Sedevacantism

[aball1035]

So I’m a Sedevacantist (no hate comments please, I’m just doing what I believe is right) and some of the quotes I’ve come across are…

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that **all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire **which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”13

Joseph Ratzinger, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that **a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”**9

Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, pp. 150-151: “This is another of the paradoxes that the New Testament sets before us. On the one hand, their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”

What do you all think?

 

[jim28]

So I’m a Sedevacantist (no hate comments please, I’m just doing what I believe is right) and some of the quotes I’ve come across are…

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that **all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire **which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”13

Joseph Ratzinger, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that **a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”**9

Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, pp. 150-151: “This is another of the paradoxes that the New Testament sets before us. On the one hand, their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”

What do you all think?

amen

 

[Trishie]

Whenever the question arises I quote Jesus in Matthew 25, verses 31-46

Perhaps Jesus’ following words throw light on the inconsistency Jesus promised, “I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit comes He will lead you to the complete truth…All He tells you will be taken from what is mine.” [John 16:8-9, 12-13]

I have also seen in these forums the suggestion (and I believe it is true) that when we are in our last moments and are faced with the mercy of God and the fact of Jesus’ personal salvation, if we accept His loving mercy we thus become Catholic if we are not already.

“Catholic” means 'universal" and we believe this “Universal” Church to have the fullness of the truth. When good people, in their initial meeting with the Judge, Jesus at their instant of dying death, finally seeing and accepting all truth and love in Him, become part of the universal church universal community of God’s love and truth…ie, the Catholic Church.

So you see, the pope hasn’t contradicted doctrine, we have only reached a deeper understanding of it.

God bless you…Trishie

 

[jim28]

I’m sure though, that this thread will not last long.
Most of the people here hate Sedevacantism. What they hate more is suggesting that people can’t be saved in other religions. What they hate even more than that is suggesting that their “pope” has contradicted Catholic dogma.

 

[jim28]

Whenever the question arises I quote Jesus in Matthew 25, verses 31-46

Perhaps Jesus’ following words throw light on the inconsistency Jesus promised, “I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit comes He will lead you to the complete truth…All He tells you will be taken from what is mine.” [John 16:8-9, 12-13]

I have also seen in these forums the suggestion that when we die and are faced in our last moments with the mercy of God and the fact of Jesus’ personal salvation, if we accept His loving mercy we thus become Catholic.

“Catholic” means 'universal" and we believe this “Universal” Church to have the fullness of the truth. When good people, in their initial meeting with the Judge, Jesus at their instant of dying death, finally seeing and accepting all truth and love in Him, become part of the universal church universal community of God’s love and truth…ie, the Catholic Church.

God bless you…Trishie

Wow wouldn’t that be nice.
Who, at the moment of death, sees Jesus and all Truth, and then rejects It. Kinda sounds like universal salvation to me.
Just my opinion.

 

[Cider]

I’d rather hear your reasons for being a Sede. Why don’t you share them with us.

 

[Trishie]

Wow wouldn’t that be nice.
Who, at the moment of death, sees Jesus and all Truth, and then rejects It. Kinda sounds like universal salvation to me.
Just my opinion.

Hi, Jim
I did say, “good people” I did not say, “all people.” Jesus Himself in relating the last Judgements reveals a dialogue between souls and Himself. I spoke of “the good” or “the virtuous”, because He does. The proposition here is about the rejection of good non Catholics from heaven. Both Catholics and non-Catholics who live without charity won’t go to heaven. We have this from Jesus. This discussion isn’t about them.

 

[aball1035]

I’m not at all an expert, so an argumentative thread might be for someone with more knowledge of the subject

In it’s basic sense, a Catholic (even clergy) who’s a heretic is automatically outside of the Catholic church. And denying dogma makes one a heretic. “Pope” Benedict XVI as shown above has obviously done just that. He hasn’t given the world a better view of the old dogma, but clearly rejected it.

It would be worth noting that the Catholic Church does not necessarily need a pope. What about when the old one dies? There is no pope until a new one is elected.

 

[aball1035]

Obviously Pope Eugene IV’s “cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire” directly goes against Joseph Ratzinger’s “does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved” and "They are not excluded from salvation"

 

[jim28]

Hi, Jim
I did say, “good people” I did not say, “all people.” Jesus Himself in relating the last Judgements reveals a dialogue between souls and Himself. I spoke of “the good” or “the virtuous”, because He does. The proposition here is about the rejection of good non Catholics from heaven. Both Catholics and non-Catholics who live without charity won’t go to heaven. We have this from Jesus. This discussion isn’t about them.

