Sedevacantist... serious or without any merit?

[guanophore]

ok… I know I really can put myself in the dumbest situations… I’m just a plain ol Catholic, I believe in the Pope and everything, I like to offer up prayer for the poor souls in purgatory…so , how did I manage to come upon a web site, through a link… join for a year, and THEN find out it wasn’t a good thing to do… it’s called the Purgatorian Archconfraternity Talk about buyer beware! should I email them and tell them to cancel it ? I don’t want to start something I know nothing about and getting on the wrong side of my guardian angel ! :bowdown2: or God ! :bigyikes:

What’s wrong with it?

 

[PaulusRobertus]

In Italy they are a few, I think one or two hundred to the maximum. It’s very difficult to talk to them, they are generally neonazi or neofascist

 

[pnewton]

I take them very seriously* because* they are without merit. Like clown priest, pedophile priest and Satan himself, they have taken something holy and perverted it, bringing scandal to the Church. The only good that can be said about them is that they are small enough in number so as to not present a major problem. Still, to those faithful that they do lead astray and out of the bride of Christ, they must one day be held accountable before God.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I take them very seriously* because* they are without merit. Like clown priest, pedophile priest and Satan himself, they have taken something holy and perverted it, bringing scandal to the Church. The only good that can be said about them is that they are small enough in number so as to not present a major problem. Still, to those faithful that they do lead astray and out of the bride of Christ, they must one day be held accountable before God.

Sedevacantists are not Catholic. Just like all the Protestant denominations are not Catholic. Simple as that.

 

[gorman64]

Sedevacantists are not Catholic. Just like all the Protestant denominations are not Catholic. Simple as that.

Dear paramedicgirl,

That’s quite a bold statement. Can you explain to us how a typical sedevacantist is a non-Catholic?

And btw, your very own CCC, the Official Catechism of the Conciliar Church, states the following:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Of course, I don’t believe this…but I believe you do.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dear paramedicgirl,

That’s quite a bold statement. Can you explain to us how a typical sedevacantist is a non-Catholic?

And btw, your very own CCC, the Official Catechism of the Conciliar Church, states the following:

Of course, I don’t believe this…but I believe you do.

Yours,

Gorman

How many sedevacantists are born into that “community?” How many are the children of sedevacantists? And obviously, if one doesn’t believe what the CCC says (promulgated as a “sure norm” for the teaching of the faith by the competant authority), one would find it difficult to credit a claim by that person that that person was Catholic (and spare us the time-consuming argument that the Post Conciliar Church or the Catechism contradicts the Pre-conciliar church and catechisims, as you know we’re only going to say that the former only clarifies or further explains the latter and that no contradiction exists).

 

[paramedicgirl]

Dear paramedicgirl,

That’s quite a bold statement. Can you explain to us how a typical sedevacantist is a non-Catholic?

And btw, your very own CCC, the Official Catechism of the Conciliar Church, states the following:

Of course, I don’t believe this…but I believe you do.

Yours,

Gorman

If someone denies the Magisterium of the Church and the hierarchy of the Pope, but still believes in Christ, they are still Christians, such as in the Protestant denominations, but they are not Catholic. To be Catholic, you must believe all the Church teaches otherwise you are a heretic.

 

[MTD]

paramedicgirl,

I fell to laughing when I read your post #38 because I knew Gorman would have to answer it. And I think I can even predict what his answer to your last post will be.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

If someone denies the Magisterium of the Church and the hierarchy of the Pope, but still believes in Christ, they are still Christians, such as in the Protestant denominations, but they are not Catholic. To be Catholic, you must believe all the Church teaches otherwise you are a heretic.

Dear paramedicgirl,

I think you need to look at some sources first.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[paramedicgirl]

Dear paramedicgirl,

I think you need to look at some sources first.

Yours,

Gorman

Maybe I do. Can you provide them? If I am wrong, then I would like to be corrected.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Well, one argument of the sedes still troubles me,
and it is their argument against the famous Balamand Declaration, a document in which it is stated explicitly that is is not necessary for nonCatholics (the Orthodox) to enter the Catholic Church for Salvation.

The Catholic Faith teaches de fide that only those who are outside of the visible churh through INVINCIBLE ignorance, can still be saved.

Balamand does not take that into account and blanketly asserts without any qualification that the Orthodox do not need to embrace the Catholic Church for their salvation.
That certainly LOOKS like heresy, at least to me (I am not a sedevacantist though, not by any means), and this declaration has the approval of both Pope John Paul II and our current holy Father. As for me, I don’t know what to make of this.

So I do believe that some people are sedevacantists in
good faith and good conscience.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[gorman64]

Maybe I do. Can you provide them? If I am wrong, then I would like to be corrected.

Dear paramedicgirl,

You were paraphrasing something you have read or learned somewhere…where did you learn this? I am suggesting that you go back to these sources and check to see if what you stated was accurate. If you wish to ignore me that is fine as well…but if you’re not certain about these things then my suggestion is to become certain about them before you comment.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[paramedicgirl]

Dear paramedicgirl,

You were paraphrasing something you have read or learned somewhere…where did you learn this? I am suggesting that you go back to these sources and check to see if what you stated was accurate. If you wish to ignore me that is fine as well…but if you’re not certain about these things then my suggestion is to become certain about them before you comment.

