Sedevacantism

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Loy said:
I wasn’t trying to single out Pope Pius XII as being any more heterodox than other popes. Rather, I was trying to point out the dividing line for most Sedevacantists: Pope Pius XII was the last Pope prior to Vatican II.

IMHO, if one were to hold any pope to the same level of scrutiny as Pope John XXIII and the rest of the postconciliar Popes, one would find some controversy that could possibly be construed as heresy.

For example, Pope Pius XII began the reform of the Mass that ultimately culminated in the calling of Vatican II. Sedevacantists are quick to point out that St. Pope Pius V pronounced an anathema upon anyone who changed the Tridentine Mass, and yet few of them would argue that the changes that Pope Piux XII made amount to heresy.

Likewise, St. Pius V declared the same anathema upon anyone who made changes to the Tridentine Office (i.e., LIturgy of the Hours). And yet none of the Sedevacantists contend that St. Pope Pius X, who reformed the Tridentine Office, was a manifest heretic.

On another matter, Cardinal Cushing, under strong directions from Pope Pius XII’s curia, excommunicated Fr. Feeney for defending (overzealously) two dogmas of the faith: 1) outside the Church there is no salvation and 2) the necessity of water baptism for salvation. Sedevacantists are deeply divided on this matter, some siding with the Vatican and others siding with Fr. Feeney. Regardless, very few of the Sedevacantists who support Fr. Feeney’s beliefs pursue the argument that Pope Pius XII was a manifest heretic.

Ultimately what I’m trying to say is that Sedevacantists, despite their sincerity, are hypercritical of the Vatican II popes. And yet if they were to critically examine each and every public act of each and every pope to the same degree, not one would be considered by them to be a valid pope.
Click to expand...
Have they found their own Pope ?
 
Some groups do but they are really fringe. Even the SSPX in is in discussion with Rome to be re-united into full communion with the Church again and from their opinion they never left the church.

Unfortunately they are mistaken. The seat can never be empty. Even the SSPX believes Benedict is the Pope and they pray for his direction at every Mass. It is just unfortunate they have some real strict people involved who are the fringe and make life hard for them. On the other hand there are a lot of mistruths being spoken by some Bishops and Priests in regards to their Mass and issue of obience to the Indult. This is ironic to me since the same Indult they quote that says the Bishop has the power to not offer the TLM also says where it is is requested it should be offered, so they are disobident in their own right to Rome. Kind of the pot calling kettle black.

Rome has agreed their Mass are valid and not reason to excommunicate anyone for but the rumors fly. I would recall this decision by Rome and The Holy Father to clarify.

DECREE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (HOLY OFFICE)
Under signature of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect Known as the “Honolulu Decision” (Protocol No. 14428, June 4, 1993)

Background: The Bishop of Honolulu on May 1, 1991, declared six laymen "excommunicated on the grounds that [they] had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the ‘latae sententiae’ penalty of automatic excommunication as provided for in … the Code of Canon Law.

The “Honolulu Six” had (1) established a traditional chapel independent of diocesan jurisdiction, (2) invited independent priests, predominantly SSPX priests, to celebrate Mass at the chapel, and (3) invited one of the bishops named in the Vatican’s excommunication decree to confer the traditional Sacrament of Confirmation at the chapel.

In response to an appeal by one of the Honolulu Six against the decree of the Bishop of Honolulu, the Congregation decreed:

“This Congregation has examined carefully all the available
documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged
in by the Petitioner … are not sufficient to constitute the
crime of schism. Since [the Petitioner] did not, in fact,
commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the ‘latae
sententiae’ penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop
lacks the precondition on which it is founded. This congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu.”

Sedes I would concede are very bad, but actions like this of Bishops need to be made public so the Priests and other Bishops will offer the TLM Mass and the faithful can not be afraid to attend.

Let me however make onething clear the NO Mass is valid and I attend it when I can not attend the TLM and I have no question to its validity or the validity of the Holy Father Benedict.

