P
palmas85
Guest
How so? Not every Pope in history has been a valid Pope. How would you prove them to be in error?
- Status
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
See post #15.
The common error I have found is that they believe a Pope who falls into heresy, and therefore loses the faith, automatically ceases to be Pope.
P
palmas85
Guest
Post 15 in its entirity
First, I wouldn’t say I could prove them wrong, but in my experience most of them have arrived at their conclusion (their position) based on a theological error - in fact, every Sedevacantist I have had a discussion with was basing his conclusion on that error. I can prove that to them, but it doesn’t mean they will change their position. They have other arguments they can bring forward, and these arguments cannot be proven wrong. I think they are wrong but I can’t prove it, just as they can’t prove they are right. The “other arguments” I am referring to (such as the new ordination of Bishops being unvalid) have not been settled by the Church. Therefore, both sides can only give their opinion.
What I usually say to them is that it is more prudent to suspend judgment on this point, rather than draw the conclusion. The reason being, we have no duty before God to judge such things, and if we are wrong it could result in eternal damnation. Better to suspend judgment and let a future Pope sort it out.
Reply With Quote
Doesn’t say much and says nothing at all in how to prove that theu are in error. Or is that because you say that they are in error they are?. I am not saying they are not, I just want to know where you are coming from.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
palmas85, how do you personally determine who is/was a valid Pope and who not?
M
Malleus_01
Guest
Actually the main complaint of Archbishop Lefebvre had less to do with the legitimacy of John the XXIII or Paul the VI and more to do with what they were doing to the Sacraments. Now as for Archbishop Thuc he was for all intents and purposes a man without a country and likewise did not question the legitmacy of either John the XXIII and or Paul the VI. He , unlike Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents of Vatican Council II . He only began to question them when he witnessed the destruction of Faith in the aftermath of the changes made by Paul the VI to the Sacraments. That is the Crux of the matter IMO.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
" how do you personally determine who is/was a valid Pope and who not? "
If I may interject - why does Laity need to make this judgement at all? Suffice to say - Worshipping Almighty GOD with Prayer and the Sacraments and recieving Holy Communion and frequenting the Holy Sacraments unifies every True Catholic. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. The True Church of Christ is ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. The Faith as practised prior to Vatican II is not outlawed. It hasnt been done away with. In fact - The Current Claimant Benedict has not outlawed the Mass or the Sacraments as practised prior to Vatican II. Catholics who worship traditionally do not do so defiantly. If a Traditional Catholic proposed Heresy that would be another matter ( Like the Dimond Brothers regarding Baptism of Blood and Desire for Example) then they should be condemned for doing so. But failing that - no legitimate charge has been forthcoming to this point. Even a charge of Schism doesnt hold up theologically because of the desire for unity with the Faith as practised from the time of Pope St Pius the V. Cardinal Hoyos admitted as much.
If I may interject - why does Laity need to make this judgement at all? Suffice to say - Worshipping Almighty GOD with Prayer and the Sacraments and recieving Holy Communion and frequenting the Holy Sacraments unifies every True Catholic. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. The True Church of Christ is ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. The Faith as practised prior to Vatican II is not outlawed. It hasnt been done away with. In fact - The Current Claimant Benedict has not outlawed the Mass or the Sacraments as practised prior to Vatican II. Catholics who worship traditionally do not do so defiantly. If a Traditional Catholic proposed Heresy that would be another matter ( Like the Dimond Brothers regarding Baptism of Blood and Desire for Example) then they should be condemned for doing so. But failing that - no legitimate charge has been forthcoming to this point. Even a charge of Schism doesnt hold up theologically because of the desire for unity with the Faith as practised from the time of Pope St Pius the V. Cardinal Hoyos admitted as much.
L
Lujack
Guest
Nobody can be persecuted over an internet forum. That’s a ridiculous thing to say.
P
palmas85
Guest
Basil, you know the answer to that one. There is more than nough historical evidence to correctly determine who was and was not a valid Pope.
Or would you have us believe that everyone who has styled himself Pope over the history of the Church was in fact the Pope.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Short Answer: You cannot.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Actually Archbishop Lefebvre supposedly signed all but one, the one on Religious Liberty.
P
pnewton
Guest
It’s easy enough in this day. I watched the conclave on television.Short Answer: You cannot.
Hypocricy - Claiming your priest are all validly ordained because they followed proper form while denying the same for the Holy Father.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
<<<< Actually Archbishop Lefebvre supposedly signed all but one, the one on Religious Liberty. >>>>
And Archbishop Thuc Signed all of them, agreed.
