Sedevacantist... serious or without any merit?

[icxc_nika]

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)

JayP–

Please don’t make the mistake and presume somehow that the Orthodox are not Catholic. They certainly are not Roman Catholic, but Catholic from the onset, currently, and to the end.
Needless to say that we have no concern about our salvation in regards to our Catholicity.

Therefore, using your presuppositions, the point that the Sede’s make is invalid, since the Orthodox are Catholic.

However my point in posting the thread was more in regards to learning aobut the significant differences that have come about in the Catholic Church since Vat II. Some would say that they are merely appearances, however the Sede’s argue that the RCC has abandoned many of the former teaches, not the least of which is the implementation of the new mass.

 

[icxc_nika]

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. [SIGN] The one distiguishing doctrine of Catholicism that is unique to all Christians is that of the primacy of the chair of Rome.[/SIGN] 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.

Perhaps you should be a bit more clear.
By doctrine of Catholicism, I presume you mean Roman Catholic.
Orthodox hold the chair of Peter to have primacy as well.

The Sede’s also hold that the chair of St. Peter to have Primacy…however the one occupying it is an imposter… in their opinion.

They believe all of the problems with the R. Catholic church, the renegade priests and liturical abuses, the velvet mofia in the seminaries, the Popes who offer common prayer with pagans, heretics, and schismatics: this and many more is the reason why they believe that Pope can not popssibly be the Pope. They believe because of these reasons and many more that the Church is simply waiting for the holy Spirit to come and act and bring the church out of it’s current apostasy.

After all 40-50 years is a blink of an eye in the Church’s history. There have been plenty of anti-popes and periods where the real Pope was not at the helm.

Mind you, these are not my own opinions, and simply the opinion of some Sede’s that I have met.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[guanophore]

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

Why don’t you believe it?

 

[pnewton]

The Sede’s also hold that the chair of St. Peter to have Primacy…however the one occupying it is an imposter… in their opinion.
.

That is a distinction I find absurd. The “chair” itself is nothing if not for the person occupying it, except a piece of furniture. To say that the chain has been broken for the last few popes leave no room for it to ever be restored. After all, it is the cardinals appointed by these imposters that will be electing the next pope, and the next, until Christ returns. Thus the bishop of Rome will always be an imposter from here on out to them. Giving lip service to the primacy of the bishop of Rome while rejecting the person, is meaningless. The Catholic Church today is led by the man, Benedict the XVI. Any who reject him are not a part of it. They make believe themselves to be, but that is nothing but a misperception of an objective reality.

 

[RobedWithLight]

That is a distinction I find absurd. The “chair” itself is nothing if not for the person occupying it, except a piece of furniture. To say that the chain has been broken for the last few popes leave no room for it to ever be restored. After all, it is the cardinals appointed by these imposters that will be electing the next pope, and the next, until Christ returns. Thus the bishop of Rome will always be an imposter from here on out to them. Giving lip service to the primacy of the bishop of Rome while rejecting the person, is meaningless. The Catholic Church today is led by the man, Benedict the XVI. Any who reject him are not a part of it. They make believe themselves to be, but that is nothing but a misperception of an objective reality.

Good observation. Sedevacantism is like quicksand from which its adherents find themselves sinking deeper and deeper, and more and more unable to extricate themselves from this pit. It is in essence an eerily self-perpetuating yet self-refuting proposition.

 

[guanophore]

That is a distinction I find absurd. The “chair” itself is nothing if not for the person occupying it, except a piece of furniture. To say that the chain has been broken for the last few popes leave no room for it to ever be restored. After all, it is the cardinals appointed by these imposters that will be electing the next pope, and the next, until Christ returns. Thus the bishop of Rome will always be an imposter from here on out to them. Giving lip service to the primacy of the bishop of Rome while rejecting the person, is meaningless. The Catholic Church today is led by the man, Benedict the XVI. Any who reject him are not a part of it. They make believe themselves to be, but that is nothing but a misperception of an objective reality.

This is not so. The “chair” is a position, like the presidency. Even if it were unoccupied, it wouldstill have ascribed to it certain responsibilities and privileges.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Here it is, the Chair of Peter;
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[BobP123]

Here it is, the Chair of Peter;

Now that certainly doesn’t look like the LA Cathedral.

