Sedevacantist... serious or without any merit?

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Answering the question with a question.
Please start by addressing my point first.

The reason I started this thread is to learn more about the SV arguments and points of view.

The purpose is not to discuss the differnces btw the RCC and the Ortho. church, there are far better forums for those discussions.

So please explain so that I might learn.

Check the Vatican archives online. There are literally 1000’s of documents to prove whether or not Your church has the 4 marks.

Hope this helps clarify you predicament.

 

[litllulu]

Well, many traditionalists are also sedevacantist.

Unfortunately, when you say that you are a traditionalist, most non-traditionalists will immediately wonder if you are also a sedevacantist.

There are some on this forum who disagree with my distinction in terminology, but this is how I think of it. Those who are attached to the TLM are traditionalists. Within the traditionalist group there are three main groups: those who are fully in union with Pope Benedict XVI (these are the real traditionalists, IMHO), those who recognize his validity but not his authority (SSPX and sympathizers, sometimes called radical traditionalists or ultra-traditionalists), and those who do not recognize his validity (sedevacantists). Non-traditionalists are those who are not attached to the TLM. IMHO, it is possible to be traditional and yet not a traditionalist. The reason is because the term traditional refers to one who adheres to one or more traditions whereas the term traditionalist refers to one who adheres to a particular tradition, the Traditional Latin Mass. I too consider myself traditional, but not a traditionalist since I don’t exclusively attend the TLM.

Maria

I think that the True Traditionalists should take back the name! No wonder so many protestants think Catholics are crazy. I find this crazy myself. I did not realize there were so many differenct sects in the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I always thought TLM stood for Tridentine Latin Mass!

 

[paramedicgirl]

Well, many traditionalists are also sedevacantist.

Unfortunately, when you say that you are a traditionalist, most non-traditionalists will immediately wonder if you are also a sedevacantist.

MTD, those two statements are inflammatory and seem to be designed to create friction between traditional Catholics and non traditional Catholics.

 

[litllulu]

MTD, those two statements are inflammatory and seem to be designed to create friction between traditional Catholics and non traditional Catholics.

I think she was just trying to clear up my question!

 

[icxc_nika]

Check the Vatican archives online. There are literally 1000’s of documents to prove whether or not Your church has the 4 marks.

Hope this helps clarify you predicament.

Thanks 1,

No predicament here, the truth is the truth.

Please feel free to bring any one of those thousands of articles over to the Eastern Chrstianity forum and feel free to try to defend any single one.

As for this thread, I continue to be intrested in any points that the SV have to make.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Yes, and I was stunned when ThereCanBeOnly1 said, in post #49 on the Mystery of Faith thread, that the Eastern rites don’t have valid formulae of consecration because their formulae don’t conform to that outlined in St. Pius V’s De Defectibus.

Maria

Look, That Is what I cited and that is how it reads in english. I also gave a good amount of Info of the Meaning of the Mystery of Faith and its importance. There is no need to be stunned, it is documented evidences.

But LET US GET DOWN TO THE NITTY GRITTY OF THIS THREAD and stop beating around the Bush.
MTD, JKIRK, and whoever else I pose this CHALLENGE TO YOU once again:

Can a Catholic have deep respect and hold in high esteem another religion such as Hinduism and Islam, or any other religion that rejects the Holy Trinity and Divinity of our Lord+ Jesus+?

Yes or NO.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Thanks 1,

No predicament here, the truth is the truth.

Please feel free to bring any one of those thousands of articles over to the Eastern Chrstianity forum and feel free to try to defend any single one.

As for this thread, I continue to be intrested in any points that the SV have to make.

Happy to clarify that it is freely available to you online. In this way you can easily see whether your ritual has the 4 Marks. This will save you time. As for eastern christianity, it seems your separating Catholicism in your radical statement. But anyway this is not the Thread for your that. Please feel free to share with us the references for the 4 marks of your ritual.

 

[litllulu]

Look, That Is what I cited and that is how it reads in english. I also gave a good amount of Info of the Meaning of the Mystery of Faith and its importance. There is no need to be stunned, it is documented evidences.

But LET US GET DOWN TO THE NITTY GRITTY OF THIS THREAD and stop beating around the Bush.
MTD, JKIRK, and whoever else I pose this CHALLENGE TO YOU once again:

Can a Catholic have deep respect and hold in high esteem another religion such as Hinduism and Islam, or any other religion that rejects the Holy Trinity and Divinity of our Lord+ Jesus+?

Yes or NO.

There is a big difference in my eyes between Respecting ones religion and Agreeing with it. Most religions have part of the Truth. Catholicism is the fullness of Truth. Why was this question brought up again?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… Can a Catholic have deep respect and hold in high esteem another religion such as Hinduism and Islam, or any other religion that rejects the Holy Trinity and Divinity of our Lord+ Jesus+?

