Sedevacantist against the True Chruch and our Blessed Pope

[Paradox2080]

I come across this extract from an article i was reading and find it quite insulting. It’s a good example on how Sedevacantist’s endeavour to confuse people and ultimately attempt to take people away God’s true Church into a cult like environment.

“Something interesting has surfaced in the From The Sidelines months following Benedict XVI’s motu proprio that purportedly “freed up” the Latin Mass. In fact, we could call it an example of deja vu. Not long ago, modernist Bishop Emeritus Rene Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi, Texas, published a letter based on his personal research regarding the use of the 1962 Latin missal (as granted in the motu proprio) and the permissibility of using the vernacular language in certain places of the indult Mass based on what Benedict XVI’s motu proprio allows. Now before you start thinking that the use of the vernacular language anywhere in a Latin Mass is not in keeping with the “spirit” of the motu proprio, and that the use of the vernacular should necessarily be excluded from an all-Latin liturgy, you need to be familiar with the fact that the motu proprio is all about keeping up the “spirit of Vatican II” even while using a Latin liturgy. Once you are familiar with some of Bishop Gracida’s references, you will see clearly that the motu proprio is truly what I have warned people about: it is a “smoke and mirrors” operation designed to keep Catholics loyal to the Modernist church. Entitled The Legitimacy of the Use of the Vernacular (English) Language in the Celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI, Bishop Gracida explains that, according to the words of Summorum Pontificum itself, the teachings of Vatican II, and permissions already given to the modernist bishops of the United States in 1964, everything is already in place for the reemergence of the “hybrid mass” which was the precursor to the Novus Ordo Missae. First of all, in Article 6 of the motu proprio, Benedict XVI clearly states: “In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with Missal of John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognized by the Apostolic See.” This means that once the conciliar doctrine of the “participation by the people” is invoked, then a hybrid version of the Mass is allowed where English is substituted for certain parts of the Mass keeping the rest in Latin. In other words, such prayers as the Introit, Offertory and Communion prayers, along with the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Benedictus, Agnus Dei, the Lord’s Prayer, and of course the Epistle and Gospel may be read in English, and whatever parts are left over will be said in the Latin language so that the people can better “participate” and “understand” the liturgy they are following. Also, this gives the people a “taste” of Latin, which, after all, appears to be what most Catholics want anyway. It is to be noted this is the same permission that was given in the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium, issued December 4, 1963. Most conservative modern Catholics of our day invoke this decree as an example how the Council Fathers of Vatican II wanted Latin preserved in the Mass and that it was the Modernist “experts” who hijacked the “liturgical reform” by giving us the Novus Ordo without the Latin. However (as Bishop Gracida points out), Article 54 of this document opened the door to a hybrid liturgy: “A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and the ‘common prayer,’ and also . . . in those parts that pertain to the people.” Thus, the language of the motu proprio and this Vatican II document are the same, and we know what results came from latter. Poor deluded Catholics still attached to the modern church! They rejoiced that Latin had been given back to them, and soon it will be taken away, and this time for good. Let us pray that this deception becomes more well known so that they will abandon that false church once and for all.” ladyofguadalupe.net/Gaudens.pdf

There was also another article released prior to this one which clearly speaks out against the ‘motu proprio’. ladyofguadalupe.net/Universal%20Indult.pdf

The sad thing is that there are plenty of people out the stupid enough to buy into this rubbish. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said “God has placed obvious limitations on our human intelligence, but no such limits on our stupidity.”

 

[reggieM]

This sort of “traditionalist” sedevacantism is a very dangerous error. We cannot expect that God will look kindly on those who judge the Pope in this way. Sedevacantism separates people from the Church – and thus from Christ.

 

[FKV]

I find it interesting that you find the wording of this piece “insulting” and then accuse those who accept this line of thinking as being “stupid” without offering any proof for your statement. Is this not an “insulting” remark? Besides, has not Our Lord warned us against addressing people as “thou fool” (an equivalent for “stupid”)? Is there not a divine punishment to be delivered for such lack of charity? I hope you can edify us all by expounding on your remarks.

 

[Eileen_T]

I find it interesting that you find the wording of this piece “insulting” and then accuse those who accept this line of thinking as being “stupid” without offering any proof for your statement. Is this not an “insulting” remark? Besides, has not Our Lord warned us against addressing people as “thou fool” (an equivalent for “stupid”)? Is there not a divine punishment to be delivered for such lack of charity? I hope you can edify us all by expounding on your remarks.

