Question For Sedevacantists

[Chris_Jackson_1]

With all due respect, many have tried to “understand the mind of the (post-conciliar) Church,” but this is an impossible task when one is endlessly confronted with ever more ambiguity and double-speak. “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

I think that since the advent of the mass media/ TV in the 60’s and even moreso now with the 24/7 news cycle and a growingly hostile media, the Popes and Vatican offices have had to parse their words carefully. Otherwise they run the risk of the media going wild with the slightest ill phrased statement. Just look at what happened with the PR crisis over Bishop Williamson. Even false perceptions can run amok and override the truth in many people’s minds even when the Vatican did not necessarily misspeak in that case.

So, in the modern media environment, discretion in what is said is necessary so as to avoid unnecessarily bogging down the Church in constantly trying to correct the media.

I also think some of the “ambiguity” you sense, comes from the difference in styles/ philosophical bent of a JPII/ BXVI compared to Pius XII and his predecessors. Pope Pius X and company, I believe, were Thomists (correct me if I’m wrong) and had a very scholastic, definitive approach. JPII and BXVI, I believe, have different philosophical bents. All of these are compatible with Catholic orthodoxy, though other philosophical systems are not always as precise and scholastic as Thomism.

I think a lot of Traditionalists (not all) misunderstand the current problems in the Church. If I remember correctly, all Christian denominations lost membership during the 1960’s. A general rebellion against authority and institutions abounded. I think Vatican II was inspired by the Holy Spirit to prepare the Church for this storm. I think the reforms were meant to be a “bend don’t break” preparation for the cultural hurricane. True, there was much innovation that went beyond what Rome allowed. However, the true reforms authorized by Rome were meant to keep sound doctrine while “bending” in the disciplinary matters.

An even more authoritarian, condemnatory Church existing through the 1960’s and beyond, I believe, would have “broken” and eventually bled members even faster and also would have slowly become more and more irrelevant, looked upon by the majority of the population/ media/ world as a decaying medieval relic of the past. I think this is why the Holy Spirit worked through Vatican II. Just my theory/ two cents.

I feel for the sedevacantists, but I think their basic assumptions are flawed. The Church is still the Church and the Pope is still the Pope. The exterior disciplines and the phraseology/ language that truths are expressed have simply “bent” with the times in order to meet man where he is and stay an effective instrument for their salvation.

 

[Lormar]

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."

That, dear Yggs, is the truth.

 

[Merrin]

What dogma or doctrine, I wonder, do you accuse sedevacantists of denying?

They deny the authority of the last 4 or 5 validly ordained Roman Pontiffs, and all the things that pyramid down from that authority, such as: Vatican II, valid ordination of bishops and priests, valid Sacraments, the New Mass, etc.

In short, they reject papal authority, which is an age-old doctrine and dogma of the Church. The First Vatican Council declares anathema on those that hold such positions.

If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.

pacem

 

[EnchantedEve]

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.

That is true regarding Unam Sanctam, but to play devil’s advocate, one need only be in Communion with the Roman See, not the pope personally. When the pope dies, the communion of the Church does not die, for we continue to adhere to the See of St. Peter, regardless of whether St. Peter’s throne is occupied or not. Even if the papal throne were to remain indefinitely empty, it would have little consequence on the Church or our salvation. St. Robert Bellarmine discussed this very issue.

 

[EnchantedEve]

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?

Yes, this leads to home-alonism, with the likes of Patrick Henry Omlor. They are our modern Bopovotsky, Russian for “those without priests,” Old Believers of the Russian Church who lost all sacraments accept marriage and baptism since they did not accept the reforms of the Patriarch Nikon in 1666.