Bro. Brian
 
Sedevantists of the SSPV persuasion, of whom I am aware, are difficult to discuss things with. The ones I have debated with have no interest whatever in actually being persuaded of anything. They have massive, massive “quote mines” and spring on you some quote from some recent Pope that seems heretical. But if you go actually look up the text, the context is something altogether different and not at all heretical. Confront them with it, and they just dig up more of them. They’re big on snippets from old Church documents that seem to say that all sorts of things going on now in the Church are diabolical, sinful, etc. Look them up, and it ain’t so in context. I have seen quotes that are actually changed with a word added or subtracted. My clear impression is that some of those SV priests spend a very large amount of their time preparing “debate sheets” for their parishioners. I have seen some of them, and they seem shocking until you research them. Some of those folks are very skilled and very dedicated, and will never admit anything and never quit. Knock down one bogus argument, and they just ignore it, and just pop up another. In my experience of them, (like the EO posters in here) there is no compromise in them whatever. We’re wrong and they’re right, and they’re not interested in reunion with a “heretical” Church, and there’s nothing more to know.

They are in a kind of box themselves. The two main SSPV offshoots, for example, are run by “bishops” some of who were consecrated by a superannuated Vietnamese bishop named Thuc. Some were consecrated by a superannuated Puerto Rican bishop, whose name I can’t recall. The Church considers both illicit. So all their priests and any new bishops all descend from one of the two lines or the other. Each declares the other illicit and heretical. The longer it all goes on, the farther and farther away they get from licitness, from each other, from the SSPX from which they sprung and which they now despise.

The SSPV are big into “supermodesty”. Long skirts on women, blouses buttoned at the neck, long sleeves, sweaters over blouses so as not to be “temptresses”. It’s all very curved in on itself.

They absolutely, positively do not believe there is any validity to the Novus Ordo in any language, or even the post-1962 TLM. They have nothing but contempt for FSSP.

Having said that, I will admit that they really do perform beautiful liturgies.

My guess is that if any come in here, there will be a lot more heat generated than light. Be forewarned.
 
Ridgerunner-

I agree as soon as one lands here we will all know. They make the SSPX guys look NO. It is a shame as you presented they are quote mines and I believe they have no itent to reconcile with Rome. How sad.

Pray for them as well is all I can say!!

God Bless
 
I thought sedevacantists were heretics and were excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I also thought Catholics were not to attend their Masses. Do I have this wrong?
 
ReginaNova said:
I thought sedevacantists were heretics and were excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I also thought Catholics were not to attend their Masses. Do I have this wrong?
Click to expand...
They are indeed in error.

Bro_Brian,

The seat can indeed be empty. In fact, the longest period I know of was between Pius VI and Pius VII it was vacant for over six months. Anyone know of a period longer?
 
Unfinished said:
The seat can indeed be empty. In fact, the longest period I know of was between Pius VI and Pius VII it was vacant for over six months. Anyone know of a period longer?
Click to expand...
In the 13th Century, there was the interregnum between Clement IV and Gregory X, which lasted close to 3 years. Just a couple decades after that, the interregnum between Nicholas IV and Celestine V lasted 2 years and 3 months. The problem in these cases was the intransigence of the rival French and Italian cardinals, who at that time dominated the College of Cardinals.
 
Can I just appeal to forum conduct rule 2 and urge a halt to the term “sedes”?
  1. Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.
Click to expand...
 
I used the term “sedes” above.
I have a good friend who is a sedevacantist, and I meant no harm. I was simply using a shortened form of the word.

I do not consider sedevacantism “heresy.”
A heresy is a false doctrine.

Sedevacantism is an OPINION about wheher a particular man is valid “matter” for the office of Pope, nothing more.

Material Error? Sure. Heresy? NO.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
 
Jaypeeto3 said:
I do not consider sedevacantism “heresy.”
A heresy is a false doctrine.

Sedevacantism is an OPINION about wheher a particular man is valid “matter” for the office of Pope, nothing more.
Click to expand...
I would agree if it were simply questioning whether an individual is a valid Pope or not. The problem, IMHO, is that in support of their opinions, Sedevacantists have taken certain past Church displines and theological theories and elevated them to the status of official church doctrine or even dogma. These are individual bishops, priests and laity acting as if they have the authority of the magisterium. Furthermore they do not, as individuals, have the authority to declare what is divine law and what is secular law.
 
