sedevacantism

[Joe_Omlor]

bengal_fan:

not “so i say” so says linguistics. and i do understand the issue, my point was that your translation seems to perpetuate pre-destination which is a calvinist idea.

No, it has nothing to do with Calvinism, just to do with what Our Lord really said, and the correct valid translation!

 

[ralphinal]

Ok, I am sure this was answered earlier, but I missed it. If this pope is invalid and most of the cardinals are his appointees, and are therefore invalid as well, who will elect the correct pope? How far down the line do you go before you get to the bottom? Let us say that the next pope will go back to what you want, who will elect him and where will he come from? I am so confused by the concept that the infiltration of Satan is so thourogh as to have an effect on every singe cardinal, bishop, and all of the staff of EWTN and CAtholic Answers. Please help me. How many are clean of this sin of abandoning the true faith and following the evil new ways?

 

[kwitz]

ralphinal:

If this pope is invalid and most of the cardinals are his appointees, and are therefore invalid as well, who will elect the correct pope? How far down the line do you go before you get to the bottom? Let us say that the next pope will go back to what you want, who will elect him and where will he come from?QUOTE]

Ralphinal - This is what I’m trying to get answered on the thread “How will sedevacantists know a real pope has been elected” The best I can get out of the discussion from that thread and the others that have covered sedevacantism is that they’ll “know” because the “right” pope won’t do anything they disapprove of.

 

[Ham1]

Okay, I read it.

It doesn’t appear to be a slam-dunk case against the Mass. The Church has the authority to change the words of the Mass. It would be nice to hear from an expert linguist as to the accuracy of translating “pro multis” as “for all.” It seems more accurate to me.

Either way there is some difficulty with this in terms of translation. Your point seems to be that the changes in the wording substantially change the meaning. I’m sorry but I don’t think that that is necessarily true. The meaning seems to be the same.

 

[Mandi]

ralphinal:

Ok, I am sure this was answered earlier, but I missed it. If this pope is invalid and most of the cardinals are his appointees, and are therefore invalid as well, who will elect the correct pope?

I read on the other thread that is closed now, that there has been enough “consecrated” Bishops for this not to be a problem. The interesting thing here, that I don’t think alot of people understand is that for a Bishop to be a true Bishop he has to be in direct line to St. Peter. The Bishops that service societies like St. Pius X and other “sede vancantist groups” are in direct line to St. Peter. regardless or their position on the Pope.

 

[OhioBob]

No, it has nothing to do with Calvinism, just to do with what Our Lord really said, and the correct valid translation!

Really? I wasn’t aware that you were in the room.

The “for many” language from Matthew seems to be just one way that the words of Christ are rendered in the Bible, If I’m not mistaken they are stated slightly differently in Mark, Luke and 1Cor and in early writings (like the Didache, Justin, etc.) and not even included in John. I don’t think that anyone can state authoritively the exact words that Jesus used at that first mass.

My opinion (and I admit that it is my opinion, so don’t go off on me) is that sedes take this particular language issue (“for all” vs “for many”) much in the same way that some fundies sling verses around to support their opinions. It is the sedes who have taken the outside position on this one and are trying to argue the validity of their position. The burden of proof is on them as the dissenters and personally I don’t think that their case supports the burden.

Either way, this argument seems futile to me and a waste of time unless you just enjoy arguing. :banghead:

 

[ralphinal]

Mandi:

I read on the other thread that is closed now, that there has been enough “consecrated” Bishops for this not to be a problem. The interesting thing here, that I don’t think alot of people understand is that for a Bishop to be a true Bishop he has to be in direct line to St. Peter. The Bishops that service societies like St. Pius X and other “sede vancantist groups” are in direct line to St. Peter. regardless or their position on the Pope.

That is true that they may be validly ordained, but by not submitting to Rome, are they not the same as Greek Orthodox? Besides, the Pope is elected by the COllege of Cardinals, not the Bishops

 

[Mandi]

ralphinal:

That is true that they may be validly ordained, but by not submitting to Rome, are they not the same as Greek Orthodox? Besides, the Pope is elected by the COllege of Cardinals, not the Bishops

Sorry don’t know, not qualified to answer that, I’m sure someone out there is and will be glad too. I’m just repeating what was read on the other thread.

But I do know that Greek Orthodox do not acknowledge the Papacy, no matter who would be sitting there. Sede vancantist acknowledge and summit to Rome, just not JPII.

