sedevacantism

[jordan]

Paul Danon:

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.
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.
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.

And how will we recognize our “city set on a mountain?” How will we know our holy mother? I believe that there are “vacants” who would, given the knowledge of every minute act of most Popes in the history of the Catholic Church, pronounce them all heretics and fallen from their sees. St. Peter needed rebuke by St. Paul. That did not mean that Peter was not uniquely chosen by Our Lord, nor that he could not go henceforth and do what Our Lord wanted him to do.

If we cannot trust in the validity of the successors of Peter, nor in the infallible authority of the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium (our interpretations of Church teachings notwithstanding), the Church should not be small, it should be nonexistent.

We have a great many opinions, but one source of unity and living Truth. I have to believe that this source is bigger than myself and my opinions. It is a “city set on a hill.” As I have said before (thanks for re-starting the discussion by the way), disobedience to authoritative Church teaching is the problem with the Church today. Disobedience of many among the clergy; disobedience among a vast percentage of the laity. Muddying of the waters by so-called Catholics who claim that the hierarchy of the Church are fallen from their see’s, because they say so, justifies disobedience.

Pope John Paul II has the keys, whatever his faults may be. We need people who care about being Catholic to suck up their pride, submit to all the authoritative teachings of the Church - yesterday, today and tomorrow. Don’t add to the plague of disobedience.

 

[OhioBob]

Paul Danon:

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?

If we are here trying to find out what God thinks about things, I think we are looking in the wrong place. I don’t see him on the Members list.

 

[kellie]

Joe Omlor:

But if the Novus Ordo mass is invalid, then that’s exactly what has happened

No. The Novus Ordo “mass” has changed Our Lord’s own words. The consecration in English says our Lord said “for all” when he really said "for many."

It contradicts the Bible. A lie can not bring about transubstantiation.

Joe,
Can you please help me understand your views better?
The above is a reason why you don’t think the NO Mass is valid.
And it does make sense.
Can you please tell me the history then as to why VII changed the words?
And also, did people at the time question it with the Pope?
And, can you not question it now with the Pope?

It seems to me that one word may contradict teachings, but there must be a very good reason for why VII did this.

And I don’t seem to understand how a contradiction can be called a lie.

Thank you
Love Kellie

 

[OhioBob]

Paul Danon:

…
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.

I certainly don’t speak for the church, but my opinion of what I’ve read from the VII documents doesn’t assert that protestant churches are salvific. My understanding is that the Church teaches that the full measure of truth is contained in the Catholic Church. Other churches may contain portions of truth and we should be happy for those believers to the extent that their small share of truth aligns them with the truths of the Catholic faith and pray that they are someday led into the fullness of truth which is the Catholic faith.

The Church teaches that it is the means of salvation, however, the Church does not presuppose that God could choose to extend salvation to others who may not share our faith, or may not even be Christian to the extent that they seek truth and live according to Christian principles (even if they don’t know them as such). I don’t find those teachings that hard to live with.

The sedes are the ones who have taken their own interpretation of events and determined that their view of faith is the true one. Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, not our own interpretation of what the Church should be. I still put my money on Christ.

 

[kellie]

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.

Can you please tell me if there was a different style of Mass to the Tridentine, say from when Peter was on earth.
I am just trying to establish whether that has been different styles since Peter, and whether there was this controversy everytime the style was changed.
Thank you
Love Kellie

 

[CindyJ]

[/color:

jordan

] I believe that there are “vacants” who would, given the knowledge of every minute act of most Popes in the history of the Catholic Church, pronounce them all heretics and fallen from their sees.

None has ever departed so drastically from the True Faith like the “popes” of Vatican II have. There have been some 40 anti-popes recorded in the annuls of Church History. It isn’t a new phenomenon.
[/color:

jordan

] “St. Peter needed rebuke by St. Paul. That did not mean that Peter was not uniquely chosen by Our Lord, nor that he could not go henceforth and do what Our Lord wanted him to do.”

