Sedevacantist against the True Chruch and our Blessed Pope

[SFD]

“Now, I don’t know how holy this deceased girl was, but the idea that her friends thought she might be in heaven is not heresy.”

Cam,

No, it’s not heresy…but it is presumption…is it not? Where are the prayers for the repose of her soul?

“Then they stood and clapped – and some cried – for the girl who had died earlier that day.”

SFD

 

[SFD]

Robert McCarty, executive director for the National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry, said he would like to declare “St. Veronica” a member of the community of saints.

McCarty offered up an “Amen!” and 20,000 teens and adults gathered in Nationwide shouted back “Amen!”
Then they stood and clapped – and some cried – for the girl who had died earlier that day.

Cam100:

It started with friends and acquaintances who thought the deceased was probably in heaven.

Cam,

Do you think Robert McCarty knew her personally? And all 20,000 youths knew her?

Mr. McCarthy should have asked them to kneel down and say some prayers for her soul…she needed them…as we all would. Praying for the dead is no longer understood to be “a holy and wholesome thought”…it’s all but forgotten.

SFD

 

[JMMK]

Praying for the dead is no longer understood to be “a holy and wholesome thought”…it’s all but forgotten.

I was born after the Second Vatican Council, and that comment is bizzare to me. I’ve always been taught to pray for the dead, that even the most holy of humans in this world will still go through purgatory and our prayers help them.

Just because not everyone understands this doesn’t mean that its no longer an official teaching.

 

[SFD]

JMMK:

I was born after the Second Vatican Council, and that comment is bizzare to me. I’ve always been taught to pray for the dead, that even the most holy of humans in this world will still go through purgatory and our prayers help them.

Just because not everyone understands this doesn’t mean that its no longer an official teaching.

JMMK,

I just gave you an example from a Catholic Youth Conference … you are denying fact here. My point was anything but bizarre…it was true.

Btw, I never said that NO ONE ever prays for the dead anymore…but it is rarely mentioned by anyone…Mr. McCarty is just an example…and he led those 20,000 young Catholics astray with his glaring omission.

SFD

 

[TMC]

Here’s an example of what I am speaking of; from a recent newspaper article :

Catholic Youth Killed in Hit-Skip

…While acknowledging he has no power over sainthood, Robert McCarty, executive director for the National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry, said he would like to declare “St. Veronica” a member of the community of saints.

McCarty offered up an “Amen!” and 20,000 teens and adults gathered in Nationwide shouted back “Amen!”
Then they stood and clapped – and some cried – for the girl who had died earlier that day.

McCarty said he talked with Gantt’s friends after she was killed and they described her as “a person of joy, a person who loved life, a person who loved her friends, a person who loved her God.”
He urged the young people to place their hands on their knees, palms up, and remember the teen who had prepared for a year to come to the conference.

He urged them to remember that, "Jesus said, ‘Fear not. Be not afraid. I am with you always.’ "

Everyone goes to heaven? Everyone is a Saint?

Can you imagine a Catholic from previous times saying such things?

“Now, I don’t know how holy this deceased girl was, but the idea that her friends thought she might be in heaven is not heresy.”

Cam,

No, it’s not heresy…but it is presumption…is it not? Where are the prayers for the repose of her soul?

“Then they stood and clapped – and some cried – for the girl who had died earlier that day.”

SFD

JMMK,

I just gave you an example from a Catholic Youth Conference … you are denying fact here. My point was anything but bizarre…it was true.

Btw, I never said that NO ONE ever prays for the dead anymore…but it is rarely mentioned by anyone…Mr. McCarty is just an example…and he led those 20,000 young Catholics astray with his glaring omission.

SFD

Don’t you think this is a little ridiculous? I suppose he should have started out by saying that the girl was probably burning in hell? I think that most Catholic leaders throughout time would have something very similar. Have you ever been to a funeral mass where the celebrant doubted the salvation of the deceased? I have not. This is not modernism, it is hope and compassion and there is nothing new about it. In fact, some of the Early Church Fathers did believe that all would be saved. It is not heresy to hope for the salvation of others. Its certainly not heresy to comfort survivors.