I also think that there needs to be a little clarification on “The Church” When it has been refered to in these threads there seems to be 2 different meanings.

 

[Joe_Omlor]

OhioBob:

Really? I wasn’t aware that you were in the room.

I believe in the inerrancy of Holy scripture.

 

[Ham1]

Joe Omlor:

I believe in the inerrancy of Holy scripture.

So, therefore Sts. Paul and Luke were correct in not including “pro multis.”

 

[Mandi]

Mandi:

Sorry don’t know, not qualified to answer that, I’m sure someone out there is and will be glad too. I’m just repeating what was read on the other thread.

I was just thinking about this, it seems to be a mess of magnaminous proportions, whether there is a sede vancantist going on or not, what is clearly visible is the state of “Roman Catholics” :tsktsk: I’m kind of equating it to the fall of the Roman Empire. Catholics across the world are playing and fiddling while a different Rome seems to be falling apart. And I too am wondering what it will take to make it right. In the spirit of Vatican II we have what many call abuses,well others call liberating the Church. We have created the shop around Catholic, “find a priest who’ll tell you what you want to hear”. If nothing else these forums have brought clearly to the forefront the lack of unity within the Church. And all this no less from those who love God. What about all those “cradle Catholics” who for the most part would be hard pressed to name the 10 Commandments never mind show up for Mass on Sunday.

Now we have been promised that God’s Church will last until the end of time and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. So this much we now as truth - I truly believe that this problem will not be straighten out by mere man. God also promised that He would be back and He would find few of faith. (Sorry not good with quotes but I’m sure someone out there has them if they would like to share). So I think I’ll pray for final perseverance wait for Him to come (if I’m still alive) and let Him staighten it out.

That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.

 

[Paul_Danon]

cmom:

Sedes have jumped from the ship of Peter and are swimming with the sharks. They have damaged the Church with their sins, and need prayers.

Beg to differ. Those known as sedevacantist (though I prefer recusant or, better still, Catholic) are hanging on to the faith. We are the ones who can appeal to scripture and tradition. Tragically, many have fallen for the novelty propagated by Vatican II.

A case in point (if fellow-posters will indulge me) is the assertion that protestant churches are means of salvation. This contradicts the creed in which we say that there is one … church.

It’s one thing to be personally civil to Anglicans. It’s quite another thing to tell them that their religion is salvific. The church teaches that Anglican orders don’t work yet Vatican II teaches that the holy Ghost works through Anglican services.

If I went to my Anglican parish-church on Sunday, I would be given a piece of bread over which a woman will have pronounced Anglican words of consecration. She will have acted in concert with a church founded on dissent from Catholicism and she probably won’t believe that the bread will have transubstantiated. Yet Vatican II tells me I can get grace there. That can’t be Catholic.

 

[Paul_Danon]

bengal_fan:

how can you say that the Holy Spirit doesn’t use protestant services?

The church teaches that there’s no salvation outside her. Here’s a (http://www.geocities.com/orthopapism/eens_papal.html). I don’t believe that almighty God will tell us that the church is unique yet also have us believe that He, in His third person, also operates through organisations which have deliberately, publicly and persistently separated themselves from the church on matters of principle.

 

[Ham1]

Paul

So, when a Lutheran baptizes a person, that person is NOT washed clean of original sin?

 

[Paul_Danon]

Vincent:

… the meaning of “for all” in English is to be understood according to the mind of the Church as expressed by “pro multis”.

But would mother-church treat her children this way? Would she require them to believe that words meaning different things meant the same? The assertion is, rather, a reason for distrusting your Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Instauratio liturgica, 25 January 1974, in *AAS *66 [1974], p. 661 - English translation in ICEL: Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 [The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982], p. 299.

 

[Paul_Danon]

Ham1:

… I have to compliment [Mr Omlor] on the way that you answer everyone’s posts with “wrong” or “in your opinion.” Of course, it’s my opinion, I wrote it!

Mr Omlor can take care of himself, but wouldn’t you agree that we aren’t so much here to find out what we think about things, as to find out about what God thinks about things? Our salvation is at stake here, making this one of the most important and interesting fora (despite my contributions!).

It is one thing for me to opine that, because the archbishop of Canterbury dresses as a prelate and quotes from the bible, he might be a Catholic priest. It’s quite another to seek out church-doctrine on the validity of Anglican orders.

