Sedevacantism/MHFM?

[bookish]

Hello,

I am concerned about something I came across a little while ago–namely, sedevacantism and Most Holy Family Monastery. I went to their YouTube page to see what they were all about and came across this video (I hope no one minds if I put it here) youtube.com/watch?v=Oi1MIEPhUpU

The arguments in it and their other videos are very convincing, and this troubles me, naturally. I was hoping someone might know of a refutation to their claims? Or some other person/group/book/website that might take their beliefs and show the falsity of them? Does anyone have any information like that?

Thank You,
bookish

 

[ASimpleSinner]

For fun I will use “papist” not a pejorative (I am a papist!) but to mean someone who believes in the tenant that the Pope of Rome has the Petrine authority that Catholics understand him to have…

Papist = the gates of hell will not prevail.

Sede = Papist who believes the gates of hell have prevailed.

How does that work?

4 decades without a pope?

The logic caves in on itself.

Mostly what they will not admit is that they will not affirm the current popes because they do not like them. But Arians, Monophosytes, Nestorians, Jansenists and the like all didn’t like the Pope of their time…

 

[bear06]

Google “dimond brothers” and you’ll pull up a lot of rebuttals to them.

 

[jim28]

For fun I will use “papist” not a pejorative (I am a papist!) but to mean someone who believes in the tenant that the Pope of Rome has the Petrine authority that Catholics understand him to have…

Papist = the gates of hell will not prevail.

Sede = Papist who believes the gates of hell have prevailed.

How does that work?

4 decades without a pope?

The logic caves in on itself.

Mostly what they will not admit is that they will not affirm the current popes because they do not like them. But Arians, Monophosytes, Nestorians, Jansenists and the like all didn’t like the Pope of their time…

Sedevacantists do not think the gates of hell have prevailed. The gates of hell have been defined by more than one pope as heresies and heretics.
It’s precisely because of this that we believe there can not be a heretic as a pope. If there were the gates of hell would prevail.
Sede’s fully believe in the papacy and that we are in a papal interregnum. The length of time does not matter. There have been over 200 papal interregnum’s in history, every time a pope dies and we are without a pope for a certain period of time.
The difference is that because of the sins of the people in modern times God has allowed this punishment to endure causing chaos. Those who remain faithful to Tradition will be proved before God through perseverance in Catholic Dogma.

1 Cor. 11:18 For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you. And in part I believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved may be made manifest among you.

 

[cam100]

Sede = Papist who believes the gates of hell have prevailed.

Sedevacantists do not think the gates of hell have prevailed. The gates of hell have been defined by more than one pope as heresies and heretics.

One of the problems with this type of debate is that sedevacantists generally envision a different definition of the ‘gates of hell’ than most other people use. This difference alone produces a lot of confusion in such debates.

So, it might be helpful to clarify some points. First, can you provide some source to show that “the gates of hell have been defined by more than one pope as heresies and heretics” in this context?

 

[Genesis315]

They are very clever at twisting things around. It is imperrative to look at the entirety of the sources they splice. Here’s a good article that shows how they take things out of context and twist them:

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=179

 

[jim28]

One of the problems with this type of debate is that sedevacantists generally envision a different definition of the ‘gates of hell’ than most other people use. This difference alone produces a lot of confusion in such debates.

So, it might be helpful to clarify some points. First, can you provide some source to show that “the gates of hell have been defined by more than one pope as heresies and heretics” in this context?

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:
“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it
(by these we understand the death-dealing
tongues of heretics)…” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 113.)

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which
lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.” (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 351)

I hope this helps you Cam.

 

[jim28]

They are very clever at twisting things around. It is imperrative to look at the entirety of the sources they splice. Here’s a good article that shows how they take things out of context and twist them:

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=179

It’s fairly easy to find the writings that we quote. You have to be willing to look them up and not take other people’s word for it. Every source I have ever looked up in relation to Church’s Dogma, which is mostly what Sede’s quote, has been right on and very much contextual. You can’t just look up the writings with a preconceived notion that you are right or that there is no way it can be true.