However, it must again be pointed out that widespread acceptance of the Pope only technically gives papal respect, but not the plenipotent power of the papacy. For that, he must have the grace and communion of the Holy Ghost by confessing the true Faith. This is called the Cassiacum thesis. This idea is extremely technical, and holds that the current pope is indeed the true Pope but in name only, since he lost authority by being a heretic. However, since no man may judge the Roman See, this cannot be dealt with except by a future Pope. In the mean time, we may accept him as Holy Father until a future Pope calls him out on his heresies, and we should just ignore his teachings. Followers of this line of thought are called sedeprivationists. There is historical precedent for the idea, but it has never occured for this length of time or before so many faithful.

The main argument I have against Sedevacantism is it is too complicated a concept, highly legalistic and theologically technical. The majority of the faithful, even if devout, would never have the time, the interest, or the tools to have knowledge and judgement over whether or not to accept a Holy Father and his teachings. This matter is for theologians. To say that our eternal salvation, and Our Faith, can be effected by sacramental unity with a man we may or may not mistakenly hold as Pope, and that this defines our Faith, is ridiculous. While we must indeed be in union with Rome to be saved, this is secondary to other aspects of the Faith. One cannot reject Christ and adhere to the Sovereign Pontiff and be saved. If a devout Catholic believes a man to be pope, falsely, and adheres to him with consideration due to a Sovereign Pontiff,and otherwise follows the Faith, than I do not believe this man’s soul is in danger, contrary to what some sedevacantists would insist. The Faith was for saving the simple sinner, and complex theological points I do not believe will result in the eclipse of the Church.

 

[EnchantedEve]

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.
.

This is an error, the charism of the Holy Ghost has always been in the world, the Church has often pointed to signs of it even in the Old Testament.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I think a lot of Traditionalists (not all) misunderstand the current problems in the Church. If I remember correctly, all Christian denominations lost membership during the 1960’s. A general rebellion against authority and institutions abounded. I think Vatican II was inspired by the Holy Spirit to prepare the Church for this storm. I think the reforms were meant to be a “bend don’t break” preparation for the cultural hurricane. True, there was much innovation that went beyond what Rome allowed. However, the true reforms authorized by Rome were meant to keep sound doctrine while “bending” in the disciplinary matters.

An even more authoritarian, condemnatory Church existing through the 1960’s and beyond, I believe, would have “broken” and eventually bled members even faster and also would have slowly become more and more irrelevant, looked upon by the majority of the population/ media/ world as a decaying medieval relic of the past. I think this is why the Holy Spirit worked through Vatican II. Just my theory/ two cents.

I feel for the sedevacantists, but I think their basic assumptions are flawed. The Church is still the Church and the Pope is still the Pope. The exterior disciplines and the phraseology/ language that truths are expressed have simply “bent” with the times in order to meet man where he is and stay an effective instrument for their salvation.

While I agree with your train of thought on differing philosophies, I disagree on the balance of this post. There is not way you could assume the Church of Christ would “break” had it held further, since this was the manner in which it had addressed most issues in the previous 500 years and the Church did nothing but grow and expand. To assume that the 1960’s was a unique period of history is not only to overlook numerous heresies that loomed large in the past, but also the French Revolution, the revolutions of 1848, and the Bolshevik revolution. None of these broke the Church, and the 1960’s would have been no exception. The exception was how the Church handled the matter, and yes, this time it lost rather than gained members. Every group can tend to overstate their case, and sedevacantists are no exception. This is not to state, however, that they are not aware of the nature of the situation.

The Faith is perennial, always and everywhere relevant and True. It need not adjust for it to be ever fresh and current.

 

[EnchantedEve]

They deny the authority of the last 4 or 5 validly ordained Roman Pontiffs, and all the things that pyramid down from that authority, such as: Vatican II, valid ordination of bishops and priests, valid Sacraments, the New Mass, etc.

In short, they reject papal authority, which is an age-old doctrine and dogma of the Church. The First Vatican Council declares anathema on those that hold such positions.

If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.

pacem

If this is your true belief, you do not understand sedevacantism.

 

[Merrin]

If this is your true belief, you do not understand sedevacantism.