 

[SFD]

TMC:

Don’t you think this is a little ridiculous?

No.

I suppose he should have started out by saying that the girl was probably burning in hell?

No, of course not, but he should have asked the 20,000 present to pray for the repose of her soul…instead he declared her a saint.

I think that most Catholic leaders throughout time would have something very similar.

Really? Can you substantiate that claim? When someone I know passes from this world, I am inclined to pray for them as I know they are being judged by God in their particular judgment.

If you really believe what you are saying…then what is the real effect of all those prayers that were not said because those 20,000 youths were thinking of her as a saint instead of a suffering soul in purgatory?

Have you ever been to a funeral mass where the celebrant doubted the salvation of the deceased? I have not.

No, of course not…but do you see where you are equating “praying for the dead” with “doubting their salvation”? You’ve done it twice now.

This is not modernism, it is hope and compassion and there is nothing new about it.

What is modernism then? No, there’s nothing wrong with Hope and compassion…Hope is one of the theological virtues…but that’s not what we are discussing, now is it?

In fact, some of the Early Church Fathers did believe that all would be saved. It is not heresy to hope for the salvation of others.

What does the Church teach? Your appeal to the “Early Church Fathers” cannot be in conflict with the Constant teaching of the Church.

Its certainly not heresy to comfort survivors.

No, but it is in error to imply that the deceased do not need our prayers. Presumption is a sin, is it not?

SFD

 

[cam100]

Cam,

Do you think Robert McCarty knew her personally? And all 20,000 youths knew her?

Mr. McCarthy should have asked them to kneel down and say some prayers for her soul…she needed them…as we all would. Praying for the dead is no longer understood to be “a holy and wholesome thought”…it’s all but forgotten.

SFD

SFD, I’m not sure what you’re point is here. This is a thread about sedevacantism, and you started by quoting something I wrote about how the fact that sinful people are in the Church doesn’t mean the seat of Peter is vacant. You said it was about faith. OK, maybe the faith of many is faulty. That doesn’t mean there is no pope.

Now you’re quoting a piece about how people reacted when a young woman died. How does that relate to the topic? Are you trying to say they don’t believe in hell or purgatory? You’re quoted piece doesn’t indicate that, and even if they didn’t believe, how is that related to sedevacantism?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

In fact, some of the Early Church Fathers did believe that all would be saved.

Which early Church Fathers?

 

[SFD]

Cam100:

SFD, I’m not sure what you’re point is here. This is a thread about sedevacantism, and you started by quoting something I wrote about how the fact that sinful people are in the Church doesn’t mean the seat of Peter is vacant.

Yes, and you never responded to the substance of my comments. I was commenting on a post on this thread…I was unaware that I was only to respond to the original post and not the subsequent posts.

My point was that the sede vacante thesis has nothing to do with the fact that there are sinful people in the Church. Everyone recognises that the Church has always had sinful members. I quoted Pope Pius XII because he defines what membership in the Church entails…and also very clearly points out that the Church has always had the weak as members.

You were misrepresenting the sedevacantist position and I was correcting that misrepresentation.

You said it was about faith. OK, maybe the faith of many is faulty. That doesn’t mean there is no pope.

That’s not the argument…it is a red herring…a logical fallacy.

Now you’re quoting a piece about how people reacted when a young woman died. How does that relate to the topic? Are you trying to say they don’t believe in hell or purgatory?

No, they don’t explicitly say it…it is an omission. It’s part of the “negative theology” has was removed from modern catechesis.

You’re quoted piece doesn’t indicate that, and even if they didn’t believe, how is that related to sedevacantism?

And I don’t see the need to do this…only you do. Why don’t you address the specific issues I brought up instead of attacking my motives?

SFD

 

[JMMK]

I too am confused on where you are going with this. You are citing someone who is giving a bad example and is not teaching what is on the books to this day. How is that the fault of the Holy See?

 

[cam100]

Yes, and you never responded to the substance of my comments. I was commenting on a post on this thread…I was unaware that I was only to respond to the original post and not the subsequent posts.