 

[Genesis315]

It’s fairly easy to find the writings that we quote. You have to be willing to look them up and not take other people’s word for it. Every source I have ever looked up in relation to Church’s Dogma, which is mostly what Sede’s quote, has been right on and very much contextual. You can’t just look up the writings with a preconceived notion that you are right or that there is no way it can be true.

I’m not sure you read the article, which shows how they splice things to make people look like heretics who aren’t. For example, the accuse Pope Benedict of denying the Real Presence and the Resurrection, when he clearly does not. For example, the quote they use to show he denies the real presence would be like quoting St. Paul saying God does not dwell in buildings made by human hands in order show he denied it.

 

[cam100]

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:
“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it
(by these we understand the death-dealing
tongues of heretics)…” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 113.)

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which
lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.” (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 351)

I hope this helps you Cam.

OK, I went back to both orginal sources and it does not appear that either one actually represents an attempt to provide a comprehensive definition of the “gates of hell” in the current context. The Church is protected from more than just the “tounges of heretics”, although it is certainly protected from those, too. See what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the topic:

Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[jim28]

OK, I went back to both orginal sources and it does not appear that either one actually represents an attempt to provide a comprehensive definition of the “gates of hell” in the current context. The Church is protected from more than just the “tounges of heretics”, although it is certainly protected from those, too. See what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the topic:

I did not say that it was giving an Ex Cathedra definition on the “Gates of Hell”. I was only saying that this is what the Church has always understood as the “Gates of Hell”.

I honestly would like to know what other things the Church is protected against.

Thanks

 

[cam100]

I did not say that it was giving an Ex Cathedra definition on the “Gates of Hell”. I was only saying that this is what the Church has always understood as the “Gates of Hell”.

I honestly would like to know what other things the Church is protected against.

Thanks

I think the article on Indefectibility in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I quoted in post #10, provides a good summary of this.

 

[catharina]

OK, I went back to both orginal sources and it does not appear that either one actually represents an attempt to provide a comprehensive definition of the “gates of hell” in the current context. The Church is protected from more than just the “tounges of heretics”, although it is certainly protected from those, too. See what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the topic:

Excellent sources and quotes, Cam. For all who say “he is not (was not) a Pope” (pick a number, they name many recent Popes), we need only remember that Satan is the father of lies. Satan who leads the forces of hell shall never prevail over Christ and His Church. It’s an absolute promise from God, no matter who is defining the forces of hell.

 

[jim28]

I think the article on Indefectibility in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I quoted in post #10, provides a good summary of this.

We were talking about the Gates of Hell and not the structure of the Church.
The Gates of Hell are heresies and heretics. They shall not prevail. Getting into indefectibility is a little off topic.
The Church can never teach heresy. If there is someone who claims to be pope then teaches contrary to Dogma then he is not a pope and the Gates of Hell have not prevailed.
The indefectibility of the Church does not include a promise to have a pope in office every moment in the history of the Church.

Here is what the commentary on Mt. 16:18 says in the DR bible:
“The gates of hell, etc… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. …will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.”

If a pope could teach heresy (which the last 5 claimants have done), then the Gates of Hell could prevail. This is precisely the reason why we have Sede Vacantists.

Thanks

 

[catharina]

We were talking about the Gates of Hell and not the structure of the Church.
The Gates of Hell are heresies and heretics. They shall not prevail. Getting into indefectibility is a little off topic.
The Church can never teach heresy. If there is someone who claims to be pope then teaches contrary to Dogma then he is not a pope and the Gates of Hell have not prevailed.
The indefectibility of the Church does not include a promise to have a pope in office every moment in the history of the Church.

Here is what the commentary on Mt. 16:18 says in the DR bible:
“The gates of hell, etc… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. …will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. **By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error **whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.”

If a pope could teach heresy (which the last 5 claimants have done), then the Gates of Hell could prevail. This is precisely the reason why we have Sede Vacantists.

Thanks

One might wonder where sedes stand in regard to the Second Commandment: in other words, how far does one’s pride go in convincing self that one’s special knowledge is above God’s established Church. It would be quite unlike God to leave His Church without a leader. In fact, it would be in opposition to the promise of Our Lord that states He will NOT leave us orphans.