Thanks for that explanation.

“Sedevacantists believe that Paul VI (1963–1978), John Paul I (1978), John Paul II (1978–2005) and Benedict XVI (since 2005) have been neither true Catholics nor true Popes, by virtue of allegedly having espoused the heresy of Modernism, or of having otherwise denied or contradicted solemnly defined Catholic dogmas. Some of them classify John XXIII (1958–1963) also as a Modernist antipope.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism

So, what did I say that’s any different than the above definition and link? What don’t I understand?

Nevermind. I think I’ll just quit while I’m behind, and let you and the rest of the experts continue.

peace and blessings to you

 

[pnewton]

This is an error, the charism of the Holy Ghost has always been in the world, the Church has often pointed to signs of it even in the Old Testament.

I’m not going to go back and forth on this, but will say one time that I do not agree with you on this. I will not be so blatant as to say “this is an error”, but just say that the Church does operate under a unique charism that was not evident earlier. If this is not true, then Pentecost is meaningless. If I am in error, then the words of Christ are redundant and meaningless.

But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation: sin, because they do not believe in me; righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.
"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

Yes, we have the presence of the working of the Holy Spirite since the time of creation. No, it is not the same. Something changes, making comparisons of previous “remnants” at the very least, questionable, if not downright useless. And that is the only point pertinent to sedevacantists and their reasoning I make.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<< Yes, this leads to home-alonism, with the likes of Patrick Henry Omlor. They are our modern Bopovotsky, Russian for “those without priests,” Old Believers of the Russian Church who lost all sacraments accept marriage and baptism since they did not accept the reforms of the Patriarch Nikon in 1666. >>>>

Mal: Well Eve , I think l that depends on your faith. Certainly recieving the Sacraments is no longer as “convenient” as it once was - however - there are certainly options. I know of a family whose father is not only sedevacantist but a respected apologist in Austrailia they have ten children and the only Church with Sacraments they are comfortable with are in SSPX. There are groups down there who are home - aloners who condemn them for attending an “Una Cum” Mass. What alternative do they have? They arent comfortable with the Novus Ordo Missae so they attend SSPX. You simply do what you have to do to serve GOD it isnt as difficult as many are led to believe.

<<<However, it must again be pointed out that widespread acceptance of the Pope only technically gives papal respect, but not the plenipotent power of the papacy. For that, he must have the grace and communion of the Holy Ghost by confessing the true Faith. This is called the Cassiacum thesis. This idea is extremely technical, and holds that the current pope is indeed the true Pope but in name only, since he lost authority by being a heretic. However, since no man may judge the Roman See, this cannot be dealt with except by a future Pope. In the mean time, we may accept him as Holy Father until a future Pope calls him out on his heresies, and we should just ignore his teachings. Followers of this line of thought are called sedeprivationists. There is historical precedent for the idea, but it has never occured for this length of time or before so many faithful.

Mal: Yes thats a plausible position as well - and quite possibly viable for many catholics. I have read about it.

The main argument I have against Sedevacantism is it is too complicated a concept, highly legalistic and theologically technical. The majority of the faithful, even if devout, would never have the time, the interest, or the tools to have knowledge and judgement over whether or not to accept a Holy Father and his teachings.

Mal: The same can be said of Vatican II. Take for example the Vatican Council I. canons regarding revelation :

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him : let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that a human being cannot be divinely elevated to a knowledge and perfection which exceeds the natural, but of himself can and must reach finally the possession of all truth and goodness by continual development: let him be anathema.
4. If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema.