My point was that the sede vacante thesis has nothing to do with the fact that there are sinful people in the Church. Everyone recognises that the Church has always had sinful members. I quoted Pope Pius XII because he defines what membership in the Church entails…and also very clearly points out that the Church has always had the weak as members.

You were misrepresenting the sedevacantist position and I was correcting that misrepresentation.

I thought I responded to your comments, but I wasn’t sure of your point, so it was difficult to address it. If you are trying to say that many people who call themselves Catholics don’t believe or practice their faith, then I agree. If you’re trying to say that the reactions of the people towards the girl’s death indicate their lack of belief in purgatory or hell, I’d say this doesn’t necessarily follow from the story.

With regard to the “sedevacantist position”, I understand it well and know that there are actually many sedevacantist positions. My original post was a response to a statement that seemed to say that the errors of so many people who call themselves Catholics proves the vacancy of the seat of Peter. I personally know people who use this as the main justification for their sedevacantist beliefs. That is not to say that all sedevacantists base their belief on this fact.

cam100;3153986:

You’re quoted piece doesn’t indicate that, and even if they didn’t believe, how is that related to sedevacantism?

And I don’t see the need to do this…only you do. Why don’t you address the specific issues I brought up instead of attacking my motives?
SFD

I’m not attacking your motives – just trying to understand your point so I can address it. And it is not a good idea to stray too far from the topic on this forum because the moderators will close threads if they get too far off topic.

 

[SFD]

JMMK:

I too am confused on where you are going with this. You are citing someone who is giving a bad example and is not teaching what is on the books to this day. How is that the fault of the Holy See?

Dear JMMK,

The rule of faith for a Catholic is twofold. The remote rule is the written word of God, and the proximate rule is the preaching of the Church. The proximate rule is the the proximate and immediate rule of faith. The following is taken directly from a pre-Vatican II Dogmatic Theology Manual:

“that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — that is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church’s rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.”

Now, the head of a Catholic Youth Conference is certainly approved by a member of the ecclesiastical magisterium (the Bishops are the teaching authority), isn’t he? If he isn’t…then why?

My point is that those who say that we Catholics must look to the “books” for our instruction…and many times in direct opposition to the preaching of this ecclesiastical magisterium…must at some point seriously consider why there is a conflict. We are supposed to follow these shepherds…not flee them. The fact is that many must be fled from…that is the only Catholic thing to do.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Cam100:

With regard to the “sedevacantist position”, I understand it well and know that there are actually many sedevacantist positions. My original post was a response to a statement that seemed to say that the errors of so many people who call themselves Catholics proves the vacancy of the seat of Peter. I personally know people who use this as the main justification for their sedevacantist beliefs. That is not to say that all sedevacantists base their belief on this fact.

Dear Cam,

I agree that many repeat that bad argument. It’s just too easy to dismiss isn’t it?

The real sedevacantist arguments are more difficult to poke holes in. Of course you know that don’t you?

SFD

 

[JMMK]

So your problem isn’t with the doctrine, but the lack of enforcement when people break from it?

 

[cam100]

Dear Cam,

I agree that many repeat that bad argument. It’s just too easy to dismiss isn’t it?

The real sedevacantist arguments are more difficult to poke holes in. Of course you know that don’t you?

SFD

Yes, I have seen much better arguments for sedevacantism. These are, as you say, more difficult to poke holes in. However, I’ve studied the idea extensively and haven’t seen a completely ironclad argument for sedevacantism.

 

[SFD]

So your problem isn’t with the doctrine, but the lack of enforcement when people break from it?

JMMK,

No, that’s not my point. Carefully reread what I posted. Lack of enforcement is a separate issue…the problem is that since V2, Catholics cannot adhere only to the normal rule of faith…that is… the preaching of the Church.

The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.

What is the explanation for this most irregular situation?

SFD

 

[JMMK]

From reading that, it states that we are to trust the magisterium to teach us the faith. And I agree.

The specific situation you mentioned involved a laity hired by either a bishop, bishops or office there of. He was leading the youth’s conference and pseudo-canonized a recently deceased girl that was supposed to attend. I agree this was the wrong thing to do, but I think I see the gap in the arguement.

