sedevacantism

[Aelfwine]

Paul Danon:

Forgive me if I do the quote below in full. The thread is closed so I need to pick up where this particular topic left off.
*Unitatis redintegratio *may contain some truth but that doesn’t mean it can’t contain error.

Say I say to you that:

1. 
   *]red is red
   *]blue is blue
   *]yellow is yellow
   *]black is white
   
   and you point out that black isn’t white. I might reply: “Aha, but 1 to 3 are correct.” You’d be right in saying to me that, just because 1 to 3 are correct, that doesn’t make 4 right too.
   
   Unitatis redintegratio may have some correct stuff in it, but it also says that the holy Ghost uses protestant services and that those churches are means of salvation.

1. 
   Error is a parasite. It cannot exist without the truth, and St Pius X pointed out that this is a classic trait of the heresy of Modernism: to convey falsehood by couching it in truth. This particular error jumps right out of the page. Of course, the Holy Ghost does not use false religions as a conduit of salvation. The very idea is blasphemous nonesense.

 

[Joe_Omlor]

Ham1:

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

We must believe the totality of Holy Scripture, not just the individual accounts. No Evangelist recorded all of Our Lord’s words or doings. But if any Evangelist recorded something, we must believe it to be true.

Our Lord said “for many” at the institution of The Holy Eucharist during the first Mass at the setting of The Last Supper.

No Pope or Council has the right to change our Lord’s words or tamper with the essential form of a Sacrament.

Both were attempted after V2, and the new “mass” is invalid.

I know it sounds shocking but it is true.

I provided two links on this very subject before. Have you read them?

Joe

 

[Mandi]

ralphinal:

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.

You might like to check out the Society of St. Pius X - for this is exactly their opinion. Sorry I don’t have a web page to give you but I’'m sure someone else does, if you’re interested.

 

[theMutant]

There is an awful lot of “says you” going on time time around.

Remember, Paul, that my statements were in response to what you wrote in post #246.
Paul Danon:

Do you deny that unitatis redintegratio teaches that the holy Ghost uses protestant churches’ liturgies and that those churches are means of salvation?

That document doesn’t teach that Anglicans can become Catholics, but that the church of England is a means of salvation, rendering the Catholic church un-necessary.

Unitatis Redentegratio does not teach any such thing. The Holy Spirit works in all men. All that is good and true in any religion is from the Holy Spirit for the purpose of leading them to Christ and their salvation; but not apart from the Catholic Church because she is the Church Christ established for our salvation. Any grace the Holy Spirit works in the people of other religions does not come from their religion but from the Catholic Church in accordance with its own condition.

 

[theMutant]

Ipso Facto:

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!!!

We do not declare that the sedevacantists are outside of the Church on our own authority but on the authoritative declaration of the Church’s magisterium. Your argument that you don’t make a declaration, you merely recognize, is illogical. The sedevacantists participating in this debate has declared that Vatican II, John XXIII, Paul VI, the current Latin rite of mass, John Paul I, and John Paul II have taught or accepted heresy and are invalid. If this is merely a “recognition” then we are also not making declarations, we are merely “recognizing” that the valid, authoritative magisterium of the Church headed by John Paul II, the true successor to St. Peter as bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff of the one, holy Catholic Church, has declared that you have separated yourselves from communion with the Church.

 

[theMutant]

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.

To begin with, while there is significant difference between the missal of the current rite and that which proceeded, there is no difference in its substance or its effect. You have brought nothing to this debate to show otherwise. Therefore, in terms of the two forms of the Mass, we are not dealing with two religions but with two forms of ritual. The Sacrifice of Calvary is present in both because the requirements for validity are still present. This was already addressed in the previous thead.

There is no teaching of the Church that states it cannot err in its form of worship except that it cannot make the Sacraments invalid.

 

[Mandi]

jordan:

And how will we recognize our “city set on a mountain?” How will we know our holy mother?

Jesus left “The Church” 4 marks by which we could alway recognize it (and I’m kind of wondering why He did this, unless He knew that we might have a hard time recognizing it ) “You will know My Church by these four marks” One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Now even I can see that Vactican II is no longer “One” and I look to Hollywood to show that it is no longer Holy, why because I have notice a bizzare coincidence, when Hollywood wants to portary something as “Holy” they look to the Traditional Church to find it, sacred music, Latin Mass, chanting Monks etc. - Not guitar strumming, hand clapping, praise the Lord, Billy Graham or Baptist Fundamentalists and definately NOT Charismatic Catholics or speaking in Tongues - which strongly resembles something “Satanic”

Our Lord said if one of these Marks is missing it will not be My Church.

hmmm: I asked earlier for a definition of “The Church” I think I just gave it to myself! lol)

 

[Joe_Omlor]

kellie:

.
Can you please tell me the history then as to why VII changed the words?

The words in English were changed after V2 by the ICEL, International Commitee for English in the Liturgy.

And also, did people at the time question it with the Pope?

Yes.
And, can you not question it now with the Pope?

There is no point. People have tried on other matters. JP2 is a Modernist.

.

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

**Because the new “mass” says that Our Lord said something that He clearly did not say. **

See your Bible for what He really said.

