Question For Sedevacantists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lormar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Straw man, as well as slanderous.

Mal: Thats not a strawman. Nor is it slander. In fact - its Scriptural. Look at the fruits immediately after Vatican II. We are called to recognise false shepherds by their fruits and the fruits of Vatican II are rotting.

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.

Mal: Funny - the chief exorcist in the Vatican Father Gabriele Amorth wrote in 2002 Satans biggest succcess is in making people believe that he doesn’t exist. And in this he has almost succeeded. Even within the Church. We have a clergy and an episcopate who no longer believe in the devil, in exorcisms, in the extraordinary evil that the devil can cause, nor in the power that Jesus has given us to drive out demons.
Code: 
For three centuries, the Latin Church in contrast with the Orthodox Church and various Protestant confessions – has almost entirely abandoned the ministry of exorcism. As the clergy no longer practice exorcisms, as they no longer study them and have never seen them, they no longer believe in them. And nor do they believe in the devil either. We have entire episcopates who are hostile to exorcisms. There are countries in which there is not a single exorcist, as for example Germany, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal. A terrifying deficiency.
I didnt write that, He did, My source is an interview by Stefano Maria Paci with Fr. Gabriele Amorth in February 2002

If you got this idea from elsewhere, then it becomes evident who is following a party line.

Mal: I got this idea from the chief exorcist in Rome.
 
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?”

Mal: Actually a Catholic who retreats into the Theological Position of Sedevacantism does not reject the POPE or any Bishop in the Catholic Church. They reject modernism and all its tenets for the same reasons that Pope St Pius the X defined in “Pacendi Domenici Gregis” Which many of the post counciliar Bishops and it would seem Ratzinger as well subscribe.to today. If a Bishop wants to say that he subscribes to the Heresies of False Ecumenism or Religious Liberty or Religious Indifferentism obviously we will avoid that Bishop. And BTW - there are many Bishops who privately are concerned by the embrace of modernism , which St Pope Pius the X called the synthesis of all heresies. And yes Pope Leo the XIII was given a vision which compelled him to compose the St Michael the Archangel Prayer. It is - he says plainly - the Shepherd may be struck and the Sheep scatttered… So because there is widespread heresy today and Bishops against Bishops and the Vatican allowing these Modernists to operate - we should all throw up our hands and give up? The Church has been through worse times that this (As when it operated in the catacombs prior to Constantine.) We arent going to judge your Claimant nor the Bishops like Mahony. As to your final point , no Catholic can follow any Bishop or Priest who teaches heresy or advocates sin. Perhaps a Catechism class is in order.
 
Malleus_01 said:
As to the question of “universal” acceptance - in the time of Noah how did that mentality work for you?
Click to expand...
Seeing that there was no charism of guidance ot the Holy Spirit, what has that to do with anything? Also, the population of the world was not six billion.
Thats the question you modernists cannot seem to grasp .
Click to expand...
I can grasp the futility of labeling and name-calling. I am not a modernist, as defined in the proper sense of the word, or any sense other than a vague, nebulous boogeyman manner. You spend much of a post talking about denial of Satan. **Again, when have I, or anyone here, denied the existence of Satan. **

You said first:
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.
Click to expand...
Mal: Thats not a strawman. Nor is it slander. In fact - its Scriptural. Look at the fruits immediately after Vatican II. We are called to recognise false shepherds by their fruits and the fruits of Vatican II are rotting
Click to expand...
If this is not a strawman, prove it by showing where I, or others here have denied Satan.

I think this false picture that sedevacantist draw of the faithful of the Catholic Church is part of what contributes to their willingness to seek the bizzare and extreme. Reality is too boring for some folks and doesn’t leave them feeling special enough. If not, then why do they constantly trot out the strawman argument.
 
Perplexity.

If you are not sure what I am talking about “exactly”, how can you have sufficiently answered me?

As for your other replies, quite frankly, they make no sense to me.

“God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for awhile. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, GOD WILL NEVER ALLOW THE WHOLE CHURCH TO RECOGNIZE AS PONTIFF SOMEONE WHO IS NOT REALLY AND LAWFULLY. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election…” {Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi [1927-1929] Vol 1, pp. 612-613}
 
And for a sedevacantist to think he is one in a million who can sniff our an antipope smacks you as humble?