 

[Ham1]

Exactly.

Much is at stake. So, let’s not waste each others time by responding with “wrong” or “that’s your opinion.” I know what my opinion is. I would ask the other posters to post their opinions, then perhaps we could get somewhere.

 

[Paul_Danon]

ralphinal:

If this pope is invalid and most of the cardinals are his appointees, and are therefore invalid as well, who will elect the correct pope?

I agree that this is a problem. However, it can’t be too big for God.

ralphinal:

I am so confused by the concept that the infiltration of Satan is so thourogh (sic) as to have an effect on every singe (sic) cardinal, bishop, and all of the staff of EWTN and CAtholic Answers.

Of course, satan can’t prevail against the church, but the falling-away is, indeed, of great proportions. However, the church began small and maybe she will become small again.

ralphinal:

Please help me.

Would that I could. I am but a bloke trying to find out what on earth is going on. But God can help us both. The church is out there, though small. The Mass is still offered. Even if we can’t get to Mass, we can make acts of contrition and spiritual communions.

ralphinal:

How many are clean of this sin of afalbandoning (sic) the true faith and following the evil new ways?

This may sound cruel, but does it matter? We have our own souls to save and that is our priority. Better to cleave to holy-mother and leave the consequences to God.

 

[Paul_Danon]

Mandi:

I read on the other thread that is closed now …

Shame they did that.

Mandi:

… societies like St. Pius X and other “sede vancantist (sic) groups” …

I do believe that the society of St Pius X acknowledges that John Paul II is the pope, though I also understand that some of its members omit his name from the canon of Mass.

 

[Queen_of_Sheeba]

Catholics who have taken the sedevacantist position believe that there is a substantial difference between the Novus Ordo and the Catholic Faith, which can be observed in the New Mass and the Sacraments, the 1983 code of Canon Law, the New Catechism and the new ordinary universal Magisterium. They see these two rel;igions as being incompatible and unable to exist together in one Church,
The recognition of this difference results in the conviction that because the Novus Ordo is substantially different from the Cathtolic Church then it quite simply cannot be Catholic and because it is not Catholic, it is impossible that such a thing could have been promulgated by the authority of the Catholic Church in the first place. Since the Church cannot err in matters of doctrine and worship, they therefore conclude that it is impossible that those who promulgated the Novus Ordo have the authority of the Catholic Church and that therefore it is impossible that Paul V1, John Paul 1 and John Paul 11 be popes.
These principles are sound and are supported by the the teachings of the Church. The indefectibility of the the Church is maintained by this viewpoint as it precludes the association of the abomination of Modernism with the Immaculate Bride of Christ.
The visibility of the Church is also maintained as it is seen in those who publicly adhere to the Catholic Faith and who look forward with great anticipation to the election of a Roman Pontiff at some stage in the future when God decides. This system does not necessarily strip every bishop of authority, only those who adhere to the New Religion. Sedevacantism does not alter the nature of the Catholic Church and it leaves the restoration of order in the hands of God.
I believe that due to the public proffession of heresy manifested by word and deed, JP2 and the Novus Ordo hierarchy have publicly defected from the Faith and have therefore tacitly resigned their offices in accordance with Canon 188 no 4.
Pope Paul 1V’s Cum ex Apostolatus also supports my beliefs as it states that even if a heretic is elected to the Papacy by the unanimous consent of the cardinals and even if he had the appearance of having acceded to the Papacy he would still not be Pope.
The practise of the Church has always been the same as has been demonstrated by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers who held that anyone who receeded even in the smallest degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritive Magesterium, was outside the Church. (Pope Leo X111, Satis Cognitum)
This is a brief explanation as to why an increasing number of Catholics see no alternative other than to adopt the Sedevacantist position. It is the only position that makes any sense to us amidst the devastation of the aftermath of Vatican 11. One only has to view a cross section of this forum to see what a tangled web has been weaved since Vat.11. What a mess!
I do not need any of you to agree with me and I am not going to waste time trying to convince anyone who is not prepared to think outside the square of the Novus Ordo Church. If you have honestly done your homework with an open mind and come to a different conclusion then so be it! I am content to agree to disagree. I have been around long enough to realise that the debate is futile with most people. However, I thank those of you who have contacted me privately and look forward to corresponding with you in the near future.