergy accepted Benedict as valid. Again, their decision doesn’t make him valid, nor does the rejection of sedevacantist’s make him invalid.

I have heard various explanations for how so many could be decieved, but in the final anaylsis I don’t think it bears weight in the theological discussion of his validity.

That’s a good question though, that I think weighs heavy on many’s hearts.

God bless
 
Perplexity (That’s a good name, I should have chosen it for myself)

But there’s a dogma that says that to be saved one must be subject to the Pope.

About the universal peaceful acceptance, from what my stunted intellect understands from reading extensively about this, it does matter. And, yes, the sedevacantist would have to account for almost a billion Catholics being mistaken. And it does bear weight as to the Pope’s validity. There is a 22 page discussion about this on an old sedevacantist website where they thought of every possible explanation as to how this could be except one: that maybe they were wrong.
 
But there’s a dogma that says that to be saved one must be subject to the Pope.
This is the teaching of Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctam in 1302. It’s implicitly contained in every other statement from the Church on the subject of extra ecclesiam nulla salus est. This statement only applies to those who would be culpably condemned for not being subject to the Pope.

Hence, this does not apply to the invincibly ignorant.
And, yes, the sedevacantist would have to account for almost a billion Catholics being mistaken.
Without any evidence for this statement i’m not sure I see why I should accept this as true.

Do you believe the truth of the sedevacantist position depends upon their ability to account for the vast deception that’s taken place?
And it does bear weight as to the Pope’s validity.
hmm, i’m not sure how. According to Church teaching an individual is either a legitimate or an illegitimate successor of St. Peter if they meet certain criteria for fail to, but i’m not sure universal acceptance as legitimate is one of them.
There is a 22 page discussion about this on an old sedevacantist website where they thought of every possible explanation as to how this could be except one: that maybe they were wrong.
Perhaps, but i’ve never seen anyone demonstrate the assertions you’ve made.

God bless
 
You’re shifting the focus. What has invincible ignorance to do with one billion Catholics? In order to be saved one must be subject to the Supreme Pontiff. The sedevacantists have decided that at least from Paul VI onward, no such man exists. They have taken it upon themselves to separate themselves from, what they claim, is a counterfeit church.

I don’t have to account for anything. I’m not a sedevacantist. And I’m not the one that is placing souls in possible jeopardy.

Please read up on what I am talking about and then come back and discuss it if you want. I can tell by how you are answering me that you don’t know much about it. I wasn’t aware of it myself until I heard Colin Donovan (of EWTN’s Open Line) mention it one Friday about a year ago and then I started to research it.
 
You’re shifting the focus. What has invincible ignorance to do with one billion Catholics? In order to be saved one must be subject to the Supreme Pontiff.
So your objection is that salvation cannot be attained unless we have a Supreme Pontiff to be subject to? I believe this is a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. As you’re aware there are interregnum’s or states of sede-vacante every time a Pope dies and before a new one is elected.

Practically speaking you were a sedevacantist after John Paul II died and before Benedict XVI was elected because you believed the seat was vacant.

If your interpretation of Catholic teaching is correct (which you have not established) then salvation is unattainable during periods of interregnum, which occurs all the time, for lengthy periods as well.
They have taken it upon themselves to separate themselves from, what they claim, is a counterfeit church.
Well from their perspective it is the obligation and duty of any Catholic to oppose an anti-pope. This of course is Catholic teaching, if there is an anti-pope we must oppose him. Your disagreement is not with this principle. Your disagreement is on whether these papal claimants are anti-popes.
I don’t have to account for anything. I’m not a sedevacantist. And I’m not the one that is placing souls in possible jeopardy.
You’re claiming the last five papal claimants are legitimate successors of Peter, and that salvation is contingent upon submission to him. Therefore, your claim places every soul you evangalize to in possible jeopardy on the basis that you could be wrong about this.
Please read up on what I am talking about and then come back and discuss it if you want. I can tell by how you are answering me that you don’t know much about it. I wasn’t aware of it myself until I heard Colin Donovan (of EWTN’s Open Line) mention it one Friday about a year ago and then I started to research it.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about exactly. I’ve been studying sedevacantism and all its relevant topics for years, interacting with leading sedevacantists to discern this matter. The objection you raise is common but I believe i’ve sufficiently answered it.