Now compare that to Dignaitis Humanae or Lumen Gentium and then say that the majority of the faithful is any less confused by what is being taught or defined. Vatican Council II has led to disunity in that it spawned the cafeteria mentality. I find it ironic that many groups who consider themselves “loyal” to the Pope and united with billions of other catholics and live their lives under that false assumption come to find out with travel and a little prayer and study that many of the so called “Catholic” groups They count among their number hold heretical views. That isnt unity. Like the Nun Who has escorted women to an abortion clinic. She is loyal to the Pope. Or Mahony. He is a Cardinal “loyal” to the Pope. Unity lies in fidelity to the laws of GOD first and foremost which of course the Lord provided the Sacrament of Holy Orders to provide the faithful

This matter is for theologians. To say that our eternal salvation, and Our Faith, can be effected by sacramental unity with a man we may or may not mistakenly hold as Pope, and that this defines our Faith, is ridiculous.

Mal : Certainly some “sedvacantist” groups (If thats what you wish to label them) hold to this belief. But let us not paint all with the broad brush. Because not all do. I certainly do not hold to this belief , or I would not be here. In fact - My bishop once told me that many Catholics hold their faith here (pointing to his chest) which I of course found to be very profound.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<< While we must indeed be in union with Rome to be saved, this is secondary to other aspects of the Faith. One cannot reject Christ and adhere to the Sovereign Pontiff and be saved. If a devout Catholic believes a man to be pope, falsely, and adheres to him with consideration due to a Sovereign Pontiff,and otherwise follows the Faith, than I do not believe this man’s soul is in danger, >>>>>

Mal: Precisely and very well put.And indeed intent is everything. Certainly if a group clings to sedevacantism with dreams of autonomy or self governance or desire for eccessiastic authority and not catholic restoration to orthodoxy - then IMO they should be condemned for doing so.

<<<< contrary to what some sedevacantists would insist. The Faith was for saving the simple sinner, and complex theological points I do not believe will result in the eclipse of the Church. >>>>>

Mal: Most of the parishioners who now attend the Tridentine Latin Mass in sedevacantist chapels tried to go along with the changes brought in after Vatican II. I know in my hometown of San Diego - The Church I grew up with has been replaced by a monstrosity. So we can debate the theologiocal aspects of Vatican II until we are blue in the face and we will be left with the same thing. I worship and believe the same things the same way I did when I served at Holy Mass from 1963 to 1968. Then out went the Mass. Today I have it back. I think its Vatican II that fits that description moreso than sedevacantism which was merely a response to the complex theological points of Vatican II Misunderstoood throughout the entire Church.

 

[Malleus_01]

I had a mind to answer regarding the statements regarding the "Rejection of the Last 4 or 5 Popes " But after reading what Yggs and Eve have said - I really have little of value to add to their thought out responses.

I will weigh in on the “Spirit of the 60’s was the Culprit” angle I have read a time or two. As Eve stated - the seeds of rebellion lie not in a single decade but rather in an entire collision of philosophic thought as adressed by many a Pope. The rise of free masonry and the tenets of personal liberty - fraternity and equality are not Catholic tenets. Are we to say the French Revolution had no ramifications for the faith? Secondly - Hegelian Philosophy. This modernist revolutionary philosophy was likewise not spawned by Catholic philosophers but its tenets are diametrically opposed. If you want to know why Vatican II occured and the aftermath of Vatican II - I would suggest you begin there not in the 1960’s which was the fruition.

And finally as to the charge that sedevacantists somehow "violate " Vatican II - (And if I heard it right dogmas???) that is a hollow unsubstantiated argument that should either be expounded on or withdrawn. You are of course free to make the charge provided you can provide proof for your argument which has heretofore not been supplied.

Pax

 

[Lormar]

Malleus 01

I never knew that about the new translation of the Bible - not that I use it since I think the language is too watered down and it lacks oomph. Since when does Holy Mother Church consult with the very same people who mutilated the Bible to update it?

 

[Malleus_01]

Re: Question For Sedevacantists

Malleus 01

I never knew that about the new translation of the Bible - not that I use it since I think the language is too watered down and it lacks oomph. Since when does Holy Mother Church consult with the very same people who mutilated the Bible to update it?