This opinion suggests that it is not within Jesus’ power to show them the truth before they die.
This would be inconsistent of His teaching in Scripture.
If we see someone who seems like a “good” person and we believe as you do, then why would we try to convert them. Jesus would just do this when the person dies.

 

[LilyM]

Obviously Pope Eugene IV’s “cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire” directly goes against Joseph Ratzinger’s “does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved” and "They are not excluded from salvation"

You’re missing the critical part, which is Eugene’s words ‘those who are outside the Catholic Church’ and ‘unless they be joined to the Church’.

The modern church still absolutely holds Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - but it teaches that ‘the Catholic Church’ (which Eugene doesn’t define) MIGHT (not that it necessarily does, but that it possibly does) include those who THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN haven’t heard of Christ or His message and therefore have not the opportunity that we have to acknowledge Him FORMALLY.

And that such might (again, not must but might possibly) be joined to and thus members of the Catholic Church by informal means - by their sincere desire to know and love and serve God and faithful following of the law He writes onto their hearts. Just as someone who desires baptism but dies before they are physically able to be baptised - or even those like the Good Thief who did less - is counted among the members of His body (His church).

This all of course has been teaching, as I understand, at least since the days of the original Baltimore Catechism and Pope St Pius X - so at what point in time do YOU believe the See of Peter fell vacant?

Since scripture teaches us in exactly so many words that God desires the salvation of all, it is unreasonable to teach that God does not offer the means of salvation to all. It is only logical to conclude that these must be offered extrasacramentally and informally to those who have not, through no fault of their own, heard of Jesus Christ in any way, nor had any opportunity of any kind to formally and sacramentally join His earthly Church.

As for Ratzinger’s statement - it was not made when He was Pope, so is NOT ex cathedra. We do not know that he still holds to this, moreover even if he held it personally it would be irrelevant, as Pope Liberius’ (I believe) dalliance with Arianism was irrelevant, UNLESS it is formally taught ex-cathedra.

 

[jim28]

You’re missing the critical part, which is Eugene’s words ‘those who are outside the Catholic Church’ and ‘unless they be joined to the Church’.

One is joined to the Church only through sacramental Water Baptism

The modern church still absolutely holds Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - but it teaches that ‘the Catholic Church’ (which Eugene doesn’t define) MIGHT (not that it necessarily does, but that it possibly does) include those who THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN haven’t heard of Christ or His message and therefore have not the opportunity that we have to acknowledge Him FORMALLY.

Your modern church teachers teach that they can be saved even if they have heard of church.

And that such might (again, not must but might possibly) be joined to and thus members of the Catholic Church by informal means - by their sincere desire to know and love and serve God and faithful following of the law He writes onto their hearts. Just as someone who desires baptism but dies before they are physically able to be baptised -

The only way to become a member of the Church is through sacramental Water Baptism. If the person is of Good will, God will send the means for the person to be Baptized (ordinary or extraordinary) before that persons death. This is proven by the documented miraculous Baptisms throughout Church history.

or even those like the Good Thief who did less - is counted among the members of His body (His church).

The good thief died before Baptism became obligatory on all. Same as the holy innocents and those who fell under the Old Law.

This all of course has been teaching, as I understand, at least since the days of the original Baltimore Catechism and Pope St Pius X - so at what point in time do YOU believe the See of Peter fell vacant?

Catechisms are not infallible. Dogmas declared by Popes and Councils are.

As for Ratzinger’s statement - it was not made when He was Pope, so is NOT ex cathedra. We do not know that he still holds to this, moreover even if he held it personally it would be irrelevant, as Pope Liberius’ (I believe) dalliance with Arianism was irrelevant, UNLESS it is formally taught ex-cathedra.

The fact that Ratzinger made this statement, and never retracted it, proves he was a heretic, and therefore cannot be elected Pope of the Catholic Church. You cannot be the Head of something to which you don’t belong.

 

[I_Believe]

We have a very good Pope.

May our Father in Heaven grant him many years warming the Chair of Peter.

 

[jim28]

We have a very good Pope.

May our Father in Heaven grant him many years warming the Chair of Peter.

I’m sorry you believe that.

 

[LilyM]

The only way to become a member of the Church is through sacramental Water Baptism. If the person is of Good will, God will send the means for the person to be Baptized (ordinary or extraordinary) before that persons death. This is proven by the documented miraculous Baptisms throughout Church history.

Such an interpretation totally flies in the face of all logic and therefore must of necessity be INCONSISTENT with Church teaching. God would never, as scripture states, desire the salvation of all men on the one hand, while on the other denying the means of salvation to the majority of them. Miracles notwithstanding, your interpretation means exactly that he DOES so deny them to many.

The good thief died before Baptism became obligatory on all. Same as the holy innocents and those who fell under the Old Law.