 

[jim28]

One might wonder where sedes stand in regard to the Second Commandment: in other words, how far does one’s pride go in convincing self that one’s special knowledge is above God’s established Church. It would be quite unlike God to leave His Church without a leader. In fact, it would be in opposition to the promise of Our Lord that states He will NOT leave us orphans.

then you don’t understand the gravity of sin and what God would do to punish us.
He has not left us. The Church and her dogmas do not cease to exist when a pope dies and resume when another is elected.
God has allowed chaos to test those truly faithful to the Teachings of his Church.

 

[louey]

One might wonder where sedes stand in regard to the Second Commandment: in other words, how far does one’s pride go in convincing self that one’s special knowledge is above God’s established Church. It would be quite unlike God to leave His Church without a leader. In fact, it would be in opposition to the promise of Our Lord that states He will NOT leave us orphans.

God has not left Catholic’s orphans. He gave us his mother, who is our life, our sweetness, and our hope. Mary, the Mother of God was there, standing at the foot of the Cross when her most beloved Son gave up his life in order to save ours. She did not abandon her Son, and she will not abandon her children, as she is our true mother, Jesus gave us the most perfect mother, and she is there for all her children; leading them home. She is the Mother of the Church; she is the pure and spotless dove, as is the Church. Pride blinds. Pride leads others to believe lies. Pride places man above God. Look at who places man above God. It is not the Catholic’s, it is the apostates of the vii sect. Do you want to be cohert to their blasphemous sins, their heresies?

 

[cam100]

We were talking about the Gates of Hell and not the structure of the Church.
The Gates of Hell are heresies and heretics. They shall not prevail. Getting into indefectibility is a little off topic.

No, it’s actually tied together. Indefectibility involves the protection from the “gates of hell”, and the quote I provided from the Catholic Encyclopedia addressed both aspects. Note this piece:

It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men.

The Church can never teach heresy. If there is someone who claims to be pope then teaches contrary to Dogma then he is not a pope and the Gates of Hell have not prevailed.
The indefectibility of the Church does not include a promise to have a pope in office every moment in the history of the Church.

But it does guarentee a hierarchy that WILL exist at every moment.

If a pope could teach heresy (which the last 5 claimants have done), then the Gates of Hell could prevail. This is precisely the reason why we have Sede Vacantists.

Thanks

The pope would have to teach heresy *ex cathedra *for one to say that the “gates of hell” have prevailed. Simply saying something that can be interpreted by some as heretical would not mean that he is actually a heretic, nor would it mean that “gates of hell” had prevailed.

 

[jim28]

But it does guarentee a hierarchy that WILL exist at every moment.

And just one priest would constitute hierarchy.

The pope would have to teach heresy *ex cathedra *for one to say that the “gates of hell” have prevailed. Simply saying something that can be interpreted by some as heretical would not mean that he is actually a heretic, nor would it mean that “gates of hell” had prevailed.

Let’s get this out of the way, THE GATES OF HELL CAN NOT PREVAIL AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I never said they could. Please have just a basic understanding of Sede Vacantism before you try to argue against it.

These are not interpretation but simple reading and comprehension, although we are not required to try to give an orthodox interpretation to a quote. If it is ambiguous or heretical sounding in any way, then we are to take it as heretical until proven otherwise. Here is the Bull Auctorem Fidei by Pope Pius VI 1794: "In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain
frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH **DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR **OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”

Please examine this teaching.

 

[catharina]

And just one priest would constitute hierarchy.

Let’s get this out of the way, THE GATES OF HELL CAN NOT PREVAIL AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I never said they could. Please have just a basic understanding of Sede Vacantism before you try to argue against it.

These are not interpretation but simple reading and comprehension, although we are not required to try to give an orthodox interpretation to a quote. If it is ambiguous or heretical sounding in any way, then we are to take it as heretical until proven otherwise. Here is the Bull Auctorem Fidei by Pope Pius VI 1794: "In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain
frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH **DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR **OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”

Please examine this teaching.

To presume ambiguity in a statement that is perfectly orthodox, and clearly so, to most Catholics is very odd indeed. When such presumption becomes habitual? Horrible indeed.