Sedevacantism on Google Ads

[GandalfTheWhite]

I was very surprised and deeply saddened when today, after searching for some catholic things on Google, I realized that the sedevacantist site by Dimond brothers actually got it to sponsored advertisements and sometimes shows right on the top or on the side. There is a great evil happening here and we need to pray that people who search for things to strengthen their faith will not end up effected by this dirt. I suppose there is no way to fight against it, is it?

Search for divine office and you will see.

(I posted it here because I think people in this part of the forum are already aware of it and know better. I didn’t want to post it where a lot of new Catholics come and might be misguided. But it is up to the moderator to decide where this thread should be)

 

[jfallaw]

Ummm, I’m kinda just returning to Catholicism. I see it alot on these threads, but, what is sedevacantism? and what’s the sspx?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Sedevacantism refers to the Chair of Peter being vacant, which other words means that there is no Pope. This situations normally happens after the death of any pope but they basically make ridiculous claims that the post-conciliar (post-Vatican II) popes are actually anti-popes (that they aren’t popes) and basically that only those who make such claims are “true” catholics. Some will take this to a next level and say that since there is no pope around then they will have to elect one. So they “elect themselves” and in the end you have few dozens of anti-popes walking around our planet. These are called conclavists.

SSPX (Society of St. Pius X ) is a totally different issue. They are a traditionalist priestly fraternity and aren’t in good standing with Rome but accept the Popes as valid.

 

[lucybeebee]

I noticed this as well, and it greatly disturbs me. If you do a search for “Latin Mass” on Google, the first hit you get is from the “True Catholic Church,” a conclavist group in Washington State (headed by “Pope Pius XIII”). The ranks change day to day, but I fear that the preponderance of these bad links will give honest people the wrong idea about the Latin Mass and the people who attend them.

 

[jfallaw]

I see. How disgusting! Anyone who would rebel and leave the church (and especially elect themselves pope, cuz after all who better?) instead of work within the church in a humble and sincere way, is obviously a heretic. A Lutheran friend of mine admitted that had Luther been patient, the reforms he sought would have come anyway, from within the church. But of course ‘reform’ isn’t what Luther had in mind, as evidenced by his immediate slaughter of the Holy Scriptures as well as Tradition. Anyways, blah!

 

[Pious_Mat]

What’s funny about anti-Pope Pius XXIII is that he was never consecrated as a Bishop, meaning that is impossible for him to be Bishop of Rome and Pontiff even if you believe the sedevacantist garbage. FIY, he lives in a trailer in Montana.

There is also a man in Canada who calls himself Gregory XVII (I think that’s the number) who’s “ordained” women to say the Tridentine Mass. There’s also a Spanish fellow who says he’s Pope, and goes by the same name.

These groups, of course, are absolutely ridiculous, since no Cardinal appointed by Pius XII is still alive.

Despite the fact that all these groups are enough to keep one rolling in laughter (sometimes, as with Pius XIII, they’re so pitiful they’re funny), they bring a serious threat to the Church. Never in the Church’s history, not even during the Avignon papacy, or even during the first few centuries of Christianity, have so many anti-Popes existed, or so many dissident groups within the Church (SSPX, SSPV, MHF Monastery, Piux XIII, etc., etc.,) existed. JP2 thought that we needed to slowly but progressively move toward tradition, orthodoxy, and unity, but maybe it’s time to put our feet down.

It’s up to orthodox Catholics like us to drown our the voices of dissidents, and ensure that the Church’s true teachings shine through. Obedience is a virtue.

 

[lucybeebee]

How does “True Catholic Church”'s website keep managing to be the top hit for Latin Mass? I know that rankings are based on traffic, but are there really that many people who want to hear about “Pius XIII”? Why isn’t Una Voce or the FSSP site (for example) cracking the top ten?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It is a function of matching words to searches… Some websites do well with matching phrases and words to popular searches.

On the blog I write for, we shot to the top of search engine hits on google within a few days of a post I wrote on pornography! Funny how mentioning “porn” will do that!

On another forum I participate in that is mostly Catholic, some of the posts written include key words the end up getting advertisements for various and sundry Protestant sects, denominations, congregations and publishing houses to appear on the forum… Part of it depends the parameters a client (in this case sedevacantist websites) choose to have their advertising appear… And the sites loyal to the Holy See may not be advertising, or may not be advertising in the same fashion.