Lormar - I used to debate an Anglican who used the New Revised Standard blah blah blah whatever it was and he used to quote me the deviations from the Masoretic Text Hebrew to the Latin Vulgate - but then St Jerome understood that it is spoken Hebrew (Vocalizattions can change the meaning of tthe word in Hebrew) that was always used for exegesis. St Jerome was for all intents and purposes ordered by Pope Damasus not only to correctly translate the Scriptures into the Latin Vulgate but in an ordered manner. St Jerome was an expert linguist in Spoken Hebrew - Greek - Aramaic - as well as Latin. St Jerome in addition had texts at his disposal that deteriorated and no longer exist today. In 380 AD St Jerome was only 347 years removed from the resurrection and the Church had spent the first 100 years or so growing rather than consolidating its writings all without the benefit of the New Testament under one cover. The Masoretic Text didnt exist until some 400 to 500 years later and was the product of talmudic jews hostile to christianity. In fact - the Talmudic Jews rejected the Greek Septuagint itself. The Protestants derive their false translations from these faulty sources , not to mention the abscence of the Holy Ghost . So yes - all in all - anyone who listens to a “Protestant theologian” who all operate on Faulty Editions of the Word of GOD without exception and accept their exegesis over and above the Latin Vulgate of St Jerome which was guaranteed free from doctrinal error by the Council of Trent (Thus the Holy Ghost) then I fail to see how they can in good conscience insist on strict adherance to Vatican II I’ll stop back by later and see if any of the supporters of Vatican II and the changes (In this case scripture) can answer my question regarding Genesis 3:15.

< Oh and if some may wonder about the New Jerusalem - Gen 3 :15 I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; it will bruise your head and you will strike its heel.’ >

Its Preface : "Any commentary on the Bible which is “independent” of this belief cannot be called a Christian commentary, nor can it be wholly acceptable to any Christian. The largely arbitrary critical speculations included in this version, useful as they may be for students who must interact with modern critical scholarship, are likely to have a bad spiritual effect on laymen. This is a Bible suitable only for students who are well established in the faith and capable of using it with discretion. "

This version is in use predominately outside the US.

Attributed to Vatican II. Protestant Scripture and Secular Scripture.

 

[pnewton]

The Protestants derive their false translations from these faulty sources , not to mention the abscence of the Holy Ghost . So yes - all in all - anyone who listens to a “Protestant theologian” who all operate on Faulty Editions of the Word of GOD without exception…

A Catholic version of KJV-onlyism. I didn’t know this type of thinking existed in a Catholic version.

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus both date to the early fourth century (330 or so). The was translated fifty years later. The oldest copy we have is from the eighth century.

The history of the translation of the Bible is more complex than most people realize and it hardly boils down to, “Old good, new bad.” For example, when the Council of Trent adopted part of the Vulgate as the official text, it omitted part of St. Jerome’s original work, like Esdras. I do not think anyone accused them of modernism for the action. Yes, they operated under the charism of the Holy Spirit and did what they did best at the time for the Church, just like the Catholic Church bishops did at that other ecumenical council, Vatican II. Sauce for the goose will always be sauce for the gander.

In other words, choosing a text is an act of discipline, not dogma, as seen by the willingness of the council to trim down the Vulgate.

On more thing. St. Jerome had to get some help on his Aramaic. He was brilliant, and possibly the greatest linguist ever. Perhaps even his own high standards lead him to seek help in his area of greatest weakness. But he was yet one man.

 

[Malleus_01]

pnewton Re: Question For Sedevacantists

A Catholic version of KJV-onlyism. I didn’t know this type of thinking existed in a Catholic version.

Mal: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has teeth or so it would seem.

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus both date to the early fourth century (330 or so). The was translated fifty years later. The oldest copy we have is from the eighth century.