Thank you
Love Kellie

In Christ and His True Church,

Joe

 

[Paul_Danon]

theMutant:

The Holy Spirit works in all men.

Remarkable; even through those who have sold their souls to the devil? Anyway, I’m not so much talking here about who the holy Ghost works through as about which religious bodies He works through.

theMutant:

All that is good and true in any religion is from the Holy Spirit for the purpose of leading them to Christ and their salvation but not apart from the Catholic Church because she is the Church Christ established for our salvation.

But *unitatis redintegratio *says that, for example, the church of England is a means of salvation, not just a means of getting folks into the Catholic church. UR also speaks of the holy Ghost’s actually working through their liturgies and engendering a life of grace. In other words, those churches do people real spiritual good without necessarily getting them to convert to Catholicism.

It seems to me uncanny that God might work through religious organisations which His church has pronounced as heretical. It also seems uncanny that his holy Spirit might work to give grace through ministers whose orders His church has declared void.

 

[CindyJ]

kellie:

Can you please tell me if there was a different style of Mass to the Tridentine, say from when Peter was on earth.

The Mass was originally said in Aramaic and Hebrew, since those were the languages that Christ and the Apostles spoke.
Alleluia, hosanna and Sabbath are Aramaic words retained in the Mass. Around 100 AD Greek was used; because it was the common language (Kyrie eleison and the IHS symbol are likewise retained). By the year 250 AD the Latin Language was in use and spread to the western empire by 380 AD. The Latin Canon (“fixed rule”) of the traditional Mass was completed. Latin is a dead language and can not change, hence the reason for its use in, not only the Mass, but also in the fields of science, medicine, law, etc.

“The Church has always maintained that the Canon of the Mass had it’s essential origin in the Apostolic times, though through the course of time ornamental embellishments had been added to render the Canon more majestic, more splendid and more devotional. Not one iota of the substance or essence of Christ’s own words has ever been changed.” (What Has Happened to The Catholic Church, Rev.'s F. & D. Radecki, CMRI, pp. 169-170) cmri.org/latin.htm

In 1570, Pope St. Pius V issued the Papal bull, Quo Primum, whereby the Mass was codified and the tampering with the liturgy was forbidden forever more, under the pain of anathema. His reason for doing this was to protect the liturgy from the revolution of the heretic Martin Luther and others. 6 Protestant Ministers took part in the Vatican II Council and helped undo everything Pope St. Pius V, and his predecessors did to protect the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

I hope this helps some, Kelly.

 

[theMutant]

Unitatis redintegratio may have some correct stuff in it, but it also says that the holy Ghost uses protestant services and that those churches are means of salvation.

No, it says that the Holy Ghost uses those parts of their liturgies and teachings (the Sacraments and the Bible) that they have from the Catholic Church as a way to access the community of salvation; which is the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit does not use these Churches and their services as a means of salvation apart from the Catholic Church because those graces belong to the Catholic Church alone. The graces which they have come to them from the Catholic Church through those parts of the Christian faith (the teaching of the Catholic Church) that they have retained.

If it weren’t for the Catholic Church, these churches and services would have no grace available to them other than that available through observance of the natural law. Christ is the sole source of these graces. The Holy Spirit imbues those graces in each of us personally. The Catholic Church is the one and only font through which the Holy Spirit does this. The graces available in any other church come to them through the Catholic Church and by no other means.

Please see my posts from the original thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=36222&postcount=232

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=45919&postcount=434

 

[theMutant]

Paul Danon:

In other words, those churches do people real spiritual good without necessarily getting them to convert to Catholicism.

It seems to me uncanny that God might work through religious organisations which His church has pronounced as heretical. It also seems uncanny that his holy Spirit might work to give grace through ministers whose orders His church has declared void.

I’ll begin with the second reference first. UR does not teach that, for example, the communion of the Anglicans impart any real grace. This is precisely because their orders are not valid. However, He does impart real grace for Orthodox who receive communion because their orders are valid and they are truly receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord. You are trying to apply one sentence in UR as a blanket statement for all non-Catholic religions even though UR specifically stated that the Holy Spirit works to give grace through those other churches according to each one’s condition (i.e., how far from Catholicism they have strayed). This is what I meant in the other thread that the document must be taken in its entirety; just like any particular Catholic teaching must be considered in the light of ALL Catholic teaching.

In regard to the first section I reference. Are you claiming that if a Protestant minister teaches his congregation to obey the 10 Commandments because it is God’s Law and Christ commands us to do so, and members of that congregation take this to heart and strive to do their best to obey the Commandments out of a love of God, that this is somehow not the work of the Holy Spirit in them and that it has absolutely no spiritual benefit for them? The Jews made the same argument regarding the Gentiles and Saint Paul instructed them that they were very wrong on that matter. Those who were uncircumcized but obeyed the law were considered justified before God even though they were outside of the Covenant. They were better off than those who were within the Covenant but disobeyed the law. (Much more will be expected of those to whom much more has been given.)