Yours,

Gorman

OK, let me just check my Baltimore Catechism.

 

[gorman64]

V2 source for the CCC section 818:

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:
3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,[19] which the Apostle strongly condemned.[20]But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church–do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. **But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,[21] and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.**22]

 

[paramedicgirl]

Gorman, I’m asking this because I want to know, not because I am being judgmental:

Since sedevacantists don’t have one of the four marks of the church (one or unity) how can they be Catholic?

If sedevacantists are not heretics, then how do they explain that they don’t believe in all the truths revealed by God, namely that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church?

I understand that heresy can be negative or material in that it is not accompanied by obstinacy of the will; ie a sedevacantist who is raised that way from birth always has believed it is the one true religion, just as a cradle protestant has always believed that his is he religion ordained by God.

 

[TNT]

… namely that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church?

…

Depends on what you mean by “prevail”.

To the early Christians of the 4th century who refused to accept the Arian heresy, Christians who had lost their Church buildings to the heretics, but Christians who kept the faith.
St. Athanasius was a Doctor of the Church. He lived from 296 to 373 A.D.

Who has lost and who has won in this struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the faith? True, the premises are good when the apostolic faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …
You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the faith which has come down to you from apostolic tradition… They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.
"No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers, and we believe that God will give us our Churches back some day.
Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. **They claim that they represent the Church but **in reality they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.
Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, **they are the ones who are the true Church **of Jesus Christ.

So, what exactly does “Prevail” mean?

I asked in another place recently if a pope could become a heretic.
The answer I got was Yes, with no objections.
So, a heretic pope could not mean that hell “prevailed”.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Depends on what you mean by “prevail”.

To the early Christians of the 4th century who refused to accept the Arian heresy, Christians who had lost their Church buildings to the heretics, but Christians who kept the faith.
St. Athanasius was a Doctor of the Church. He lived from 296 to 373 A.D.

So, what exactly does “Prevail” mean?

I asked in another place recently if a pope could become a heretic.
The answer I got was Yes, with objections.
So, a heretic pope could not mean that hell “prevailed”.

If you could accept that the pope was capable of teaching heresy to the whole of the Church. If that happened, then would hell have not prevailed?

 

[MTD]

OK, let me just check my Baltimore Catechism.

I’ll pull it out for you, paramedicgirl, since you probably don’t have it with you right now.

V2 source for the CCC section 818:

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:
3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,[19] which the Apostle strongly condemned.[20]But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church–do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,[21] and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.[22]

1. Are all obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved?
   All are obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved.
2. What do we mean when we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”?
   When we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” we mean that Christ made the Catholic Church a necessary means of salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church in some way to be saved.
3. How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?
   Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in this way they are connected with the Church by desire.

169A: What conditions are necessary in order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense?
In order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense, it is necessary that he be baptized, that he profess the Catholic faith, and that he neither separate himself from the Mystical Body nor be excluded by lawful authority.

169B: How does a person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body?
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by open and deliberate heresy, apostasy, or schism.

169C: How does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by heresy?
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by heresy when he openly rejects or doubts some doctrine proposed by the Catholic Church as a truth of divine-Catholic faith, though still professing himself a Christian.

Gorman, can you explain why it says full incorporation?

Maria

 

[MTD]

paramedicgirl:

… namely that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church?

…

Depends on what you mean by “prevail”.

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church founded on the rock of Peter. Once that rock is gone, the Church can’t prevail. And according to sedevacantism, we’ve had no rock for 50 years and can’t even look forward to having one in the future because the Church is destitute of those who would have the authority to elect one.

I asked in another place recently if a pope could become a heretic.
The answer I got was Yes, with no objections.

I believe you got no objections because there are two theologically probable opinions: one says he could become a heretic but would not be able to teach heresy ex cathedra while the other says he could not become a heretic. This latter opinion appears to be supported by Bellarmine, and that’s why sedevacantists quote him so often.

So, a heretic pope could not mean that hell “prevailed”.

In the case of either theological opinion, a heretical pope does not mean hell has prevailed. In the former opinion (see above paragraph), the pope cannot teach heresy ex cathedra nor can he establish disciplines contrary to Divine Law; in the latter opinion, there would be no pope and thus the Teaching Church would be under the obligation to recognize the papal claimant’s heresy and elect a valid pope.

Maria

 

[pnewton]

Dear paramedicgirl,

That’s quite a bold statement. Can you explain to us how a typical sedevacantist is a non-Catholic?

Your CCC quote said nothing about being termed a Catholic, but rather a Christian. It also must be taken in context of the possibility of mortal sin. I agree that sedevacatnist are decidedly not Catholic. The one distiguishing doctrine of Catholicism that is unique to all Christians is that of the primacy of the chair of Rome. Those who have rejected that, have rejected the Church. I almost believe those few antipopes that get their family and friends to elect them pope at least have more internal consistancy than those who just say the chair is vacant and twiddle their thumbs and bemoan the path the Catholic Church has taken. At least they understand the need for a papacy. Unfortunately, once they start following their own pope, they are no longer in communion with the true pope, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.