How was Christ’s Blood ‘of the New Covenant’ at the Last Supper while at the same time the Old still held? :whacky:

Catechisms are not infallible. Dogmas declared by Popes and Councils are.

But your private interpretations of those dogmas are even MORE fallible than Catechisms! The Magisterium’s near-unanimous teachings on the same dogmas are, however, reliable, whether formally exercised in council or not.

The fact that Ratzinger made this statement, and never retracted it, proves he was a heretic, and therefore cannot be elected Pope of the Catholic Church. You cannot be the Head of something to which you don’t belong.

Tell that to Liberius. Firting with heresy DURING one’s pontificate makes one EQUALLY ‘the head of something to which you don’t belong.’ If it didn’t invalidate his Papacy, then it would seem that nothing along the lines of what Pope Benedict has said would invalidate his either.

 

[jim28]

Such an interpretation totally flies in the face of all logic and therefore must of necessity be INCONSISTENT with Church teaching. God would never, as scripture states, desire the salvation of all men on the one hand, while on the other denying the means of salvation to the majority of them. Miracles notwithstanding, your interpretation means exactly that he DOES so deny them to many.

Apparently you misunderstand what I said.
God requires all to be Baptized before they die in order to achieve salvation. Since God knows the hearts of all men, he shows himself and the truth of the Church, either through ordinary or extraordinary means, to people of good will. He would never deny the means of Salvation to those who deserve it. The only way He would deny it to somebody is if that person would reject it were it shown to them.

How was Christ’s Blood ‘of the New Covenant’ at the Last Supper while at the same time the Old still held? :whacky:

I don’t know what you are exactly trying to say here but:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

But your private interpretations of those dogmas are even MORE fallible than Catechisms! The Magisterium’s near-unanimous teachings on the same dogmas are, however, reliable, whether formally exercised in council or not.

The Dogmas are the interpretations of the Revelation of God. There can be no further interpretation of them. Where would it stop if there were. Who would interpret those interpretations and so on.
The Dogmas are to be believed as they are written.

Tell that to Liberius. Firting with heresy DURING one’s pontificate makes one EQUALLY ‘the head of something to which you don’t belong.’ If it didn’t invalidate his Papacy, then it would seem that nothing along the lines of what Pope Benedict has said would invalidate his either.

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 16), January 6, 1873, On False Accusations: “And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, **and refused to support their heresy.”
**
Pope Benedict XV, Principi Apostolorum Petro (# 3), Oct. 5, 1920: “Indeed, lest they should prove faithless from their duty, some went fearlessly into exile, as did Liberius and Silverius and Martinus.”

You missed the point. A heretic is not a Catholic. A non-Catholic cannot be Pope. Liberius was not a heretic, nor was he close to being one.

 

[Trishie]

This opinion suggests that it is not within Jesus’ power to show them the truth before they die.
This would be inconsistent of His teaching in Scripture.
If we see someone who seems like a “good” person and we believe as you do, then why would we try to convert them. Jesus would just do this when the person dies.

Jim, you miss the point. I’m not saying that Jesus converts the evil at death only that He welcomes the virtuous into the universal Church. I’m not speaking of who is saved from sin. The sinful have already made their choice. I am speaking of the good and virtuous, who will not be rejected from His fold.

I will stand by Jesus words to the death!
I am sometimes sad that there is sometimes less emphasis placed on Jesus’ words than should be placed on the words of the saviour of the human race who is God’s Son, who is God as well as human. Jesus is the source of salvation and the foundation of the Church. Can we call ourself Christians if we don’t accept the words of Jesus the Christ?

Matthew 25 verses 31-46…Jesus’ words on who will be saved:
“The Last Judgement”
**“When the Son of Man comes in all His glory, escorted by all the angels, then he will take his seat on his throne of glory. All the nations will be assembled before him and he will separate men from one another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats.
He will place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. then the King shall say to those on his right hand,” Come you whom my Father has blessed, take for your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was a stranger and you made me welcome. I was thristy and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you made me welcome; naked and you clothed me; sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me.

Then the virtuous will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you; or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you hungry and feed you; or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome; naked and clothe you; sick or in prison and go to see you?

And the King will answer, " I tell you solemnly, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me."