Mal: And when did I ever say that I was one in a million who can sniff out an anti pope? You can continue to present strawman arguments to your hearts content and thus illustrate your own personal ignorance as to what taking a theological position is. I am beginning to realize that you may not even know what that is , or you wouldnt be as persistant in your strawman. Try debating me on Points I actually hold - not on whjat you wish them to be.

<<<< 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. >>>>

Mal: And I too am not a “sedevacantist.” in the strict sense The modernist heresy lies with the Clerics of the Church. I attend a Church where the Bishop has taken the Theological Position of Sedevacantism - but I as laity am under no obligation to so State. As laity - it is my obligation to hold the Catholic Faith and dogmas therein whole and undefiled to recieve the Sacraments and to keep my soul in a state of Sanctified Grace. My obedience is to my Bishop and Priests and in Union with the Church Triumphant / Suffering / Militant - not merely with a claimant to the Papacy that may or may not be a legitimate successor to St Peter. So , I believe that in order to be saved we must be subject to the Pope and to every Pope from St Peter on down as well as their teachings. The purpose for that subjection is Chruch Unity. But when Benedict and JPII publicly co worship with Jews and Islamics - being the Only Popes in the History of the Church to do so - that obviously isnt ok. At Assisi in 1980 at the gathering of the World Council of Churches - JPII allowed a Buddha to be placed on the Altar. These are public events - there for all to see. How do these occurances keep with Church Unity and its teachings for all time, All a Catholic needs is a set of working eyes and a pre Vatican II catechism

<<<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.>>>>>

Mal: Thats not entirely true. They point to the departures from catholic doctrine and acts of manifest heresy to question the legitimacy of the claimanmts who have implemented the changes of Vatican II which deviate from the Prior Teachings of the Church. They do not say that no such man exists. But due to the widespread heresies of modernism - its possible that a true Pope is obscured. So the visible chair is vacant doctrinally by these acts.

They have taken it upon themselves to separate themselves from, what they claim, is a counterfeit church.

Mal: That too isnt true. What they dont do is use the New Mass - the New forms of the Sacraments implemented by Paul VI - the New Catechism and Canon Law implemented by JPII - They have retreated into Pre Vatican II Canon Law - The Tridentine Latin Mass - the Catechism prior to Vatican II , in short - all the radical changes of Vatican II we have refused to embrace which , BTW , is our right to do. So , in our view - by the CHANGES themselves has the Modernist Church seperated from us and not only from us but from the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering Pre Vatican II. One of the tell tale signs of HERESY is CHANGE. When you go to our Church - you see Catholicism being practised as it has been for centuries. I find it ironic that Modernists can embrace Protestantism.- Talmudic Judaism - Islam and Buddism and Hinduism but you better not be caught dead worshipping Almighty GOD in Tradition. So the question begs to be asked - Who seperated from whom.

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.

Mal: Nor am I. If my Bishop and Priests are incorrrect they will be punished - but the laity who seeks only to be Catholic in all ways will not. Research it as much as I have and you will come to the same conclusion.
 
Malleus 01

Thank you for your thorough answer. It was very well put, and I do understand what you have written.

God bless you.
 
If you are not sure what I am talking about “exactly”, how can you have sufficiently answered me?
Click to expand...
I did not understand what you meant by asking me to study further.

I feel I have answered your objections sufficiently, which I feel I do understand.
As for your other replies, quite frankly, they make no sense to me.
Click to expand...
hmm, well perhaps you could tell me where you’re not understanding so that I can work on my clarity?
“God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for awhile. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, GOD WILL NEVER ALLOW THE WHOLE CHURCH TO RECOGNIZE AS PONTIFF SOMEONE WHO IS NOT REALLY AND LAWFULLY. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election…” {Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi [1927-1929] Vol 1, pp. 612-613}
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you quote Billot. We’re speaking about what is required for an election to the papacy to be legitimate. It appears you believe that universal acceptance is a requirment for an election to be legitimate. I’m asking you where does the Church back that assertion up? As far as I know this is not the case. Here’s just one reason:

1.) Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus says:

“In addition, if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

“(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

“(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation…

“(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”

Remember the sedevacantist says the last 5 papal claimants have lost their office or were prevented from ascending to the throne because of manifest heresy. Granting manifest heresy, how would universal recognition remove this impediment?