God bless
 
As to the question of “universal” acceptance - in the time of Noah how did that mentality work for you?

As to “Obedience” indeed Obedience to LAWFUL AUTHORITY is the key. We are not to follow False Shepherds no matter what office they hold. We are to follow lawful authority. Certainly Arius was elevated to Patriarch as was Nestorius. They held the office. But that certainly didnt stop St Athanasius from resisting them did it. And secondly - I have yet to see a single modernist who could name a single thing we do - a belief we hold or a practise of religion that is DISOBEDIENT to the last 4 Popes. All we have recieved is inconclusive jibberish. Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated by JPII but now today we find that it was unjust and wrong. Why? Because the Archbishop followed DIVINE Law when he consecrated Bishops and ordained Priests so that catholics could recieve traditional sacraments that the modernists were attempting to deny to the faithful. And Benedict is on record as saying that the Blessed Sacrament of Pius the X suffice for the Sunday Obligation and always have. He likewise is on record as saying that the faithful who attend the Masses of the SSPX do not sin by doing so. Yes - you modernists like to talk and accuse us of many things - but I find most compelling - is that the average Modernist is for all intents and purposes - Ignorant of the faith they claim to hold. But then along come the “Faithful” who claim to be faithful followers of Benedict and instead of reading what he as said - they jump to their own irrational conclusions.

Let us see who is correct and who needs to bone up on history. I invite everyone to check out the details.

The AntiPope John XXIII convened his council in 1412. He died in 1419. There were no successors after his six-seven years reign. Even if a majority followed him, statistics of which I can not verify, it was nothing like the almost universal (Catholic) acceptance of the last four Popes.

Mal : The Council you refer to is the Council of Constance which of Course we know from history asked for the resignations of all three Claimants so as to End the Western Schism - recieved the resignation from True Pope Gregory the XII and the Anti Popes of course refused and Cossa Subsequently fled the Council. Pope Martin the V became POPE as a result of the Council. Now do you really want to talk about Church History with me?

Of course not. That is why I simple can not fathom sedevacantism. That is the path that forgets that God guides His Church.

The theological position of Sedevacantism is a response to manifest heresy. When the Vatican teaches that Talmudic Jews who were condemned by OUR LORD Himself and the Islamic religions are pleasing to GOD and the Claimants actually visit and Co Worship the One True GOD in a false manner publicly - no catholic has to go along with it. It breaks the First Commandment. Sedevacantism does not definitively and authoritatively depose the Pope. Thats a lie. Sedevacantism doesnt pretend to hold ecclesiastic office or authority nor does it pretend to speak or teach on behalf of the Magisterium. Like it or not - if you look around you will see HERESY all around you. Look at Cardinal Mahony in los Angeles for example and his radical agenda. Or Bishop Steib in Memphis with his GAY Outreach. then you want to question Bishops who retreat from these obvious departures from Catholic Doctine and Dogma. Perhaps you should use the same amount of efffort into cleaning up your own modernist doorstep first. We simply have retreated into Tradition until this heresy as all heresies do ends in GOD’s own time. You may want to have clown masses and Barney the Dinosaur Mass (Which actually happened in Los Angeles of all times during the All Sants / All Souls period in 2007. So save it. Mahony is in good standing with the Vatican. As is Steib as is Brom as is Law who was promoted to the Vatican for hiding pedophiles.

" The day of the antipope is over, with the exception of that 0.0001% that is so intent on being an exceptional “remnant” that any conspiracy is possible. "

Mal: Once again a matter of opinion. Thats like saying there will never be another heresy in the Church until judgement day all the while knowing that the Anti Christ must eventually come prior to the end of the world. So the obvious question to the modernist would be - when Anti Christ comes - do you follow him out of blind obedience? Thats the question you modernists cannot seem to grasp .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top