Welcome to the Forum.

The OP was, I feel, less than prudent in describing those who are taken in by this sort of thinking as stupid. I would rather use the term misguided, or uninformed.

There are many things I am not happy with in the post-Vatican II Church, but, having looked at all the arguments the sede-vacantists use, I have faith that Jesus spoke truly when He said He would be with His Church always and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

The Church has survived many attacks both from without and from within, over the centuries. I will remain in the Church, trusting Jesus’ word, and will pray for those who are in positions of authority in His Church that they will not be led astray or lead their flock astray.

Our Lady of Akita warned us that:

***“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.” ***

But I know of no apparition where Mary has ever said the Church would not have a true leader on the throne of Peter.

 

[Paradox2080]

I find it interesting that you find the wording of this piece “insulting” and then accuse those who accept this line of thinking as being “stupid” without offering any proof for your statement. Is this not an “insulting” remark? Besides, has not Our Lord warned us against addressing people as “thou fool” (an equivalent for “stupid”)? Is there not a divine punishment to be delivered for such lack of charity? I hope you can edify us all by expounding on your remarks.

Hi FKV,

I probably get a little more fired up about this subject than others because of ties some of my friends have with sedevacantism. My apologies for the strong words . Having said that however, i have done allot of research in this area in an effort to better understand their position. A lot of them look at those Catholics loyal to the TRUE church as fools as demonstrated in the quoted text above “Poor deluded Catholics still attached to the modern church!”; they also appear to pat each other on the back each time one of their followers says something nasty about the true church.

I think Sedevacantists have been caught on the back foot with the Popes announcement of the ‘Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum’ and they are now affraid of becoming extinct. In my opinion sedevacantism is worse that protestantism as sedevacantists should know better due of their extensive knowledge of church teaching and canon law.

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

Eileen, as a sedavacanist myself , You state that Mary never said the Chair of Peter would be empty. True enough as far as I know, but nor did she say it will always have a true Catholic Pope. The Church still exists, the sacraments still exist, and there have been plenty of times where there hasn’t been any Pope whatsoever, this vacancy is just lasting longer than any others. I like the maxim, 'by the fruits you will know them", and also of course Pope Pius VI, saying the smoke of satan had entered the church. I don’t feel a need to explain much more about the horrors happening here with the pedophelia being ignored etc, and the rest of the obscenities and blasphemies. And the thought that any one can save themselves by being a good practitioner of religion whatever there religion happens to be. That is as heretical as one can get, yet it seems to be coming consistently from the top of the “Novus Ordo”? I can’t juxtapose a legit Pope and the continual heresy… I pray things somehow improve by the grace of God…I yearn for these troubles to end…God Bless You…

 

[GordonBOPS]

Eileen, as a sedavacanist myself , You state that Mary never said the Chair of Peter would be empty. True enough as far as I know, but nor did she say it will always have a true Catholic Pope. The Church still exists, the sacraments still exist, and there have been plenty of times where there hasn’t been any Pope whatsoever, this vacancy is just lasting longer than any others. I like the maxim, 'by the fruits you will know them", and also of course Pope Pius VI, saying the smoke of satan had entered the church. I don’t feel a need to explain much more about the horrors happening here with the pedophelia being ignored etc, and the rest of the obscenities and blasphemies. And the thought that any one can save themselves by being a good practitioner of religion whatever there religion happens to be. That is as heretical as one can get, yet it seems to be coming consistently from the top of the “Novus Ordo”? I can’t juxtapose a legit Pope and the continual heresy… I pray things somehow improve by the grace of God…I yearn for these troubles to end…God Bless You…

I think prayers have been answered w/ Pope Benedict XVI. Certainly the past Church has had much poorer men in Peter’s seat and there was no need for divisions as we see in sedevacantism - I certainly sympathise with the concern you express about some of what seems to be “equalizing” of religions in terms of trying to discuss the salvation outside the Church issue. Its a very complex issue - as the former teaching was established as dogma long before the “Reformation” – now we have lots of Christians (although non Catholics) who in this day are not formal heritics - however, unfortunately, many non Catholic Christians live holier lives than many Catholics.