God bless
 
Lormar said:
“God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for awhile. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, GOD WILL NEVER ALLOW THE WHOLE CHURCH TO RECOGNIZE AS PONTIFF SOMEONE WHO IS NOT REALLY AND LAWFULLY. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election…” {Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi [1927-1929] Vol 1, pp. 612-613}
Click to expand...
Sedevacantism is the living objection to universal recognition. Given that there is a notable controversy (which we happen to be discussing) over whether or not the current Pontiff is “really and lawfully” the Pontiff, it’s evident that “the whole Church” is not on board.

Granted, sedevacantists comprise less than a single percentage point of the 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide. But there are sedevacantist bishops in nearly every hemisphere, and sedevacantist clergy in most nations where the Catholic faith has a significant presence. I’m sure that almost every pope in history has had a detractor or two yelling “heretic” or “antipope” (there may well’ve been some alpine hermit frothing at the mouth and composing a tract called The Many & Manifest Heresies of Leo XIII). But I don’t think there’s quite any precedent for a worldwide phenomenon of small clerical fraternities and independent priests, loosely-knit but united in the fiercely-held conviction that the current pope is a false claimant. (Nor, for that matter, has there ever been such a change in the liturgy of such drastic proportion in so short a time as there was with the Novus Ordo. And while many Ecumenical Councils have left their fair share of losers feeling the sting of Mother’s condemnation or solemn definition, Vatican II is notable for creating a so-called “traditionalist” movement offended by what the Council innovated, not by what it resolved.) Even Fr. Brian Harrison, who spends a great deal of ink writing against the sedevacantists, concedes that some of the brightest lights in the Church—Gerry Matatics, Thomas Droleskey, Fr. Cekada—have been persuaded by its arguments . Sedevacantism oughtn’t be written off as negligible based on numbers alone.

:whistle:

So the situation is fairly unique and, given the circumstances, it might be a rush to judgment to say “the whole Church recognizes the current pope.”
 
Yggdrasil said:
Sedevacantism is the living objection to universal recognition. Given that there is a notable controversy (which we happen to be discussing) over whether or not the current Pontiff is “really and lawfully” the Pontiff, it’s evident that “the whole Church” is not on board.
Click to expand...
If “the whole Church” is defined as 100.0000%, then, not they are not. However, I do not think that has ever happened. Does the existence of the Old Catholic Church argue for the heretical nature of Vatican I? I have never heard such a thing except among those of that sect. A century has passed and they are still convinced they were right.

So, how many sedevacantist are there. When the SSPV split from the SSPX there were nine. This secevacantism claim is truly unprecedented, despite their claim that this is all the norm for the way the Church works. It has been fifty years. Another five hundred will not shed more light on this. Eventually the Catholic must ask themselves what they believe in. Do they really believe in the protection of the Holy Spirit to protect themselves? Or do they believe that each person must determine for themselves who is and is not the Pope, what is and is not doctrine and dogma? God forbid. Even the Protestant reliance on Sola Scriptura makes more sense than this. This fragmentation is never going to amount to more than a footnote in the history of the Church.

The concalve was there for all to see. All the Cardinals were in attendence. All things were done according to tradition. Yet we see some who want to reason all these matters for themselves because they did not like the results. A true modernist view

(condemned in the syllabus of errors)
  1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
Click to expand...
 
The concalve was there for all to see. All the Cardinals were in attendence. All things were done according to tradition. Yet we see some who want to reason all these matters for themselves because they did not like the results. A true modernist view
Click to expand...
But the dispute is not at all about this. The Catholic Church teaches that if a papal claimant teaches manifest heresy he is ipso facto deposed from office without any declaratory sentence needed.

I believe any Catholic familiar with Church teaching on this subject concedes this point. The debate almost entirely centers on whether the last five claimants have actually taught manifest heresy.

If they have, it’s your duty as a Catholic to become a sedevacantist, if they have not then it’s our duty as Catholics to renounce our errors and enter into the Church.

Sedevacantism is not per se necessarily wrong and is the position the Church tells us to hold when the seat is vacant.

So in the end, I think we should be analyzing whether these individuals actually taught manifest heresy rather than focusing on secondary issues which ultimately do not decide the truth or falsity of either position.

God bless
 
Perplexity said:
But the dispute is not at all about this. The Catholic Church teaches that if a papal claimant teaches manifest heresy he is ipso facto deposed from office without any declaratory sentence needed.