But, he did not spread error among our Lord’s Fold, either.

Jordon:

"…disobedience to authoritative Church teaching is the

problem with the Church today. Disobedience of many among the clergy; disobedience among a vast percentage of the laity."

Precisely, and that disobedience emanates from modernist Rome, which has turned it’s back on the never changing Truth of Holy Mother, Church and embraced the Masonic notion of a humanistic religion.

Jordon:

“Muddying of the waters by so-called Catholics who claim that the hierarchy of the Church are fallen from their see’s, because they say so, justifies disobedience.”

The waters have been muddied by the officials of Vatican II Council. Those officials have been most instrumental in poisoning Christ’s Flock with heresy. Catholic doctrine teaches that a heretic can’t sit on Peter’s Chair.

Jordon:

“Pope John Paul II has the keys, whatever his faults may be. Don’t add to the plague of disobedience.”

Having faults is one thing, shameless public acts of heresy is another. Will you forever try to cover up the crimes of John Paul II in the name of obedience? In turn, I urge you, friend, not to add to the plague of false obedience.

Jordon:

"We need people who care about being Catholic to suck up their pride, submit to all the authoritative teachings of the Church - yesterday, today and tomorrow

."
Catholic’s who adhere to the never changing Truth of the Catholic Church do submit to all the authoritative teachings of the Church. That’s why we adhere so firmly to the teachings that our ancestors did yesterday, we do today and our children will tomorrow.

 

[ralphinal]

Now I am beginning to understand. God will fix the problem in some way. I am not sure exactly what that will be, because no one really knows. Somehow, an invalid college of cardinals will elect a valid pope who will throw out all the Vatican II stuff and return it to the old ways.

Now then, I know that there were other forms of the Mass before the Tridentine, and what about the other approved forms, such as the Marionite, etc.? Are they valid? If the NO is the sticking point, but it was acceptable to have the other rites, then why is NO so bad? How do we know that the older form of the mass wasn’t superior than the tridentine? SHould we not celebrate the mass in aramaic or greek, since Jesus spoke those languages?

Look, I think that this Pope, for all his faults, is valid. I have looked at alot of the charges against him, and they have some face value, but when you look deeply at the statements in context, they lose the validity they have. Take the no salvation outside of the church. Now then, someone who willfully leaves the Catholic Church while knowing that it is the true church is doomed. That is scriptual and the constant teaching of the church. This also means that everyone who lived in an area that had no contact with Christains was doomed to hell, such as Native Americans, right? Does that match with a God who wills the salvation of all men? Those who through no fault of their own had no way of learning the truth before 1492 or later, a long time after Jesus’ death. Now we understand that even these had a chance if they acted upon the grace given to them by God. Fits better, doesn’t it? No, not all roads lead to heaven, but not all of them end in hell either.

 

[jordan]

jordan:

I believe that there are “vacants” who would, given the knowledge of every minute act of most Popes in the history of the Catholic Church, pronounce them all heretics and fallen from their sees.

**

CindyJ:

None

** has ever departed so drastically from the True Faith like the “popes” of Vatican II have. There have been some 40 anti-popes recorded in the annuls of Church History. It isn’t a new phenomenon.

You speak for **all **“vacants?” You would judge those elected by the College of Cardinals? 10 anti-popes are held today by people like you who claimed the Holy See vacant. Were any of these 10 anti-popes elected by the College of Cardinals?

jordan:

“St. Peter needed rebuke by St. Paul. That did not mean that Peter was not uniquely chosen by Our Lord, nor that he could not go henceforth and do what Our Lord wanted him to do.”

CindiJ:

But, he did not spread error among our Lord’s Fold, either.

Oh, were Peter’s actions not scandalizing “our Lord’s Fold?”

Jordan:

"…disobedience to authoritative Church teaching is the

problem with the Church today. Disobedience of many among the clergy; disobedience among a vast percentage of the laity."
CindiJ:

Precisely, and that disobedience emanates from modernist Rome

, which has turned it’s back on the never changing Truth of Holy Mother, Church and embraced the Masonic notion of a humanistic religion.