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

When Benedict first discussed bringing back Latin I certainly had hope. However as long as Cardinal Law, and the other Cardinals who have hidden the pedophiles aren’t removed, as long as women parade around the altar, as long as people who aren’t priests and women hand out “communion” in the hand as long as Vatican II and all it’s vagueries continues, as long as Buddhas, clown “masses”, Indian “masses” continue as long as the local church bulletins continue to say such nice things about Wicca, Hinduism, and other such forms of Demon worship, I will continue to look from afar and hope and pray the good Lord restores normalcy to the leadership in the church I will remain convinced that we have no legitimate Pope.
I sometimes watch the “Novus Ordo” "mass on TV. I am astounded and horrified by the complete lack of reverence by everyone from the Bishop [McCann] to the priests and all the laity. I feel the lack of reverence is really the dead giveaway. I think too many Catholics refuse to disobey the Pope as if he is God. Do not worship the Pope. If he commits heresy and defends it he is no longer a Catholic let alone the Vicar of Christ. One is not obligated to follow sin. One who promulgates heresy has put himself outside the church. It is true there is no earthly means to excommunicate a Pope, that doesn’t mean he is not ipso facto outside it… Dr of the Church Robert Bellarmine has said so quite unequivocally, one is Never required to be obedient in sin…But I digress…pray hard…

 

[cam100]

When Benedict first discussed bringing back Latin I certainly had hope. However as long as Cardinal Law, and the other Cardinals who have hidden the pedophiles aren’t removed, as long as women parade around the altar, as long as people who aren’t priests and women hand out “communion” in the hand as long as Vatican II and all it’s vagueries continues, as long as Buddhas, clown “masses”, Indian “masses” continue as long as the local church bulletins continue to say such nice things about Wicca, Hinduism, and other such forms of Demon worship, I will continue to look from afar and hope and pray the good Lord restores normalcy to the leadership in the church I will remain convinced that we have no legitimate Pope.

Unfortunately, there will always be weak and evil people within the Church. Our Lord warned us about trying to separate the wheat from the chaff too early. If you are looking for a Church on earth filled with nothing but saints, you will not find it. However, if you look with a critical and careful eye at the stories of wrongdoing that are blamed on the pope, you will find that no honest accusations of heresy can be made against him. Prudence should therefore prevent us from assuming that the seat is vacant. Have faith in Our Lord and his promises. He will never leave us.

 

[FKV]

The OP was, I feel, less than prudent in describing those who are taken in by this sort of thinking as stupid. I would rather use the term misguided, or uninformed.

. . .

But I know of no apparition where Mary has ever said the Church would not have a true leader on the throne of Peter.

Eileen

Thank you for the response. As my high school Logic teacher was fond of saying: “Words mean things.” Our choice of words under such circumstances reveals many things, not the least of which is the weakness of one’s argument. It has always been a strong part of Catholic philosophy that we know how to argue correctly, avoiding such *ad hominem *fallacies as calling one’s opponent “stupid.” This is surely not what St. Peter intended for us to do when he wrote in his Epistle that we should “be ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.” (I Peter 3:15) Not can I say that styling the author of the piece as “uninformed” is proper either, for the material that is discussed appears to me to come from someone who is well informed on the topic. Over generalizations in such important matters are not helpful either. I know quite a few people who embrace the sedevacantist position, and I would not call them “uninformed” Catholics.

While both sides of this argument are prepared to cite quotations from the Blessed Virgin Mary in her relatively recent apparitions, I think these should be secondary references in any such discussion. After all, private apparitions are not part of the Deposit of Faith, while the discussion of a pope/heretic is. I think it would be more proper to find support in direct quotes from the Church and Her teaching first instead of those of private apparitions.

 

[FKV]

Hi FKV,

I probably get a little more fired up about this subject than others because of ties some of my friends have with sedevacantism. My apologies for the strong words . Having said that however, i have done allot of research in this area in an effort to better understand their position. A lot of them look at those Catholics loyal to the TRUE church as fools as demonstrated in the quoted text above “Poor deluded Catholics still attached to the modern church!”; they also appear to pat each other on the back each time one of their followers says something nasty about the true church.

I think Sedevacantists have been caught on the back foot with the Popes announcement of the ‘Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum’ and they are now affraid of becoming extinct. In my opinion sedevacantism is worse that protestantism as sedevacantists should know better due of their extensive knowledge of church teaching and canon law.

I, too, have done extensive research into this important topic, along with speaking to many who accept this position, and I am not ready to say that “a lot” of these people are ready to call those on the “other side” foolish. By definition, “deluded” does not have the same connotation as “foolish”; but I can see where you might think it does.