I believe any Catholic familiar with Church teaching on this subject concedes this point. The debate almost entirely centers on whether the last five claimants have actually taught manifest heresy.
Click to expand...
No, the do not. Not all familiar with this cede this point and it is a serious begging of the question to thing that theologians that do not agree must not be familiar enough. St. Bellarmine believed this possible, but not the way you put it. He adds the word “formal” and believes that such heresy must by open and manifest. For such a declaration to be made, it would take the leaders of the Church, the Cardinals or Bishops to delcare it so. Otherwise we all go the way of Luther and pick for ourselves the point at which the Church departs from the “true faith”.

The last thing we need is for each catholic to seek their own counsel and decide for himself when the Holy Father has committed heresy based on his own “expertise”. That is not what Catholicism is all about. It never has been and never will be. I am of the opinion that it never will be, as a matter of faith in the Holy Spirit, and all this is speculative. In any case, there has been no formal declaration of heresy by anyone in authority. So unless a sedevacatist wants to make up their own rules instead of trying to understand the mind of the Church, none of this is possible.
 
pnewton, rather than post lengthy quotations i’ll simply refer you to this page that contains about 14 quotes from canonists and theologians saying if a Pope commits the sin of manifest heresy he is deposed from office ipso facto without any declaratory sentence.

stjosephschurch.net/pope.htm

As for Bellarmine, the page above contains his quote on this question of “can a Pope be deposed”, which says:

"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. [De Romano Pontifice. II.30.]

The divine law behind all of these quotes is the same:
  1. That in order to be the head of the Church you must be a member of the Church.
  2. That, external profession of faith is a necessary requirement for that membership.
  3. That, manifest heresy contradicts this requirement,
  4. Therefore, manifest heretics cannot be members of the Church
  5. Therefore, manifest heretics cannot be the head of the Church.
If you believe that manifest heretics can be members of the Church, and can possess jurisdiction within and over the Church then I ask you to substantiate this because i’ve never heard of this. If that’s the case, then sedevacantism would fall apart as the most reasonable explanation for these events.

God bless
 
Seeing that there was no charism of guidance ot the Holy Spirit, what has that to do with anything? Also, the population of the world was not six billion.

Mal: The holy Augustinian nun, Ann Katherine Emmerich said about the Church that “she would seem to be in complete decline. But she would rise again; even if there remained but one Catholic, the Church would conquer again because she does not rest on human counsels and intelligence.” What is that if not proof , or are you calling her a liar? Or St. Athanasius in defiance of the Arian Heresy (which lasted 300 years) “Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to a handful, are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” The Catholic Church grew from 12 Apostles. Whether it be One as Ann Katherine Emmerich said or six billion as you say - that argument has no merit since GOD can do all things. The argument from numbers is false reasoning in theological circles.

" I can grasp the futility of labeling and name-calling. I am not a modernist, as defined in the proper sense of the word, or any sense other than a vague, nebulous boogeyman manner.

Mal: Nor am I accusing you personally. But you claim we are not in unity with the Church and I am pointing out the teachings of what you consider THE Magisterium. How much of it do you want. I have tons.

" You spend much of a post talking about denial of Satan. Again, when have I, or anyone here, denied the existence of Satan."

Mal: Once again - I pointed to the Chief Exorcist in Rome and HIS OPINION. Does your opinion in such matters carry more weight than his? If you are going to level a charge about unity and our defecttion from same - then we have to examine what that unity entails do we not? Likewise you made the statement that the Days of Anti Popes is over. Feel free to back up that claim in apologetics. Which Church Council , Pope , Saint , Doctor of the Church made that claim? The difference between you and I lies in the ability to substantiate. My suggestion is for you to do so.

" I think this false picture that sedevacantist draw of the faithful of the Catholic Church is part of what contributes to their willingness to seek the bizzare and extreme."

Mal: And I think the ostrich with the head in the sand approach by people like you likewise is a bizarre departure from reality. And tell me , what is so extreme about the Latin Mass. the Rosary - the Code of Canon Law in 1917 and the Baltimore Catechism? In fact I challenge you to come up with one thing that takes place in a Catholic Church which rejects the modern “changes” brought in by the likes of Yves Conger , Hans Kung and Hans Urs Von Balthasar which is a departure from TRADITION or DOGMA.

" Reality is too boring for some folks and doesn’t leave them feeling special enough."

Mal: Funny , we arent the ones with Clown masses Guitars and Buddah on the Altar. Perhaps this is your answer for being bored at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass where Jesus offers his Body and Blood for the Propitiation of Sin? Send in the clowns? Thats your answer?