Mal: And the wonderful thing about Catholicism is Divine TRADITION to go along with it so that we can rely on the Teachings of the Saints - the Magisterium approved dissertations on Scripture from that time period and before from Ambrose , Augustine , Chrysostom , et al not to mention the Church Councils. What we find is relatively little controversy in theological circles regarding Scriptural Exegesis until the Protestant revolt. So coupled with the oldest existing manuscripts does the revelatiion of GOD’s word come - protected of course by the Holy Ghost.

" The history of the translation of the Bible is more complex than most people realize and it hardly boils down to, “Old good, new bad.” For example, when the Council of Trent adopted part of the Vulgate as the official text, it omitted part of St. Jerome’s original work, like Esdras. "

Mal: Agreed - It doesnt boil down to “Old Good New Bad” it boils down to EXPERT SAINT Pulled out of Monestary by POPE who is likewise SAINT to compile Scriptures under one cover and Monks painstakingly copying by hand word for word those same scriptures to preserve them for century after century until the advent of the Printing press with nary a controversy for 1200 years. as for the Esdras Fragment you mention perhaps you have forgotten it was included in the Vulgate, but as an appendix after the New Testament.

I do not think anyone accused them of modernism for the action. Yes, they operated under the charism of the Holy Spirit and did what they did best at the time for the Church,

Why would they - the Content of the New Testament didnt Change. Now as to your statement "Yes, they operated under the charism of the Holy Spirit " Do you fully understand what this means? You do realize that the Holy Ghost is GOD , correct? So then to say ( AND DID WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE CHURCH AT THAT TIME ) Denies the Charism of the Holy Ghost does it not? Do you think GOD can err or not see future events and take them into consideration?

<<<< just like the Catholic Church bishops did at that other ecumenical council, Vatican II. Sauce for the goose will always be sauce for the gander. >>>>

Except for the following from the Council of Trent : And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

In other words, choosing a text is an act of discipline, not dogma, as seen by the willingness of the council to trim down the Vulgate.

Mal: The Old and New Testaments were not “trimmed down” only some appendixes and the Council of TRENT under penalty of anathema defined what must be believed.

On more thing. St. Jerome had to get some help on his Aramaic.

Mal: Agreed - Isnt GOD great. Saul was given “help” as well and look at all the books from St Paul we have today as a result. And then the Council of Trent has protected them for all time in the Deposit of Faith never to be altered and never to be changed .

He was brilliant, and possibly the greatest linguist ever.

Mal: And GOD is greater.

Perhaps even his own high standards lead him to seek help in his area of greatest weakness.

Mal: Oh ye of little faith.

But he was yet one man

Mal : And through him the Word of GOD was brought under one cover under the Direction and Lawful Authority of the Vicar of Christ and Magisterium. Or should we put more stock in what Protestants and Secularists have to say on the matter 1500 to 2000 years later?.

 

[pnewton]

Or should we put more stock in what Protestants and Secularists have to say on the matter 1500 to 2000 years later?.

I sure wouldn’t. Rather I prefer to turn to Rome and he who walks in the Shoes of Peter, and thus we come full circle.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I’m not going to go back and forth on this, but will say one time that I do not agree with you on this. I will not be so blatant as to say “this is an error”, but just say that the Church does operate under a unique charism that was not evident earlier. If this is not true, then Pentecost is meaningless. If I am in error, then the words of Christ are redundant and meaningless.
Yes, we have the presence of the working of the Holy Spirite since the time of creation. No, it is not the same. Something changes, making comparisons of previous “remnants” at the very least, questionable, if not downright useless. And that is the only point pertinent to sedevacantists and their reasoning I make.

Well, why didn’t you say so! It appeared you were saying the Holy Ghost was inoperative prior to Pentecost, so yes, it was certainly not present in the same way before that time. Thanks for the clarity!