Yes or NO.

Yes, in a relative sense. Religion is better than irreligion. True religion is better than false religion.

For example, the sorcerers of the NT who came from the east (Gk magus), although they practices a false religion, they saw the signs God revealed to them and came to bow down before the Truth. I have high esteem and deep respect for any religion which does the same, insofar as they proclaim that which is true. I also admonish every false religion insofar as they proclaim that which is false. That is how the Catholic Church has always treated non-Christian religions, both preparatory for Christ while simultaneously being contrary to Christ.

 

[litllulu]

Yes, in a relative sense. Religion is better than irreligion. True religion is better than false religion.

For example, the sorcerers (Gk magus), through the use of their false religion in interpreting the signs God revealed to them, came to bow down before the Truth. I have high esteem and deep respect for any religion which does the same, insofar as they proclaim that which is true. I also admonisth every false religion insofar as they proclaim that which is false. That is how the Catholic Church has always treated non-Christian religions, both preparatory for Christ while simultaneously contrary to Christ.

Interesting analysis!

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Well, many traditionalists are also sedevacantist.

Unfortunately, when you say that you are a traditionalist, most non-traditionalists will immediately wonder if you are also a sedevacantist.

There are some on this forum who disagree with my distinction in terminology, but this is how I think of it. Those who are attached to the TLM are traditionalists. Within the traditionalist group there are three main groups: those who are fully in union with Pope Benedict XVI (these are the real traditionalists, IMHO), those who recognize his validity but not his authority (SSPX and sympathizers, sometimes called radical traditionalists or ultra-traditionalists), and those who do not recognize his validity (sedevacantists). Non-traditionalists are those who are not attached to the TLM. IMHO, it is possible to be traditional and yet not a traditionalist. The reason is because the term traditional refers to one who adheres to one or more traditions whereas the term traditionalist refers to one who adheres to a particular tradition, the Traditional Latin Mass. I too consider myself traditional, but not a traditionalist since I don’t exclusively attend the TLM.

Maria

For clarification those who attend the TLM are Catholic. I would think that is clear. Crystal. Now here is a stunner for you and JKIRK:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896 – Bishops Separated from Peter and his Successors Lose All Jurisdiction: “From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from that Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone… No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” ***(The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), pp. 400-401.) ***

SV serious or without merit if a pontiff contradicts this?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Interesting analysis!

Thank you. However, I pilfered it from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, **Truth and Tolerance - Christan Belief and World Relgions. **

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Yes, in a relative sense. Religion is better than irreligion. True religion is better than false religion.

For example, the sorcerers of the NT who came from the east (Gk magus), although they practices a false religion, they saw the signs God revealed to them and came to bow down before the Truth. I have high esteem and deep respect for any religion which does the same, insofar as they proclaim that which is true. I also admonish every false religion insofar as they proclaim that which is false. That is how the Catholic Church has always treated non-Christian religions, both preparatory for Christ while simultaneously being contrary to Christ.

You are Gravely mistaken according to GOD+:
St. Mt 10:33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father+ who is in heaven.

What you believe is contradictory to Our Lord+ and Savior Jesus+ the Christ+ who is GOD+. Your statement is heretical.
The words of Christ+ are perfect and is very clear, you cannot deny this.

 

[litllulu]

You are Gravely mistaken according to GOD+:
St. Mt 10:33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father+ who is in heaven.

What you believe is contradictory to Our Lord+ and Savior Jesus+ the Christ+ who is GOD+. Your statement is heretical.
The words of Christ+ are perfect and is very clear, you cannot deny this.

As a Catholic, we do not take everything the Bible says literally. We are very much contextualists, also we look to the Magisterium for Scriptural interpretation. Not believing that, is heretical.

Also, no one disregards Jesus or denies him by respecting other religions.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

As a Catholic, we do not take everything the Bible says literally. We are very much contextualists, also we look to the Magisterium for Scriptural interpretation. Not believing that, is heretical.

Also, no one disregards Jesus or denies him by respecting other religions.

lol so how should we take it? What need we of it? That is the problem with most Catholics they like to choose what is literal or not. Unlike the fastest Growing religion, Islam, who believes every single word and punctuation mark in the Qur’an.
Are you saying not to take this Literally? ELABORATE.
I will ask AGAIN for MY Clarification: SO WHAT DID CHRIST+ MEAN BY THESE WORDS. Do not be elusive.

SO the bible is the word of GOD+ literal or not, ???