If not, then why do they constantly trot out the strawman argument.

Mal: You are the one trotting out the Strawman arguments one after the other. Whether it be from ignorance or pride your inability to substantiatte is the tell tale clue. But remember this - The TRUTH stands on ITS own merit. We have 2000 Years of unchangeable truth protected by the HOLY GHOST in the Deposit of Faith regardless of who claims to hold the office of POPE. The Gates of Hell do not prevail and the Worship Of GOD can only be changed by GOD. No POPE can change a DOGMA. No POPE can CHANGE a Sacrament in form Matter or Intent because the LORD Instituted the SACRAMENTS not the Apostles. You are the ones that CHANGED not us. And because you have - if the unity is broken then look in the mirror.

Pax
 
"No, the do not. Not all familiar with this cede this point and it is a serious begging of the question to thing that theologians that do not agree must not be familiar enough. St. Bellarmine believed this possible, but not the way you put it. He adds the word “formal” and believes that such heresy must by open and manifest. For such a declaration to be made, it would take the leaders of the Church, the Cardinals or Bishops to delcare it so. Otherwise we all go the way of Luther and pick for ourselves the point at which the Church departs from the “true faith”.

Mal: Thats not true Luther left the Sacraments invented his own and rewrote Scripture. In other words - CHANGED. The TRUE Faith lies not only in belief but practise. These ACTS of Luther are ACTS of Manifest Heresy and in and of themselves are sufficient to ipso facto separate him whether the Church officially excommunicated him or not. Secondly - sedevacantists have not DECLARED anything. Thats incorrect. Their position is in response to ACTS of Manifest Heresy a distinction seemingly lost on you.

"The last thing we need is for each catholic to seek their own counsel and decide for himself when the Holy Father has committed heresy based on his own “expertise”. That is not what Catholicism is all about. It never has been and never will be. I am of the opinion that it never will be, as a matter of faith in the Holy Spirit, and all this is speculative. In any case, there has been no formal declaration of heresy by anyone in authority. So unless a sedevacatist wants to make up their own rules instead of trying to understand the mind of the Church, none of this is possible. "

Mal Also not true . Denzinger 1105: Pope Alexander VII condemned the statement that one is not obliged to denounce to the authorities someone whom one knows to be certainly a heretic if one does not have strict proof that he is a heretic. This condemnation directly implies that private individuals can sometimes know that someone is a heretic before the authorities of the Church realise this, and even without having strict proof.

St Alphonsus Liguori treats the duty of denouncing heretics even among the members of one’s own family. He declares that this duty obliges without exception, but only when the miscreant is truly and formally a heretic and not only suspected or erring in good faith. This distinction, presented in a clear and detailed manner, would be perfectly otiose if individuals were unable to recognise heretics before the authorities had intervened. So St Alphonsus clearly presumes that individuals can at times distinguish suspicion of heresy from certainty and can recognise the presence or absence of pertinacity. (Theologia Moralis, lib. 5, n. 250)

Canon 1325 gives the classic definition of the word “heretic”, taken from St Thomas: “a baptised person who, while continuing to call himself a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.” Canonists are agreed that the pertinacity in question consists in knowing that the doctrine one denies (or doubts) is taught by the Church as revealed. No other condition, such as authoritative judgment is required to make someone a heretic.

Canon 2314 declares that all heretics incur latae sententiae excommunication. Some other penalties incurred by heretics must be specifically inflicted by the authorities, and only after a warning has proved fruitless, but the excommunication itself is automatically incurred from the very instant that the heresy is externally expressed.

Canon 188/4 declares that if a cleric should publicly fall away from the Catholic faith, all his offices would become vacant ipso facto and without need of official declaration. Canonists agree that this falling away is verified by public heresy as defined in Canon 1325: there is no need to join any particular sect, but only to reject what one knows the Church teaches. Now this canon would be deprived of any meaning or value if no one could recognise the presence of heresy before an official judgment. How could an office become automatically vacant by the very fact of heresy, and without any declaration, if in fact a formal trial and a declaration were necessary to know that anyone was a heretic? What would be the point of advising us of this effect of heresy if no one could ever take account of it in any concrete case?