And Archbishop Thuc Signed all of them, agreed.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
<<<< Re: Question For Sedevacantists
Quote:Originally Posted by palmas85
How so? Not every Pope in history has been a valid Pope. How would you prove them to be in error?
palmas85, how do you personally determine who is/was a valid Pope and who not? >>>>>
I think the point is being missed. Taking a theological position and acting accordingly is not the same as a definitive declaration. It is an assumption that sedecacantists “Declare from Lawful Authority that the POPE is a false POPE. " Their position is a retreat due to changes that go far beyond the teachings of Holy Mother the Church in the Deposit of Faith. The Church is made up of the Church Triumphant - the Church Suffering and the Church Militant. now we all know that the Church Triumphant and the Church Sufffering have worshipped while on earth in tradition and that only from the time of Vatican II has the Church Militant divided. A sedevacantist recognises this as fact. And there is no law against worrshipping Almighty GOD in Tradition from the standpoint of laity. All this argumentation about licit and illicit Masses - who is or isnt the Pope - what is or isnt permissable and all the condemnations bantered about on both sides are from my perspective - mostly uncharitable. A Bishop has to have Valid Orders. Like it or not both Archbishop Lefebvre and Archbishop Thuc have Valid orders as do the Bishops consecrated by them. Pope Benedict has already acknowledged that attendance at Traditional Masses suffice for the Sunday obligation. Now I can parade several people from tradition that say “Una Cum” Masses are invalid just as I can parade Novus Ordos who say " SSPX and Thuc Line sacraments are invalid heres why” and in the final analysis you are both wrong. The simple truth is - The Mass of Pope Pius the V is Valid and will always be Valid and the Laity can obtain the Sacraments from either Lefebrve or Thuc line Bishops if they choose to. Personally - I am sick and tired of seeing all the infighting , argumentation , and falsehoods constantly bantered about. Perhaps its time that Catholics take a deep breath - kneel down - shut their mouth and pray. Instead of worrying about what their brother is up to so they can condemn him like the pharisee in the temple. You can all consider me a publican.
Pax
P
pnewton
Guest
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.
L
Lormar
Guest
But no one has answered my question.
P
pnewton
Guest
Pope Michaels says the first false Pope was Pope John XXIII and the chair has been empty since then, until him, of course.
L
Lormar
Guest
I take it, Mr. Newton, you’re not one of his disciples? His mother will not like that.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, but he has a website where you can get his opinions. I forgot that you were wanting a response from one of the sedevacantist, but as this is a Catholic Forum, faithtul to the Church with Pope Benedict XVI as Her leader, you might do better searching out their websites if you wish to understand the “why”.
L
Lormar
Guest
Thank you.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
Re: Question For Sedevacantists
" But no one has answered my question. "
Perhaps because it presupposes that in order to attend a sedevacantist chapel as Laity one must definitively reject a POPE the POPE or several POPES. If one truly believes in the Power of the Papacy then they understand that the POPE is the Vicar of Christ and is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals (De Fide). They also understand that no TRUE POPE in the history of the Catholic Church has ever been a heretic in matters of faith or morals. They also understand that because a POPE is guided by the Holy Ghost in matters of faith or morals that to say a POPE ever could be a Heretic is to say GOD himself teaches error which of course we know is not possible. Nor can the Holy Ghost contradict himself. St Vincent Ferrer converted 30000 Jews to the faith and raised a boy from the dead in Spain. He also backed Anti Pope Benedict the XIII. So if a Saint as Illustrious as St Vincent Ferrer can be fooled into thinking that Anti Pope Benedict XIII is the Vicar of Christ then why is it impossible today for you to be fooled Lorimar? When you can answer that question first - perhaps your question may have relevance. Certainly there are several contradictions from past Church teachings that are occuring today. St Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius for his refusal to go along with the Arian Heresy. But we see Pope Benedict consorting with Talmudic Jews and Islamics in Synagoges and Mosques who for all intents and purposes - Both reject the Divinity of Christ as did Arius. So , yes - you posed a question - but the answer is far more complex and multi layered than a simple naming of names. The Church is ONE. It is not many. And that ONE includes every Pope who ever lived (Including St Peter himself). As a Catholic - we are to remain in union with the Church for all time - not just today. The Church is Always the Church Triumphant the Church Suffering and the Church Militant it is not simply the Church Militant acting independently. Holy Mother the Church is Eternal not merely contemporary.
Pax
" But no one has answered my question. "
Perhaps because it presupposes that in order to attend a sedevacantist chapel as Laity one must definitively reject a POPE the POPE or several POPES. If one truly believes in the Power of the Papacy then they understand that the POPE is the Vicar of Christ and is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals (De Fide). They also understand that no TRUE POPE in the history of the Catholic Church has ever been a heretic in matters of faith or morals. They also understand that because a POPE is guided by the Holy Ghost in matters of faith or morals that to say a POPE ever could be a Heretic is to say GOD himself teaches error which of course we know is not possible. Nor can the Holy Ghost contradict himself. St Vincent Ferrer converted 30000 Jews to the faith and raised a boy from the dead in Spain. He also backed Anti Pope Benedict the XIII. So if a Saint as Illustrious as St Vincent Ferrer can be fooled into thinking that Anti Pope Benedict XIII is the Vicar of Christ then why is it impossible today for you to be fooled Lorimar? When you can answer that question first - perhaps your question may have relevance. Certainly there are several contradictions from past Church teachings that are occuring today. St Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius for his refusal to go along with the Arian Heresy. But we see Pope Benedict consorting with Talmudic Jews and Islamics in Synagoges and Mosques who for all intents and purposes - Both reject the Divinity of Christ as did Arius. So , yes - you posed a question - but the answer is far more complex and multi layered than a simple naming of names. The Church is ONE. It is not many. And that ONE includes every Pope who ever lived (Including St Peter himself). As a Catholic - we are to remain in union with the Church for all time - not just today. The Church is Always the Church Triumphant the Church Suffering and the Church Militant it is not simply the Church Militant acting independently. Holy Mother the Church is Eternal not merely contemporary.
Pax
- Status