Even if this guy was personally selected by the bishop on the merits of his dogmatic and theological prowess (purely speculative and probably wrong), it does not impart any of the bishop’s ordained authority, or make him a member of the magisterium. Unless his conference was reviewed in its entirity and given an Imprimatur, also unlikely, the bishop was not ‘preaching’ it even by proxy. I would agree that this is a bad judgement call by appointing someone with this mind set and it should be corrected. Ordination as a bishop does not make one immune to bad judgement.

So I believe that explains this specific situation. What I am more curious about is the comment that since Vatican II we cannot listen to the magisterium to teach us the faith. I admit I have not read all of the VC2 documents yet, though I will be getting around to it, but I have never heard such a thing. What document changed this?

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

RE: Canonizations at Funerals. I must say, having been to plenty of Funerals both at the New Mass and the Tridentine, it seems as though every Novus Ordo Funeral was basically a canonization with the presumption the deceased were in heaven. Not a word about hoping they are in heaven only that we will see them again when we die. Never did I hear a reminder of the unfortunate alternative to heaven. Too depressing and scary for the leaders of the new church. At the Traditional service it is hoped that they are in heaven and we are reminded how important it is not only top pray for the soul of the deceased but also reminded that we must maintain our souls in the state of grace at all times. The traditional Funeral also reminds us that we can NOT assume the deceased is in heaven regardless of how “saintly” one may have appeared because our innermost secrets and sins are only known to God and the deceased.

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

CAM100: This dogma of the Church was made obscure by the document called “Lumen Gentium” of the Second Vatican Council. Whereas the Church has always affirmed that the Church founded by Christ was one and the same as the Catholic Church by using the word “is”, “Lumen Gentium” created havoc by stating that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. As in there are other churches besides the Catholic Church within the Church of Christ, many martyrs have died cruel deaths defending and standing up for this basic tenet of our faith. Vatican II makes a mockery of those saintly martyrs.

 

[SFD]

JMMK:

From reading that, it states that we are to trust the magisterium to teach us the faith. And I agree.

I’m happy to hear that…it’s the morally unanimous teaching of the Theologians and requires your assent. It’s not optional.

The specific situation you mentioned involved a laity hired by either a bishop, bishops or office there of. He was leading the youth’s conference and pseudo-canonized a recently deceased girl that was supposed to attend. I agree this was the wrong thing to do, but I think I see the gap in the arguement.

I’m happy to hear that you disagree with what this gentleman did…as it was erroneous and a scandal to pious ears. But this is what is “taught” and “tolerated” by the majority of Bishops. If the funerals are typically canonization ceremonies…that’s because these Bishops want it that way. It is the “normative” way of conducting a funeral. As we pray we believe…omit the prayers for the dead and everyone will think they are not required…that there is no reason for them.

Even if this guy was personally selected by the bishop on the merits of his dogmatic and theological prowess (purely speculative and probably wrong), it does not impart any of the bishop’s ordained authority, or make him a member of the magisterium.

But I’m not saying that this one incident proves anything…the question is this…you think it was wrong…but does the Bishop who oversees it think it’s wrong?

Unless his conference was reviewed in its entirity and given an Imprimatur, also unlikely, the bishop was not ‘preaching’ it even by proxy. I would agree that this is a bad judgement call by appointing someone with this mind set and it should be corrected. Ordination as a bishop does not make one immune to bad judgement.

The imprimatur is no longer required…and I can show you many totally unorthodox books that carry an imprimatur. What happens in a Bishop’s diocese is attributed to him…I’m not speaking of some isolated incident here…it was the Catholic Youth Conference! 20,000 youths attended!

So I believe that explains this specific situation.

Yes, that’s your explanation. Except we’re not talking about one incident…you can’t explain away the totality incident by incident.

What I am more curious about is the comment that since Vatican II we cannot listen to the magisterium to teach us the faith. I admit I have not read all of the VC2 documents yet, though I will be getting around to it, but I have never heard such a thing. What document changed this?

You’re missing the point. The proximate rule of faith is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium…it does no good to appeal to the Vatican II documents. The proximate rule is not found in the documents…it is found (or should be found) in the preaching of the Bishops and their Auxiliaries.

SFD