. (From right to Judge Thesis)
.
 
pnewton said:
Does the existence of the Old Catholic Church argue for the heretical nature of Vatican I? I have never heard such a thing except among those of that sect. A century has passed and they are still convinced they were right.
Click to expand...
Like all schismatic or heretical groups, the Old Catholic sect is stuck with denying a solemnly defined dogma. Their course of innovation over the last century betrays a Protestant sensibility that is absent in sedevacantism. What dogma or doctrine, I wonder, do you accuse sedevacantists of denying?

The sedevacantist position is not anti-papal, it is actually incredibly pro-papal and holds the office to the highest standard: that the Vicar of Christ must speak with the voice of his master, and steward the faith and keep it inviolate—not innovate it. Likewise he must not sever himself from the Mystical Body through heresy, else he cannot be the leader of that which he is not a member.
pnewton said:
This secevacantism claim is truly unprecedented, despite their claim that this is all the norm for the way the Church works.
Click to expand...
Sedevacantists don’t claim that the Church normally works this way. Their claim is that their position is the recommended norm for how the Church works in the extraordinary case of an apostate pope (and bishops in league with him). Sedevacantists accept pretty much what you or any Church historian accepts as the “norm” for the how the Church worked prior to Vatican II, both in times of relative placidity and in periods of great crisis. Even those recognizing an antipope during the Avignon schism probably wouldn’t’ve blithely assumed “everything’s under control here. Situation normal.”
pnewton said:
Eventually the Catholic must ask themselves what they believe in. Do they really believe in the protection of the Holy Spirit to protect themselves? Or do they believe that each person must determine for themselves who is and is not the Pope, what is and is not doctrine and dogma? God forbid.
Click to expand...
Again, this is a misrepresentation of the sedevacantist perspective. Sedevacantism does not state that is the common practice for the Christian to decide “what is and is not doctrine and dogma.” That authority belongs to the Magisterium and this is not in dispute.
pnewton said:
This fragmentation is never going to amount to more than a footnote in the history of the Church.
Click to expand...
There’s always the possibility that history is nearing its conclusion. Unless you somehow know “the day or the hour which nobody knows except the Father alone,” your prediction of the future remains your own speculation. Sedevacantists might just as well liken their poverty in numbers to the humble mustard seed: “it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the biggest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air can come and shelter in its branches.” Given the swiftness of the destruction following Vatican II, Seneca’s proverb comes to mind: “in a moment the ashes are made, but the forest is a long time growing.”
 
pnewton said:
The last thing we need is for each catholic to seek their own counsel and decide for himself when the Holy Father has committed heresy based on his own “expertise”.
Click to expand...
First of all, it was originally clergymen who undertook the sedevacantist endeavor; it was not a bunch of laymen arriving at the same conclusion independently. The theological, canonical, and doctrinal homework was more or less done in the 1970s and 1980s by serious scholars and prelates (foremost among them probably being Bp. Guérard des Lauriers, who had even been Confessor to Pope Pius XII).

Secondly, the Christian does have, “by virtue of his title to the name Christian, not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them.” Surely no one’s suggesting that the laity are helpless to discern between truth and error?

The Ecclesial office is not above the faith itself. A certain problem is presented when many in the hierarchy—including the pope—appear to deviate from tradition and endorse heresy. Now perhaps they have not, but the appearance is there (even non-sedevacantists such as the SSPX agree), and the layperson ought not to be mocked as a Protestant if he agrees in good conscience with the sedevacantist hypothesis (which is not just his own independent musing). For the lay sedevacantist, the position is often taken up as an honest response to a scandal and a crisis that few of us would deny has transpired.
pnewton said:
So unless a sedevacatist wants to make up their own rules instead of trying to understand the mind of the Church, none of this is possible.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, many have tried to “understand the mind of the (post-conciliar) Church." But this proves to be an impossible task when one is endlessly confronted with ever more ambiguity and double-speak. “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
 
If “the whole Church” is defined as 100.0000%, then, not they are not. However, I do not think that has ever happened. Does the existence of the Old Catholic Church argue for the heretical nature of Vatican I? I have never heard such a thing except among those of that sect. A century has passed and they are still convinced they were right.

Mal: Thats a Red Herring. The Old Catholic Sect denies the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. They are Heretics. Attempting to identify Catholics who take a stand theologically with a Heretical Sect is disengenuous.

So, how many sedevacantist are there.

Mal: Once again , irrelevant as described earlier by several people on here. That argument is already defeated.