This was such a big issue as to allow this subject back on the board.
After 35 posts it died from lack of interest.

I’ll say that if SEDE is really opened up, then it goes like this:
"The pope cannot be a pope because he, by word, deed or omission, has immersed himself in one or more manifest heresies.
Then the quotes begin:
Pope xyz said: “…”
The church has always taught: “…” (some major document).​

The 2 cannot be reconciled.​

Anti-SEDE:
Yes they can by interpreting it properly.
OR
The Pope xyz was acting as a private person and not foisting this on the whole church.
(This is a poor argument, as the SEDE is accusing him of Heresy, which has nothing to do with inflicting it on the Faithful. Personal heresy manifested publicly is auto-excommunication.)​

Then the battle becomes the interpretation of what Pope xyz said that only appears heretical.​

Both sides go into battle mode & no one changes their mind.
The posts become a food-fight & easily gets personal as to the “bad-will” of the other or their blindness.​

The whole thread deteriorates into each seeing the other as personally insulting the intellect of the other.​

**Those who ARE SEDE would only be here to justify their position AND to convince others to the same mindset of beliefs.
And, too often, condemn those who refuse to accept the SEDE position.
**----------------------------
Therefore, it will never work.​

 
I worked with a man who belonged to an SSPX parish before Ecclesia Dei was written. He just wanted to attend TLM, but did not believe that John Paul II was an invalid Pope. He may even be attending indult Masses now because he had no intention of breaking away from the Catholic Church. He did not feel that I was non-Catholic for attending Novus Ordo Mass.

On the other hand, I met somebody who was SSPV. He did not even believe that I was a Catholic, since I received all my Sacraments in post-Vatican II Church, and he did not believe the Sacraments were valid.
 
Brendan said:
Lumen Gentium

Chapter 8

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity

.
Click to expand...
Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Wasn’t the Pope merely elaberating on what has been taught in more ‘traditional’ Catechisms like Short Family Catechism by the Most Reve. Dr. James Butler?

*Part of *Lesson IV

Q: Where are true Christians to be found?
A: Only in the True Church.

Q. Is there any other True Church besides the Holy Catholic Church?
A: No, as there is “one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all,” ther eis but one True Church (Eph. 4:5-6).

Q: Are all obliged to be of the True Church?
A: Yes; none can be saved out of it, and he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Q: Does that mean that all non-Catholics will be damned?
A: Not if they do all they can to avoid sin, remaining invincibly ignorant of the True Faith. The may still belong to the Soul of the Church and be saved by valid baptism or baptism of desire.

Q: Has the True Church a Soul?
A: Yes, and a Body also.

Q: Who belong to the Body and Soul of the True Church?
A: All Catholics who profess their faith openly and frequent the Sacraments.

Q: Who belong only to the Soul of the True Church?
A: Baptized non-Catholics, invincibly ignorant of their errors.

Note the whole ‘Soul’ and ‘Body’ dualism even in older Catholic Catechisms…

Gratia
 
RE:
Q: Does that mean that all non-Catholics will be damned?
A: Not if they do all they can to avoid sin, remaining invincibly ignorant of the True Faith. The may still belong to the Soul of the Church and be saved by valid baptism or baptism of desire.
Click to expand...
How many actually, all their life “do all they can to avoid sin”?
What happens [assuming the vast, vast majority) if they *do sin?
Or, is this an imaginary person to start with?

Finally:
INVINCIBLE
Incapable of being conquered, overrun, or subjugated.

What is it exactly that they are INVINCIBLE against?
God
Truth
Men
Learning
Believing

What?
 
Loy said:
Sedevacantists believe that a manifest (publicly known) heretic cannot hold ecclesiastical office, including the papacy. Almost all Sedevacantists believe that the popes from John XXIII to Pope Benedict XVI have been manifest heretics, and that therefore, the Church has continued with the office of pope vacant during this time.
Click to expand...
So does this mean that sedevancatists did not exist prior to the Second Vatican Council?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top