Still, I would like to read your refutation of this piece that includes some informed sources, and not opinions of how the sedevacantists are somehow running for cover after the motu proprio was issued. This is too important a topic to be treated so lightly.

 

[reggieM]

Sedevacantism is very similar to Protestantism.

It relies on a subjective judgement which cannot be validated against any external authority (no tribunal, no magisterium, no holy office, etc.)

It also proposes an invisible church of the “true believers”, outside of Rome but possessing the powers to enable them to judge the entire hierarchy and body of the Church as apostate.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

many non Catholic Christians live holier lives than many Catholics.

I was a protestant for several years and the protestants I knew were not that holy.

 

[Cranch]

Apart from any larger consideration of the arguments for and against sedevacantism, the excerpt quoted in the first post is, in my opinion, mistaken and perhaps even dishonest. It’s main point is a claim that article 6 of Summorum Pontifcam authorizes a hybrid Latin/vernacular mass in the same way Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium did. I believe the use of the word “readings” in article 6 of the MP is nearly universally understood to refer exclusively to the epistle and gospel readings, which were already repeated in the vernacular in many indult TLMs before the MP. This sedevacantist article, however, claims the word covers not only these readings, but “such prayers as the Introit, Offertory and Communion prayers, along with the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Benedictus, Agnus Dei, [and] the Lord’s Prayer.” The Kyrie is a “reading”? The Gloria, etc? Not to me.

In addition, the simple phrase “in the presence of the people” from article 6 of the MP is improperly confused with Sacrosanctum Concilium’s concept of “full and active participation by all the people” as if it is another authorization of the use of the vernacular in the Latin Mass.

This kind of distortion does not speak well and calls into question their true aims.

 

[Paradox2080]

Apart from any larger consideration of the arguments for and against sedevacantism, the excerpt quoted in the first post is, in my opinion, mistaken and perhaps even dishonest. It’s main point is a claim that article 6 of Summorum Pontifcam authorizes a hybrid Latin/vernacular mass in the same way Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium did. I believe the use of the word “readings” in article 6 of the MP is nearly universally understood to refer exclusively to the epistle and gospel readings, which were already repeated in the vernacular in many indult TLMs before the MP. This sedevacantist article, however, claims the word covers not only these readings, but “such prayers as the Introit, Offertory and Communion prayers, along with the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Benedictus, Agnus Dei, [and] the Lord’s Prayer.” The Kyrie is a “reading”? The Gloria, etc? Not to me.

In addition, the simple phrase “in the presence of the people” from article 6 of the MP is improperly confused with Sacrosanctum Concilium’s concept of “full and active participation by all the people” as if it is another authorization of the use of the vernacular in the Latin Mass.

This kind of distortion does not speak well and calls into question their true aims.

^ I’m with you Cranch; good post.

 

[TNT]

The “gates of hell” prevailing has historically meant that the “gates of hell” were in fact influential or archeretics.
Now, IF the recent popes are heretics then:
IF they remain as popes, then:
the GOH have prevailed.
IF they ipso facto loose jurisdiction & position, then:
the GOH have not, prevailed, and cannot prevail, ever.

The point being that if the SEDE’s are correct, then by that fact the GOH are prevented from prevailing. Not the opposite.

IF these recent popes are heretics, and still hold jurisdiction and position, then the GOH have prevailed.

So, the argument has to center on whether the recent popes are heretics, not some side issue of vernacularity in the TLM of '62.

BTW:
Sede’s have done every bit as much “research” as any Newchurch member. They are not stupid or blind. They reach conclusions based on reality and owning up to it as they realize it.

As they see it, if recent popes were not heretical and preaching a new gospel, not “as we have preached to you” (Gala.), through the perennial Magisterium, then there could never be a heretic acting out as pope. Everything they say is somehow auto-immunized from heresy.

Finally,
SEDE’s are not even close to protestants. As well, they distance themselves from Zombieism wherein “the pope said it, it MUST be true”.

I also have not come across any cath members of this forum forming their own Assisi gathering or Koran kissing ventures, or Hindu dance masses. Why not? the pope does it. You should be promoting these events in honor of the popes’ examples.
Or putting the prayer of “May John the Baptist protect Islam.” into the Sunday prayers, or attending the synagogue ceremonies.
All of these activities would give credence and effect to the recent popes’ efforts to instruct the faithful on how to celebrate their faith, Vat II, and Ecumenism as the recent popes understand it.