When the SSPV split from the SSPX there were nine. This secevacantism claim is truly unprecedented, despite their claim that this is all the norm for the way the Church works. It has been fifty years. Another five hundred will not shed more light on this.

Mal: Thats what Saul thought on his way to Damascus where he planned to capture large numbers of those dirty Christians. Right up until he was knocked off his high horse. Likewise in fallicies it is considered a hasty generalization or appeal to belief.

" Eventually the Catholic must ask themselves what they believe in. Do they really believe in the protection of the Holy Spirit to protect themselves? Or do they believe that each person must determine for themselves who is and is not the Pope, what is and is not doctrine and dogma? "

Mal: That may be true if the Church were ten years old with nothing to use as guidance and no Mass No Saints No theology No Apologetics no Bishops or Priests and the Holy Ghost was nowhere to be found. All scenarios implausible IMO. The TRUTH doesnt change. The same Truth in TRADITION in the Deposit of Faith that is believed in 100 AD 1000 AD 1500 AD is likewise TRUE in 2010. If you want to make that argument then make it. What Doctrine have we departed from? What Dogma? In fact - the stand we take is because of dogma. Without the dogma of Papal Infalliblity - sedevacantism is implausible. We all agree that a TRUE POPE cannot deviate in matters of Faith and Morals. When a claimant does - the grounds are there for the stand. And the Stand is taken for UNITY and can only be taken for unity. If taken for autonomy then it is schism as defined. If the Holy Ghost is not protecting the Church then why do we exist.

" God forbid. Even the Protestant reliance on Sola Scriptura makes more sense than this. This fragmentation is never going to amount to more than a footnote in the history of the Church. "

Mal : Red Herring. Comparing Heretics to Catholics who take a theological position is disengenuous. As to the second part - that is merely your opinion. Unles you claim to have the ability to prophesie.

The concalve was there for all to see. All the Cardinals were in attendence. All things were done according to tradition.

Mal : And Archbishop Lefebvre refused to go along. And the last time I read the documents - I failed to locate the “anathemas” . Can you direct me to them?

Yet we see some who want to reason all these matters for themselves because they did not like the results. A true modernist view

Mal: Well you are the ones who changed Catholic Scripture for an Interdenominational Version and the Tridentine Latin Mass for a Service designed with the assistance of a free mason and three Lutherans in addition to modern catholics in the “Spirit” of Ecumenism. That my friend is modernism
 
Malleus_01 said:
Mal: Thats a Red Herring. The Old Catholic Sect denies the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. They are Heretics. Attempting to identify Catholics who take a stand theologically with a Heretical Sect is disengenuous.
Click to expand...
Just one note. The Old Catholic Church do in fact deny this is a dogma. In fairness to them, it was at Vatican I that this dogma was defined, resulting in the split. Therein is the comparison with sedevacantist. The both split at a council, claiming it was the Catholic Church that is in schism from them, not the other way around.

Yes, numbers do matter to me. There are tens of thousands different denominations and sects all of whom claim themselves as true. As I can not examine the claims of all, I have to have use some method of disregarding some of the more pedestrian claims. Therefore, as I have faith in the Holy Spirit to guide His Church in all Truth, it is reasonable to trust that the most obvious answer is true (Occam’s Razor: Ecclesial Use), lest I have a merciful God who is trying to trick everyone into Hell.
 
Malleus 01

Thank you for your thorough answer. It was very well put, and I do understand what you have written.

God bless you.

God Bless You Lorimar - and I must take leave for today But I’ll leave you all with this to ponder.

The Modernist Chapels Use the NAB Scriptures which says in the Preface.

The New American Bible has accomplished this in response to the need of the church in America today. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work. The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that “correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books,” but that, “with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers” so that “all Christians may be able to use them.”

So Catholic Scripture is now determined by Protestants ? Then we turn to Genesis 3:15
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

But in the Douay Rheims English Translation of the Latin Vulgate which was defined as FREE FROM ERROR at the Council of Trent (Infallible) the Same Passage

GEN 3:15. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

So why is this important?

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854.
The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind – words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed”[13] – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot

Now we know that this is defined as DOGMA thus guided by the Holy Ghost so perhaps PNewton would like to explain how all these false Protestant Scripture found their way into Catholic Churches if not by Heretics? We are to keep the Faith whole and undefiled not pick and choose what we like and ont like.

God Bless you Lorimar
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top