In your very warped opinion.

 

[jordan]

Jordon:

"Muddying of the waters by so-called Catholics who claim that the hierarchy of the Church are fallen from their see’s, because they say so

, justifies disobedience."
CindiJ:

The waters have been muddied by the officials of Vatican II Council. Those officials have been most instrumental in poisoning Christ’s Flock with heresy. Catholic doctrine teaches that a heretic can’t sit on Peter’s Chair.

And Catholic doctrine does not give to the laity the power to proclaim anyone a heretic.

Jordon:

“Pope John Paul II has the keys, whatever his faults may be. Don’t add to the plague of disobedience.”

CindiJ:

Having faults is one thing, shameless public acts

of heresy is another. Will you forever try to cover up the crimes of John Paul II in the name of obedience? In turn, I urge you, friend, not to add to the plague of false obedience.

I don’t cover it up. I don’t agree with what he did. I believe it was a mistake. He is human. He is not protected by the Holy Spirit in everything he does. He is only held infallible when making infallible proclamations ex cathedra. He may, like St. Peter, make mistakes.

Jordon:

“We need people who care about being Catholic to suck up their pride, submit to all the authoritative teachings of the Church - yesterday, today and tomorrow.”

CindiJ:

Catholic’s who adhere to the never changing Truth of the Catholic Church do

submit to all the authoritative teachings of the Church. That’s why we adhere so firmly to the teachings that our ancestors did yesterday, we do today and our children will tomorrow.
The Truth does not change, but our understanding of it is developed and clarified by the infallible teachings of the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium. Without the authority that we are talking about, your would have no Truth. And what you have today is less than the Fullness of Truth. And no telling what your children will inherit from your “vacant” church

 

[CindyJ]

[/color:

jordan

]

**You speak for **all ****“vacants?” You would judge those elected by the College of Cardinals? 10 anti-popes are held today by people like you who claimed the Holy See vacant. Were any of these 10 anti-popes elected by the College of Cardinals?

No, certainly I do not speak for all Catholics. I must use right judgment (aka: common sense) when it concerns the defense of Christ’s Church. Excuse my confusion, but which particular “10” are you talking about?

Oh, were Peter’s actions not scandalizing “our Lord’s Fold?”

Oh, did he teach and spread doctrine which was opposed to Christ’s teachings, as the Vatican II leaders have?

In your very warped opinion.

Whoa, no need to be so bitterly defensive. Relax, and try to remember to practice Christian charity. If my opinion is “warped” then that means the teachings prior to Vatican II were warped. Are you ready to admit that? Was St. Athanatius warped for his “disobedience” to the hierarchy?

 

[Ipso_Facto]

As CMom so kindly provided:

“If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy, and automatically becomes subject to the punshment of **ex-communication”
**Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott
[my light summer reading]

I have noted at least 2 members on this thread alone declaring sedevacantists as being outside the church and accused of sinning due to their beliefs. Whilst at the same time maintaining that laypeople have no authority to declare anyone outside the Church.
Sedevacantists don’t declare, they just recognize what has taken place in accordance with Church and Divine Law. As noted by Ott above.

Queen of Sheeba seems to have hit the nail on the head!!!

Jordan seems to have tarred sedevacantists with the same brush as those following the other 10 or so antipopes. Don’t you know that sedevacantist means we don’t think there is ANY pope right now? Mind you at least the 10 or so other false claimants don’t seem to be apostates or heretics, just imprudent/misguided, so at least they are valid matter for the papacy (i.e. Catholic) which is a start!

Sedevacantists do recognize that there have been various rites of the Mass throughout time etc but unlike the Novus Ordo Missae there is no SUBSTANTIAL difference between them. The form of consecration in the NO Mass being invalid ("refer to Joe Omlor’s posts for the proof of the invalid form) means that no Transubstantiation takes place and therefore no sacrifice is renewed, hence it really is not a true Mass at all. The NOM is substantially the same as Cranmer’s “Mass” and other protestant services.