Next he will say to those on his left “Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for when I was hungry you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed me, sick and in proson and you never visited me.”
Then it will be their turn to ask, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty; a stranger or naked, sick or in prison, and not come to your help?”
Then he will answer, “I tell you solemnly, in so far as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me.” And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.**

And since Jesus is the very Person who will judge all of us, I think we have to accept HIS criterion for who may be saved! His criterion is salvation depends upon our charity towards other people, which He regards as charity directly given to Him. Jesus is God

 

[mattkubes]

Apparently you misunderstand what I said.
God requires all to be Baptized before they die in order to achieve salvation. Since God knows the hearts of all men, he shows himself and the truth of the Church, either through ordinary or extraordinary means, to people of good will. He would never deny the means of Salvation to those who deserve it. The only way He would deny it to somebody is if that person would reject it were it shown to them.

Remember, the Gospel was not spread across the entire world the second Jesus rose from the dead - even today there are tribes of people who have yet to be contacted by the outside world. And in the first centuries, knowledge of the Truth was limited to a rather small geographic area. How does your theory mesh with these facts? Did these people lose all hope of salvation simply because their ancestors weren’t born in the (now) Middle East?

I’m sorry, but the Church’s interpretation of Tradition seem much more internally consistent than the private interpretation offered here. Yes, it has always been taught that there is no salvation outside the Church, but our understanding of this has matured at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Remember, no one says that the invincibly ignorant will be saved, only that they can be.

LilyM makes the point that God wills the salvation of all - we should work and pray for God’s Will to be done instead of sitting on these forums, counting all the groups we believe to be damned.

 

[LilyM]

Apparently you misunderstand what I said.
God requires all to be Baptized before they die in order to achieve salvation. Since God knows the hearts of all men, he shows himself and the truth of the Church, either through ordinary or extraordinary means, to people of good will. He would never deny the means of Salvation to those who deserve it. The only way He would deny it to somebody is if that person would reject it were it shown to them.

Your assertion doesn’t make sense. God does NOT only make the means of salvation available to those who ‘deserve it’ (by the way, NOONE ‘deserves’ the means of salvation!). It is self-evident that His offer of the means of salvation is independent of one’s ‘dessert’ of them, or even of one’s ‘good will’. After all, He offered Jesus to the whole nation of Israel, not just the deserving among them.

God is nothing if not consistent. If He desires the salvation of all, even the undeserving and unwilling, and makes the means of salvation available to a lot of undeserving and unwilling people (and He does!), then consistency dictates that He makes the means of salvation available to all. Any other course of action would be un-God-like in its arbitrariness and capriciousness.

The Dogmas are the interpretations of the Revelation of God. There can be no further interpretation of them. Where would it stop if there were. Who would interpret those interpretations and so on.
The Dogmas are to be believed as they are written.

When you, or Feeney, or anyone else, decides that Eugene, in saying ‘the Catholic Church’, meant ‘the earthly hierarchy and institution of the church’ and by ‘joined to’ meant ‘formally initiated into’, then you indulge in interpretation. Eugene didn’t SAY that that was what he meant by those words - YOU decided it, and the meaning you give is NOT ‘as written’, but significantly viewed through the lens of interpretation.

Nothing wrong with interpretation per se. Peter makes clear that even the Scriptures themselves can only be fully understood through interpetation - he just warns against PRIVATE interpretation.

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 16), January 6, 1873, On False Accusations: “And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, **and refused to support their heresy.”
**
Pope Benedict XV, Principi Apostolorum Petro (# 3), Oct. 5, 1920: “Indeed, lest they should prove faithless from their duty, some went fearlessly into exile, as did Liberius and Silverius and Martinus.”

You missed the point. A heretic is not a Catholic. A non-Catholic cannot be Pope. Liberius was not a heretic, nor was he close to being one.

And those are both infallible ex-cathedra dogmatic writings, I suppose? Never heard either of them claimed as such. Besides which St Jerome would disagree - he describes Liberius as “conquered by the tedium of exile and *subscribing to heretical wickedness *entered Rome in triumph”. (‘Chronicle’)

So you would consider Liberius not to have been a Pope if he had become heretical, eh?

 

[LilyM]

Another thought on this subject occurs to me.

If, as you believe, God in His preknowledge has made sure that all those who are going to want both knowledge of Christ and access the sacrament of baptism obtain them during their lives - then why did Christ have to ‘preach to’ (and save) those in limbo after His AND THEIR death - the ‘souls in prison’ as they are called in scripture?

This would indicate that those who lived and died before His coming weren’t bound by the Old Covenant only, but needed supernatural intervention to bring them into the ambit of the New.

Surely ‘He descended to the dead’ was part of the Creed that you didn’t just gloss over, but were taught about the ‘harrowing of Hell’ and all that, as I was?

These souls DID need to become supernaturally joined unto the New Covenant for their salvation. But apparently they DIDN’T need baptism by water - that was never part of the teaching that I can recall.

And all this happened after Christ’s death - AFTER the institution of the New Covenant, when you claim water baptism became necessary for all who would be saved!