 

[EnchantedEve]

<<< Yes, this leads to home-alonism, with the likes of Patrick Henry Omlor. They are our modern Bopovotsky, Russian for “those without priests,” Old Believers of the Russian Church who lost all sacraments accept marriage and baptism since they did not accept the reforms of the Patriarch Nikon in 1666. >>>>

Mal: Well Eve , I think l that depends on your faith. Certainly recieving the Sacraments is no longer as “convenient” as it once was - however - there are certainly options. I know of a family whose father is not only sedevacantist but a respected apologist in Austrailia they have ten children and the only Church with Sacraments they are comfortable with are in SSPX. There are groups down there who are home - aloners who condemn them for attending an “Una Cum” Mass. What alternative do they have? They arent comfortable with the Novus Ordo Missae so they attend SSPX. You simply do what you have to do to serve GOD it isnt as difficult as many are led to believe.

<<<However, it must again be pointed out that widespread acceptance of the Pope only technically gives papal respect, but not the plenipotent power of the papacy. For that, he must have the grace and communion of the Holy Ghost by confessing the true Faith. This is called the Cassiacum thesis. This idea is extremely technical, and holds that the current pope is indeed the true Pope but in name only, since he lost authority by being a heretic. However, since no man may judge the Roman See, this cannot be dealt with except by a future Pope. In the mean time, we may accept him as Holy Father until a future Pope calls him out on his heresies, and we should just ignore his teachings. Followers of this line of thought are called sedeprivationists. There is historical precedent for the idea, but it has never occured for this length of time or before so many faithful.

Mal: Yes thats a plausible position as well - and quite possibly viable for many catholics. I have read about it.

The main argument I have against Sedevacantism is it is too complicated a concept, highly legalistic and theologically technical. The majority of the faithful, even if devout, would never have the time, the interest, or the tools to have knowledge and judgement over whether or not to accept a Holy Father and his teachings.

Mal: The same can be said of Vatican II. Take for example the Vatican Council I. canons regarding revelation :

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him : let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that a human being cannot be divinely elevated to a knowledge and perfection which exceeds the natural, but of himself can and must reach finally the possession of all truth and goodness by continual development: let him be anathema.
4. If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema.

Now compare that to Dignaitis Humanae or Lumen Gentium and then say that the majority of the faithful is any less confused by what is being taught or defined. Vatican Council II has led to disunity in that it spawned the cafeteria mentality. I find it ironic that many groups who consider themselves “loyal” to the Pope and united with billions of other catholics and live their lives under that false assumption come to find out with travel and a little prayer and study that many of the so called “Catholic” groups They count among their number hold heretical views. That isnt unity. Like the Nun Who has escorted women to an abortion clinic. She is loyal to the Pope. Or Mahony. He is a Cardinal “loyal” to the Pope. Unity lies in fidelity to the laws of GOD first and foremost which of course the Lord provided the Sacrament of Holy Orders to provide the faithful

This matter is for theologians. To say that our eternal salvation, and Our Faith, can be effected by sacramental unity with a man we may or may not mistakenly hold as Pope, and that this defines our Faith, is ridiculous.

Mal : Certainly some “sedvacantist” groups (If thats what you wish to label them) hold to this belief. But let us not paint all with the broad brush. Because not all do. I certainly do not hold to this belief , or I would not be here. In fact - My bishop once told me that many Catholics hold their faith here (pointing to his chest) which I of course found to be very profound.

I agree with what you say above, especially concerning the Second Vatican Council. The fact that there is so much disagreement over how to interpret it (other councils may have engendered disagreements, but NOT over the clear intent!) is indicative of how vague and variable that particular council is, when compared to the others.

However, I can also state that from what I know of the SSPV, CMRI, and Most Holy Family Monastery, I know that the first holds no technical “official” position regarding the Holy Father. It has been known though, that all the above normally block SSPX and other traditional Catholics from Holy Communion, discourage attendence at other Masses, and generally make it known that any affiliation with the current reigning Pontiff is unacceptable. If there are more open-minded sedevacantists groups out there, they are unknown to me. Do enlighten us if you know otherwise. It is certainly appreciated.