 

[walter]

Lets see if I have this right. I converted from Anglicanism to the Catholic church because in my search I believed it to be the one true church of God. At the time I knew nothing about sedevacantist or Novus Ordo or such.
Now I attend a Novus Ordo mass ( I like the traditional mass by the way) and am quite involved with my church.
From what I gather from some people here - I may as well remained Anglican - I was just as well off there. I do not believe that.
How any of you are going to convince anyone that Catholicism is true with all this is beyond me. We converts don’t know where we are here. And don’t tell me that all these uneducated people are lost because they can’t figure all of this out.
God love you all

 

[Ipso_Facto]

As CMom so kindly provided:

“If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy, and automatically becomes subject to the punshment of **ex-communication”
**Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott
[my light summer reading]

I have noted at least 2 members on this thread alone declaring sedevacantists as being outside the church and accused of sinning due to their beliefs. Whilst at the same time maintaining that laypeople have no authority to declare anyone outside the Church.
Sedevacantists don’t declare, they just recognize what has taken place in accordance with Church and Divine Law. As noted by Ott above.

Queen of Sheeba seems to have hit the nail on the head!!!

Jordan seems to have tarred sedevacantists with the same brush as those following the other 10 or so antipopes. Don’t you know that sedevacantist means we don’t think there is ANY pope right now? Mind you at least the 10 or so other false claimants don’t seem to be apostates or heretics, just imprudent/misguided, so at least they are valid matter for the papacy (i.e. Catholic) which is a start!

Sedevacantists do recognize that there have been various rites of the Mass throughout time etc but unlike the Novus Ordo Missae there is no SUBSTANTIAL difference between them. The form of consecration in the NO Mass being invalid ("refer to Joe Omlor’s posts for the proof of the invalid form) means that no Transubstantiation takes place and therefore no sacrifice is renewed, hence it really is not a true Mass at all. The NOM is substantially the same as Cranmer’s “Mass” and other protestant services.

 

[ralphinal]

walter:

Lets see if I have this right. I converted from Anglicanism to the Catholic church because in my search I believed it to be the one true church of God. At the time I knew nothing about sedevacantist or Novus Ordo or such.
Now I attend a Novus Ordo mass ( I like the traditional mass by the way) and am quite involved with my church.
From what I gather from some people here - I may as well remained Anglican - I was just as well off there. I do not believe that.
How any of you are going to convince anyone that Catholicism is true with all this is beyond me. We converts don’t know where we are here. And don’t tell me that all these uneducated people are lost because they can’t figure all of this out.
God love you all

Walter,
You made the right choice. In a way, these discussions are bad because we are airing “family business” in public, if you will. Anyway, I think that too much time is being put into how wrong some things are and not enough into what is, or can be, right

 

[Ipso_Facto]

I have noticed many allusions and declarations (including other threads) that sedevacantists are schismatics. Yet, the Church clearly teaches that if one has any reason to doubt the PERSON of the pope he cannot be considered schismatic. At least 3 references were provided by Joe Omlor on a different thread which is now closed but can still be viewed. So I think in fairness the first thing you all should do is accept that sedevacantists are NOT per se schismatics.

Then after you have taken the time to refer to some websites (provided by some of the sedevacantists) with a non-cynical attitude and read the examples given as to why they think the current hierarchy, including JP2 have deviated from the True Faith you will understand that they are left no alternative but to recognize that he could not possibly be the Vicar of Christ.
Even though this leaves sedevacantists in a position where it is unknown exactly how this interregnum will end, it also leaves them in a position where there are no contradictions to the teachings of the Church or lack of logic in their position. Whereas to accept JP2 would necessarily require a DIRECT denial of the doctrine of Indefectibility, so this is not a viable option.