Far from it. They keep trying to proselytise non-catholics. And hoop on SEDE’s, as if they cannot attain heaven .

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am not familiar with all sedevacantist groups. I do have a friend who was raised in the SSPV and later came over to the Catholic Church after studying the matter at length. In the course of that, I read a lot of SSPV writings.

One of the things that struck me about the SSPV was its narrowness. Seemed like half their writings were attacks on SSPX or some rival sedevacantist group that was not in the right “line”. There was the Thuc line and the one from some Hispanic bishop whose name I don’t now recall. It was attack, attack, attack. One of the groups, a tiny one, had its own “pope”. Having looked at the origins of those groups, it didn’t inspire a lot of confidence in me, at least. My friend’s particular brand of SSPV seemed to be in the process of a schism of its own. My friend ultimately came to feel this picture just wasn’t a good one. It wasn’t easy for her, but she “swam the Tiber” on her own. A traditionalist sort of person in the wider sense, she now attends a truly Catholic indult TLM.

 

[cam100]

The “gates of hell” prevailing has historically meant that the “gates of hell” were in fact influential or archeretics.
Now, IF the recent popes are heretics then:
IF they remain as popes, then:
the GOH have prevailed.
IF they ipso facto loose jurisdiction & position, then:
the GOH have not, prevailed, and cannot prevail, ever.

The point being that if the SEDE’s are correct, then by that fact the GOH are prevented from prevailing. Not the opposite.

IF these recent popes are heretics, and still hold jurisdiction and position, then the GOH have prevailed.
…

I don’t agree with your logic. Let’s say that THEORETICALLY, a pope does NOT lose the office if he falls into heresy. In others words, let’s suppose he actually remained a pope. The Church would still be protected by the fact that a pope could not lead her into destruction. Under the protection of infallibility and indefectibility, that pope would not make heretical ex-cathedra statements or promulgate invalid sacraments. Thus, the gates of hell would not prevail, even under a heretical pope.

Now, I know there are other reasons to support the premise that a pope who becomes a heretic falls from office – under certain conditions. However, your logic alone does not prove that pope can’t be a heretic.

 

[TNT]

I don’t agree with your logic. Let’s say that THEORETICALLY, a pope does NOT lose the office if he falls into heresy. In others words, let’s suppose he actually remained a pope. The Church would still be protected by the fact that a pope could not lead her into destruction. Under the protection of infallibility and indefectibility, that pope would not make heretical ex-cathedra statements or promulgate invalid sacraments. Thus, the gates of hell would not prevail, even under a heretical pope.

Now, I know there are other reasons to support the premise that a pope who becomes a heretic falls from office – under certain conditions. However, your logic alone does not prove that pope can’t be a heretic.

The obstacle to your understanding is that you present a scenerio under the theoretical proposal that is Impossible on the face of it.

A heretic & a catholic are mutually exclusive. One is called a heretic because he denies an article of Divine and Catholic Faith, and therefore is no longer a Catholic, If a pope is a heretic, he cannot be the pope as he is no longer (if he ever was) a Catholic.
that is, no longer a member of the Catholic Church.
So, your idea sounds good to you, but it requires an Impossibility that joins mutually exclusive conditions ie a heretic is a catholic. That is not even Theoretically possible.
One cannot be the head of the Church of which he is not even a member.
.

 

[cam100]

The obstacle to your understanding is that you present a scenerio under the theoretical proposal that is Impossible on the face of it.

A heretic & a catholic are mutually exclusive. One is called a heretic because he denies an article of Divine and Catholic Faith, and therefore is no longer a Catholic, If a pope is a heretic, he cannot be the pope as he is no longer (if he ever was) a Catholic.
that is, no longer a member of the Catholic Church.
So, your idea sounds good to you, but it requires an Impossibility that joins mutually exclusive conditions ie a heretic is a catholic. That is not even Theoretically possible.
One cannot be the head of the Church of which he is not even a member.
.

According to your argument, a pope would fall from office as soon as he became a heretic, even if his heresy was known only to himself and God. So no one could ever hope to know who was a valid pope and who was not. Yet not even those fathers of the Church who believed that a public heretic cannot be pope actually taught that privately known heresy also caused the pope to fall from office. Now, a private heretic is still a heretic. Yet, a private heretic could still be pope, right? So it is not correct that heresy in itself is incompatible with the papacy.