 

[n8pzo]

If you want to fight against the Dimond Brothers and their “dirt” maybe you should try to refute their claims instead of calling names.
But you can’t refute them and still claim to be Catholic. The reason is because nothing they “claim” is their own opinion, it is the timeless teachings and dogmas of the Catholic Church. They use the truth to bring people to the true Catholic faith. Which is not the faith of 99 percent of the people out there who claim to be Catholic.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

If you want to fight against the Dimond Brothers and their “dirt” maybe you should try to refute their claims instead of calling names.
But you can’t refute them and still claim to be Catholic. The reason is because nothing they “claim” is their own opinion, it is the timeless teachings and dogmas of the Catholic Church. They use the truth to bring people to the true Catholic faith. Which is not the faith of 99 percent of the people out there who claim to be Catholic.

Name calling? Please kindly show me where I celled them anything?

Also, why do you want me to refute their claims if you state that my argument will make me non-catholic before I even say anything? You hardly sounds like a person who is interested in listening. Interesting.

 

[VARC]

If you want to fight against the Dimond Brothers and their “dirt” maybe you should try to refute their claims instead of calling names.
But you can’t refute them and still claim to be Catholic. The reason is because nothing they “claim” is their own opinion, it is the timeless teachings and dogmas of the Catholic Church. They use the truth to bring people to the true Catholic faith. Which is not the faith of 99 percent of the people out there who claim to be Catholic.

I gotta ask, are you a sedevacantist? Tell me, if you are which popes lost the office? I would love to be enlightened.

 

[n8pzo]

to Gandalf:
I’m sorry, but the name calling issue is something that I was stating in General. If you go the Most Holy Family Monastery’s site you will find many people who follow Benedict, emailing and calling the Brothers names, never really attempting to refute their claims. Also, what I think of your faith should not impact you trying to defend what you think is the truth. And yes I would be interested in listening to your arguments.

to VARC:
First, Yes I am a sedevacantist.
Second, Pope Paul IV’s “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio” Feb. 15th 1559 states that even if a person gets unanimous consent of the Cardinals for election to the Papacy, it is made null and void by the very fact the person is a heretic (i.e. outside the church) at the time of the election. There is undeniable proof that John XXIII was a notorious heretic when he was “elected”. So from john xxiii on, the Catholic Church has been without a Pope. I hope this has been somewhat enlightening.

 

[n8pzo]

What’s funny about anti-Pope Pius XXIII is that he was never consecrated as a Bishop, meaning that is impossible for him to be Bishop of Rome and Pontiff even if you believe the sedevacantist garbage. FIY, he lives in a trailer in Montana.

There is also a man in Canada who calls himself Gregory XVII (I think that’s the number) who’s “ordained” women to say the Tridentine Mass. There’s also a Spanish fellow who says he’s Pope, and goes by the same name.

These groups, of course, are absolutely ridiculous, since no Cardinal appointed by Pius XII is still alive.

Despite the fact that all these groups are enough to keep one rolling in laughter (sometimes, as with Pius XIII, they’re so pitiful they’re funny), they bring a serious threat to the Church. Never in the Church’s history, not even during the Avignon papacy, or even during the first few centuries of Christianity, have so many anti-Popes existed, or so many dissident groups within the Church (SSPX, SSPV, MHF Monastery, Piux XIII, etc., etc.,) existed. JP2 thought that we needed to slowly but progressively move toward tradition, orthodoxy, and unity, but maybe it’s time to put our feet down.

It’s up to orthodox Catholics like us to drown our the voices of dissidents, and ensure that the Church’s true teachings shine through. Obedience is a virtue.

 

[n8pzo]

What’s funny about anti-Pope Pius XXIII is that he was never consecrated as a Bishop, meaning that is impossible for him to be Bishop of Rome and Pontiff even if you believe the sedevacantist garbage. FIY, he lives in a trailer in Montana.

There is also a man in Canada who calls himself Gregory XVII (I think that’s the number) who’s “ordained” women to say the Tridentine Mass. There’s also a Spanish fellow who says he’s Pope, and goes by the same name.