We can clearly recognize who is NOT the pope (as the first requirement is: undeniable, unambiguous profession of the one True Faith and categorical opposition to any form of Modernism or any other heresy). The references mentioned before provide clear examples as to why JP2 does not fulfill these requirements.

However, I strongly emphasize for all those Catholics (obviously this means those who do not deny any dogmas/doctrines of the Faith nor have excommunicated themselves in any other way) who after assessing the situation honestly and prayerfully cannot see JP2 does not fulfill the requisites and therefore believe him to be pope then that is your right and I most emphatically will NOT criticize you. Nor would I accuse you of not being Catholic or sinning in this regard. If your loyalty to JP2 really represents your loyalty to the Papacy it is to be strongly commended.
All Catholics must love the Papacy and sedevacantists are definitely among them!

 

[jordan]

CindyJ:

Whoa, no need to be so bitterly defensive. Relax, and try to remember to practice Christian charity. If my opinion is “warped” then that means the teachings prior to Vatican II were warped. Are you ready to admit that? Was St. Athanatius warped for his “disobedience” to the hierarchy?

It is not myself I am defending. I apologize if I have come across as bitter. I have read post after post where “vacant” arguments have been presented, and completely and methodically refuted. It is your fallible interpretations of pre-VII documents, and your “fallible” claims that those documents and current documents are inconsistent.

Was St. Paul warped for his rebuke of St. Peter when St. Peter “was not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel,” and misleading others with “hypocrisy?” (Gal 2: 11-14) No, of course not; but as an apostle admonishing an apostle, in an encounter which led to the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul didn’t go his own way and preach his own version of the gospel. He recognized Peter’s position, rebuked him, and the issue was resolved in council.

Oh, and neither was St. Athanasius wrong in holding fast to the Truth. However, as I recall, he wasn’t disobedient to any lawful Church authority. He “disagreed” on flawed teachings that had not been properly “developed.” I’m sure there was some mutual episcopal “rebuking” going on until the Truth was settled. He did not claim the primary see of Christianity to be vacant.

 

[Paul_Danon]

OhioBob:

… VII documents [don’t] assert that protestant churches are salvific.

Paul VI:

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

The emboldening above is mine.

Life of grace

What else can we wish for than the life of grace? I used to think that, if I joined the church of England, I’d commit a mortal sin and thus be deprived of the state of grace, yet unitatis redintegratio says I’d have a life of grace.

Significance in salvation

Unitatis redintegratio also says that protestant churches signify in salvation and makes it clear by saying “by no means” [do they not do so]. However, the church has been equally explicit in saying that there’s no salvation outside her.

Means of salvation

What else is a means except a way of attaining an end? Note that unitatis redintegratio doesn’t say that protestant churches are means of conversion to the Catholic church but, rather, that they are themselves means of salvation.

OhioBob:

Other churches may contain portions of truth and we should be happy for those believers to the extent that their small share of truth aligns them with the truths of the Catholic faith …

I can’t see what use a portion of Catholic truth is if you’re not part of the church which is the sole ark of salvation. It’s like knowing five out of the eight numbers in the combination of a safe. The five numbers won’t open the door.

OhioBob:

The sedes are the ones who have taken their own interpretation of events and determined that their view of faith is the true one.

And the followers of Vatican II interpret that corpus of teaching and determine that their view of faith is the true one.

OhioBob:

Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, not our own interpretation of what the Church should be. I still put my money on Christ.

And so do I. The problem is, if you accept Vatican II, why has Christ’s church apparently changed her mind about whether protestant churches are salvific?

 

[Paul_Danon]

walter:

… I converted from Anglicanism to the Catholic church … Now I attend a Novus Ordo mass … From what I gather from some people here - I may as well remained Anglican - I was just as well off there.