 

[litllulu]

lol so how should we take it? What need we of it? That is the problem with most Catholics they like to choose what is literal or not. Unlike the fastest Growing religion, Islam, who believes every single word and punctuation mark in the Qur’an.
Are you saying not to take this Literally? ELABORATE.
I will ask AGAIN for MY Clarification: SO WHAT DID CHRIST+ MEAN BY THESE WORDS. Do not be elusive.

SO the bible is the word of GOD+ literal or not, ???

I said that we look to the magisterium. I did not say that we should not take this particular passage literally. I never said that. I said that we look to the magisterium always concerning interpretation of scripture.
I am not sure what the obsession with non christian faiths are, I don’t think that has anything to do with the passage that you cited. What does denying Jesus have to do with respect for non-Christian religions?

Ten people can read a passage from scripture and come up with ten different interpretations, they can’t all be right. This is what separates us from our protestant brothers and sisters.

And to answer your question: No, we don’t take EVERYTHING literally.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I said that we look to the magisterium. I did not say that we should not take this particular passage literally. I never said that. I said that we look to the magisterium always concerning interpretation of scripture.
I am not sure what the obsession with non christian faiths are, I don’t think that has anything to do with the passage that you cited. What does denying Jesus have to do with respect for non-Christian religions?

Ten people can read a passage from scripture and come up with ten different interpretations, they can’t all be right. This is what separates us from our protestant brothers and sisters.

And to answer your question: No, we don’t take EVERYTHING literally.

Your answers speak for themselves. You obviously do not understand the passage or are unwilling to assert yourself and address it. LAST TIME: IT has everything to do with religions!!! I ASK AGAIN what does the Passage mean to YOU? CLARIFY for ME since I do not understand it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As a Catholic, we do not take everything the Bible says literally. We are very much contextualists, also we look to the Magisterium for Scriptural interpretation. Not believing that, is heretical.

Also, no one disregards Jesus or denies him by respecting other religions.

But I rather think, Litlulu, that we ARE to take this literally, ie., the denial of Christ will result in his denial of us.

That DOESN’T equate, however, with TCOBI’s assertion, in this instance, however. We can acknowledge what is truth in other religions. For example, Mormonism, Islam, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses all believe in one God. That’s true, there is only one God. Great, that’s a point from which we can start in talking with them. From there on out, however, it becomes problematic, because their view of Who the One God is is terribly skewed, so much so that all we really have in common is that we’re all monotheists.

We can acknowledge with Protestants that faith saves us. Another good starting point. It tends to fall apart (depending on the Protestant you’re talking to) over “faith alone.” We cannot believe that because that’s not the Truth proclaimed from Apostolic times, or in Scripture.

And what you said is not heresy according to the teachings of the Catholic Church (look in the Catechism), TCOB1’s anathemas (which he has no authority to issue) notwithstanding.

 

[litllulu]

But I rather think, Litlulu, that we ARE to take this literally, ie., the denial of Christ will result in his denial of us.

That DOESN’T equate, however, with TCOBI’s assertion, in this instance, however. We can acknowledge what is truth in other religions. For example, Mormonism, Islam, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses all believe in one God. That’s true, there is only one God. Great, that’s a point from which we can start in talking with them. From there on out, however, it becomes problematic, because their view of Who the One God is is terribly skewed, so much so that all we really have in common is that we’re all monotheists.

We can acknowledge with Protestants that faith saves us. Another good starting point. It tends to fall apart (depending on the Protestant you’re talking to) over “faith alone.” We cannot believe that because that’s not the Truth proclaimed from Apostolic times, or in Scripture.

And what you said is not heresy according to the teachings of the Catholic Church (look in the Catechism), TCOB1’s anathemas (which he has no authority to issue) notwithstanding.

I think I was misunderstood here. I acknowleged that although this may be literal, not ever single passage is. Remember, that the Church teaches it is possible for Jews and other non-Christians to reach heaven. If we have the truth about Christ we must accept it. If you took this completely literally, one could argue that only Christians have the opportunity for heaven.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You are Gravely mistaken…

Hmmmm…no, you are.

St. Matthew is speaking of those who obstinately oppose Christ. Yet, the internal disposition of another’s soul is judged by God alone.

Blessed Pius IX confirmed that not all those ignorant of the truth of our Holy Religion, obstinately oppose Christ. He stated: “We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.” Quanto conficiamur moerore]

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that culpability for sin is linked to voluntariness. For instance, Saul explicitly rejected Christianity, but he “obtained…mercy…because [he] did it ignorantly.” (1 Tim 1:13). Thus, St. Thomas taught “whatever is a reason for sin to be forgiven, diminishes sin.” (ST, IIa, 76, 4).

St. Peter tells us to “honor all men.” (1 Pet 2:17) So, I do. Even if they happen to be wrong about Christianity.