These groups, of course, are absolutely ridiculous, since no Cardinal appointed by Pius XII is still alive.

Despite the fact that all these groups are enough to keep one rolling in laughter (sometimes, as with Pius XIII, they’re so pitiful they’re funny), they bring a serious threat to the Church. Never in the Church’s history, not even during the Avignon papacy, or even during the first few centuries of Christianity, have so many anti-Popes existed, or so many dissident groups within the Church (SSPX, SSPV, MHF Monastery, Piux XIII, etc., etc.,) existed. JP2 thought that we needed to slowly but progressively move toward tradition, orthodoxy, and unity, but maybe it’s time to put our feet down.

It’s up to orthodox Catholics like us to drown our the voices of dissidents, and ensure that the Church’s true teachings shine through. Obedience is a virtue.

Not that I think that the “conclavists” are popes and I don’t want to defend them but,

1. You don’t have to be a bishop or even a Priest to be Pope
2. If someone were a true Catholic, I doubt that God would care what type of residence he inhabited (eg. trailer, cardboard box)
3. There is no dogma stating that a Pope has to be elected by Cardinals, only disciplinary laws, Which are not lightly dispensed, but can be in grave necessity.
4. Nothing can bring a serious threat to the Church because no matter what, Jesus promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail. The Church is perfect and cannot be flawed in any way.
   5.There have been, before John XXIII, 42 antipopes in history and while these conclavists may not be popes, at least they recognize the obvious point that the person in Rome claiming to be is not pope either.
5. Dissident groups cannot exist truly inside the Catholic Church because, once a person or group dissents against any one of the Church’s official teachings they are no longer part of the Church.
6. JPII quickly, albeit subtly, moved toward the destruction of faith and perdition of every person who followed him. Teaching universal salvation and other heretical doctrines.
   8.If you “orthodox Catholics” would read the true teachings of the Catholic Church with an honest heart and good will then you would see that this is not what the Vatican II sect is preaching.

 

[SFD]

to Gandalf:
I’m sorry, but the name calling issue is something that I was stating in General. If you go the Most Holy Family Monastery’s site you will find many people who follow Benedict, emailing and calling the Brothers names, never really attempting to refute their claims. Also, what I think of your faith should not impact you trying to defend what you think is the truth. And yes I would be interested in listening to your arguments.

to VARC:
First, Yes I am a sedevacantist.
Second, Pope Paul IV’s “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio” Feb. 15th 1559 states that even if a person gets unanimous consent of the Cardinals for election to the Papacy, it is made null and void by the very fact the person is a heretic (i.e. outside the church) at the time of the election. There is undeniable proof that John XXIII was a notorious heretic when he was “elected”. So from john xxiii on, the Catholic Church has been without a Pope. I hope this has been somewhat enlightening.

What evidence do you have that John XXIII was a public heretic prior to his election? And who noticed it at the time?

His peaceful acceptance and adherence by the entire Church indicates that he was in fact a true pope.

SFD

 

[n8pzo]

What evidence do you have that John XXIII was a public heretic prior to his election? And who noticed it at the time?

His peaceful acceptance and adherence by the entire Church indicates that he was in fact a true pope.

SFD

As to John XXIII’s Heresies they can be found in several places. But the best place to find it is mostholyfamilymonastery.com/#johnxxiii
And whether or not people knew it at the time is irrelevant because he was still a heretic. It does not mean that the people who followed him were necessarily at fault if they did not know his heresies. But as soon as the heresies became known then someone who accepted him as a true pope would be considered at least a Schismatic.

Again, Paul IV 1559 “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, states that even if the whole Catholic world accepts him as pope, if he is a heretic, then the election is null and void.
So since he was a heretic, then that proves that he was in fact not a true pope.
n8

 

[cam100]

Not that I think that the “conclavists” are popes and I don’t want to defend them but,

1. You don’t have to be a bishop or even a Priest to be Pope

Don’t you also have to be Bishop of Rome if you are the Pope?

5.There have been, before John XXIII, 42 antipopes in history and while these conclavists may not be popes, at least they recognize the obvious point that the person in Rome claiming to be is not pope either.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that with all the antipopes, in no case did basically the entire Church accept the antipope as true and therefore make no effort to remove the antipope or elect a true pope. It seems to me that the current situation, from a sedevacantist position, is completely different from any previous antipope situation. I’m not saying that this fact alone disproves sedevacantism, but it counters the often-heard argument that this has happened before.