Of course, it was right to reject the so-called reformed tradition. Like me in 1976, you thought that the thing you joined was the real thing. After all, it had all the buildings and the candlesticks.

walter:

… all this is beyond me …

It’s a really tough situation, I agree. It took me four years to work it out from when I first heard the message. Long before then I had thought there was something afoot and couldn’t work out why. Why did this supposedly universal church have liberal and conservative wings? It was too much like Anglicanism. One ended up looking for a church-within-the-church. (I’ve heard this described as seeking a traditionalist chapel in a modernist cathedral.)

walter:

And don’t tell me that all these uneducated people are lost because they can’t figure all of this out.

I won’t. It’s not an education thing so much as a faith thing.

 

[jordan]

Ipso Facto:

As CMom so kindly provided:

I have noted at least 2 members on this thread alone declaring sedevacantists as being outside the church and accused of sinning due to their beliefs. Whilst at the same time maintaining that laypeople have no authority to declare anyone outside the Church.
Sedevacantists don’t declare, they just recognize what has taken place in accordance with Church and Divine Law. As noted by Ott above.

Queen of Sheeba seems to have hit the nail on the head!!!

Jordan seems to have tarred sedevacantists with the same brush as those following the other 10 or so antipopes. Don’t you know that sedevacantist means we don’t think there is ANY pope right now? Mind you at least the 10 or so other false claimants don’t seem to be apostates or heretics, just imprudent/misguided, so at least they are valid matter for the papacy (i.e. Catholic) which is a start!

Sedevacantists do recognize that there have been various rites of the Mass throughout time etc but unlike the Novus Ordo Missae there is no SUBSTANTIAL difference between them. The form of consecration in the NO Mass being invalid ("refer to Joe Omlor’s posts for the proof of the invalid form) means that no Transubstantiation takes place and therefore no sacrifice is renewed, hence it really is not a true Mass at all. The NOM is substantially the same as Cranmer’s “Mass” and other protestant services.

I, for one, have not declared “vacants” outside the Church. They are, however, not in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium of the Church. By taking their position, they will descend into the same kinds of endless squabbles over interpretation of Sacred Scripture (and Sacred Tradition in their case) that plague Protestants. They have cut off their head to spite their feet.

Through their argument of the vacant see, they undermine all of the Church’s teaching through all time. They seem to “recognize” something the Magisterium of the Church does not. I have not seen it proven anywhere that the Holy Father “deliberately doubts or denies” any infallibly held dogma of the Catholic Faith, and yet “vacants” proclaim it so because they believe it so, and disobey.

If I have tarred “vacants” with the same brush as the followers of the current anti-popes, it’s because you share the same fundamental error that you yourselves can declare the properly elected Pope to be deposed without any process. You call those anti-popes “misguided.” I would say that they and their followers are seriously “misguided.” “Valid matter for the papacy!?”

WRT the NO Mass…Joe Omlor’s proof?!

 

[Paul_Danon]

jordan:

… [Sedevacantists are] not in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium of the Church. By taking their position, they will descend into the same kinds of endless squabbles over interpretation of Sacred Scripture (and Sacred Tradition in their case) that plague Protestants. They have cut off their head to spite their feet.

If SVs are wrong, I’d suggest that they’re in even deeper trouble than that. It’s a very dangerous position to be – disconnected from the magisterium.

jordan:

Through [SVs’] argument of the vacant see, they undermine all of the Church’s teaching through all time. They seem to “recognize” something the Magisterium of the Church does not.

This may not be your point, but the see has been vacant before, sometimes for a long time.

jordan:

I have not seen it proven anywhere that the Holy Father “deliberately doubts or denies” any infallibly held dogma of the Catholic Faith, and yet “vacants” proclaim it so because they believe it so, and disobey.

You may not have found the arguments persuasive but there are many assertions that those who follow Vatican II have departed from tradition in significant ways.

jordan:

[You SVs] share the same fundamental error that you yourselves can declare the properly elected Pope to be deposed without any process.

There is church teaching to the effect that, if a conclave declares a heretic to be elected to the papacy, that is actually not the case.