The spiritual benefit (grace) they receive in this example does not come to them because of their minister or their religion. It comes to them because of and through the Catholic Church because it is coming to them through the Scripture, which belongs by all right only to the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Holy Spirit works in their service by way of that portion of the Catholic Faith they have retained and which still belongs solely to the Catholic Church even though they are using it in their service. It is only in this way that UR teaches that the Holy Spirit works in their services; each according to their own condition.

 

[theMutant]

Joe Omlor:

Our Lord said “for many” at the institution of The Holy Eucharist during the first Mass at the setting of The Last Supper.

No Pope or Council has the right to change our Lord’s words or tamper with the essential form of a Sacrament.

Both were attempted after V2, and the new “mass” is invalid.

Joe,

According to the teaching of the Church before Vatican II the operative words for the Sacrament of the Eucharist do not include the statement “for many.” The operative words (the necessary form to make the sacrament real and valid) are “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” Therefore your debate of the proper translation of pro multis is pointless. I agree with you regarding the fact that “for all” is not a good translation, even if it can have that meaning in certain contexts, but it does not invalidate the current Latin rite of the mass because it does not alter the necessary form required for the sacrament.

 

[Ham1]

Joe Omlor:

We must believe the totality of Holy Scripture, not just the individual accounts. No Evangelist recorded all of Our Lord’s words or doings. But if any Evangelist recorded something, we must believe it to be true.

Our Lord said “for many” at the institution of The Holy Eucharist during the first Mass at the setting of The Last Supper.

No Pope or Council has the right to change our Lord’s words or tamper with the essential form of a Sacrament.

Both were attempted after V2, and the new “mass” is invalid.

I know it sounds shocking but it is true.

I provided two links on this very subject before. Have you read them?

Joe

Yes, I read one of your links to an article written by one of your relatives (I think).

Back to the subject at hand, why did St. Paul use the word “multus” to mean “all.” Also in a certain and very real sense “for all” is in keeping with Catholic teaching, in as much as Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to save all men. Besides, using “for all” does not substantially change the meaning. In fact, it provides a greater depth of understanding.

Thanks

 

[davy39]

I found 2 old missals from before Vac 2, and they were very interesting, especially in light of this “all and many” controversy. The first missal is called "My sunday missal"by Fr. Stedman copyright 1941 with latin on one page and english on the other. The consecration reads as follows: Who, the day before he suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable Hands, and having lifted up his eyes to Heaven to Thee, God, His Almighty Father, giving thanks to thee, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying : Take ye and ye eat all of this, For this is my body. The second missal is the St Joseph continous sunday missal, copyright 1957, in english only, no latin. The consecration reads as follows: Who, the day fefore He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and having raised His eyes to heaven, to You, O God his almighty Father, giving thanks to You, He blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying All of you take and eat this : for this is my body. The 1941 missal states:“take ye and ye eat all of this” The 1957 missal states “All of you take and eat of this” So changes in the wording in the mass can’t be all blamed on Vac 2. Have a holy day.

 

[myrna]

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

Would that be Rome, loyal to St. Peter or the new Masonic Rome?

 

[justme]

myrna:

Would that be Rome, loyal to St. Peter or the new Masonic Rome?

There we go! :ehh:

I was waiting for the wacko conspiracy theories to crop up!



Sedevacants (and am including groups like SSPX in this) are no different from Protestants, they all raise themselves up to the level of being the authority.

We in the Church know better, the Authority resides with the Magisterium in union with the Holy Father.

 

[Ham1]

justme:

There we go! :ehh:

I was waiting for the wacko conspiracy theories to crop up!

What do you mean “wacko?”

It is commonly known that, in 1953, the US government smuggled secret documents that were obtained from Ozgorthian extraterrestrials from Area 51 to The Vatican. It was these notes that were then taken by masonic cardinals and distilled into Vatican II. These cardinals worked as a part of the Pentavirate (along with the Queen of England, The Gettys, The Rothchilds, and Colonel Sanders) and are using Vatican II to achieve world domination!

 

[wisdom_3_5]

I was just wondering who was the first person/people to decide that the Chair of Peter is vacant? What year(s) did sedvacantists “break away” (for lack of a better term)?

 

[Les_Richardson]

Paul Danon:

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.

Is it your opinion then, that God is limited and cannot in the person of the Holy Spirit speak and act, convict and yes “save” within or without Holy Mother Church, in spite of the lack of vision on the part of Catholics who would rather debate and/or misuse Vatican II than preach the gospel? Do you think He is powerless without us? While the Pharisees and Sadducees were debating, the Messiah arrived in their midst and they didn’t recognize him.

Regardless of speculation on who is or is not saved, our responsibility to proclaim the truth to all is not lessened. That is the message of Vatican II. Those who quote from it to discredit it, are doing the same as those who rushed headlong into corrupting the Church using Vatican II as their excuse. They both take the teachings out of context for their own purposes. The fruits of the past forty years are the fruits of sinful men, not from the teachings of Vatican II. Read it through in context. It does not contradict the sum of Holy Tradition that came before.
God gives His Grace where He wills, not where we allow Him. He is all-powerful and could end this argument by wiping the slate clean and starting fresh. I for one, would not presume to tell Him where or when he can give His Grace.