1. JPII quickly, albeit subtly, moved toward the destruction of faith and perdition of every person who followed him. Teaching universal salvation and other heretical doctrines.
   8.If you “orthodox Catholics” would read the true teachings of the Catholic Church with an honest heart and good will then you would see that this is not what the Vatican II sect is preaching.

Proving that Vatican II taught heresy and the popes thereafter were heretics – this is key. I haven’t seen anyone prove it yet, although there have been a number of attempts on this forum.

 

[SFD]

Don’t you also have to be Bishop of Rome if you are the Pope?

Yes, Pope is the Bishop of Rome. He must be a Bishop.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that with all the antipopes, in no case did basically the entire Church accept the antipope as true and therefore make no effort to remove the antipope or elect a true pope.

I believe an antipope implies a true pope as well. During the Western Schism, there was a true pope…and antipopes as well.

Sedevacants would call Benedict a “false claimant”; not an antipope.

It seems to me that the current situation, from a sedevacantist position, is completely different from any previous antipope situation.

That’s true…

I’m not saying that this fact alone disproves sedevacantism, but it counters the often-heard argument that this has happened before.

Yes, but the Western Schism was an extended period (42 years) where the Pope’s identity was not discernable. There were legitimate questions on all sides regarding who was truly pope. The Church cannot be ruled by an unknown Pope.

Proving that Vatican II taught heresy and the popes thereafter were heretics – this is key. I haven’t seen anyone prove it yet, although there have been a number of attempts on this forum.

The indefectabilty of the Church is what leads many to the sedevacantist conclusion. It is the one position (of many lawful positions) that does not involve contradictions. The entire situation in the Church today is a mystery…which God has allowed. The serious sedevacantist is applying Catholic Doctrine to the situation today…he knows he cannot deny theologically certain doctrines such as disciplinary infallibility, indefectibility, submission to legitimate authority, etc.

SFD

 

[n8pzo]

to: CAM 100
My Mistake-
I’m sorry, earlier when I said that a person does not have to be a bishop or priest to be pope. I misspoke and left out the word elected. To be elected you just have to be a baptized Catholic. I was responding to the comment by Pious Mat who said that the conclavist was never consecrated bishop, therfore he could not be pope.

Current Situation-
There have been papal interregnums previous to the current one that have lasted up to almost 4 years (between Popes Marcelinus and Marcellus 304-308). In fact whenever a pope dies, the Catholic Church is without a pope until the next one is elected, this is called a Papal Interregnum.
In the Western Schism there were up to three claimants to the papacy at once and nobody knew the way out of it. Even some saints followed anti-popes.
During the Arian crisis 97-99% of the bishops in control were heretics, followers of Arius.
All of these situations were the first of their kind and before them nobody thought that it could happen. Today’s situation is unique but that does not mean that it isn’t possible.
The situation is this. We are in a Papal Interregnum. While we are in this Interregnum there are anti-popes because they are claiming to head the Catholic Church ,just as all anti-popes have done in history. The difference is that they are the head of a false Catholic Church because the majority, if not all, of the adherents to this false church do not even believe in Catholic Teaching.

 

[VARC]

to Gandalf:
I’m sorry, but the name calling issue is something that I was stating in General. If you go the Most Holy Family Monastery’s site you will find many people who follow Benedict, emailing and calling the Brothers names, never really attempting to refute their claims. Also, what I think of your faith should not impact you trying to defend what you think is the truth. And yes I would be interested in listening to your arguments.

to VARC:
First, Yes I am a sedevacantist.
Second, Pope Paul IV’s “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio” Feb. 15th 1559 states that even if a person gets unanimous consent of the Cardinals for election to the Papacy, it is made null and void by the very fact the person is a heretic (i.e. outside the church) at the time of the election. There is undeniable proof that John XXIII was a notorious heretic when he was “elected”. So from john xxiii on, the Catholic Church has been without a Pope. I hope this has been somewhat enlightening.

What happens to a reigning pope that publically proclaims heresy during his reign? Does he lose the office?