 

[Uxor]

Here it is, the Chair of Peter;
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c156/paramedicgirl/chair-of-st-peter-large.jpg

It is so beautiful. Like it came out of Heaven.

 

[paramedicgirl]

It is so beautiful. Like it came out of Heaven.

And fittingly so.

 

[alih]

code of canon law.(promulgated 1983) book 1-general norms
Can. 6 para. 1 "when this code takes force,the following are abrogated: 1/ the code of canon law promulgated in 1917…

with this the post consiliar church recognizes that they have been bound by the rules of the 1917 code of canon law. (try finding an english translation)
from what i was able to discern, the moto propio “praestantia scripturae sacrae” issued by pius x, monday, november 18, 1907 was in full force and affect with its directives included in the code of canon law (1917)
praestantia scripturae sacrae states "moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree “lamentabili sane exitu” issued by our order bythe holy roman and universal inquisition on july 3 of the present year…we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the supreme sacred congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, "adding penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls ipso facto under the censure contained under the chapter “docentes” of the constitution “apostolicae sedis” which is the first among the excommunications "latae sententiae, simply reserved to the roman pontiff. this excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies when their propositiions, opinions and teachings are heretical as has happened more than once in the caseof the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of modernists that is the synthesis of all heresies.
it is my belief that and other documents of similar content speak for themselves.
have a good year.(alih)

 

[pnewton]

The “chair” is a position, like the presidency. Even if it were unoccupied, it wouldstill have ascribed to it certain responsibilities and privileges.

But it is not unoccuppied. That is my point the world knows who sits in that chair, like the world knows who is president of the U.S. To believe in an unoccupied chair is like believing in an unoccupied presidency. One can not simply decide the president should not be president and thereby ignore all the laws of the land passed since he took office. Nor can one get together with a few friends and like-minded goofballs and vote on which one of them should be president and follow them as the leader of the country.

 

[gorman64]

But it is not unoccuppied. That is my point the world knows who sits in that chair, like the world knows who is president of the U.S.

Dear pnewton:

This is a bad analogy in so many ways.

To believe in an unoccupied chair…

Here is Cardinal Franzelin, the papal theologian at the Vatican Council:

VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE

1. “Hence the distinction arises between the seat [sedes, See] and the one sitting in it [sedens], by reason of perpetuity. The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting [sedentes] in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be vacant and often is vacant. Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant.”

“From this can be understood the distinction in the condition of the Church herself in the time of the vacancy of the See and the time of the occupation of the See [sedis plenae], namely that in the former time, a successor of Peter, the visible rock and visible head of the Church, is owed to the vacant Apostolic See by divine right or law but does not yet exist; in the time of the occupation of the See he now actually sits by divine right. It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith. Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility in believing (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility in proclaiming the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church for all days even to the consummation of the world. **The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See EVEN WHEN VACANT, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come … **” (Franzelin, op. cit., p. 221-223)

Do you think Cardinal Franzelin might have been a “goofball”?

Yours,

Gorman

 

[pnewton]

Dear pnewton:

This is a bad analogy in so many ways.

It was not my analogy. It does have one thing in common. Namely, both positions are filled, visibly and obviously. I have no idea who Cardinal Franzelin is. If he thought that he was the president of the U.S., yes, I would consider that goofy. I might even doubt the sanity of such a one.

In any case, your article is irrelevant. The seat of Peter is not empty, no more than the White House is. When the seat is empty, as it will be again, then the article has relevance.

 

[gorman64]

I have no idea who Cardinal Franzelin is.

Why don’t you look it up then? Here, I’ll help you.

newadvent.org/cathen/06242a.htm

In 1850 he returned to the Roman college as assistant professor of dogma, and lecturer on Arabic, Syriac, and Chaldean. In 1853 he became prefect of studies in the German college, and in 1857 professor of dogmatic theology in the Roman college, where he remained for nineteen years, winning for himself by his lectures and publications a foremost place among the theologians of that time. During this period he acted as Consultor to several Roman Congregations, and aided in the preliminaries of the Vatican Council, in which he afterwards served as papal theologian. In 1876, despite his sincere and strenuous protests, he was raised to the cardinalate by Pius IX. This dignity made almost no change in his scrupulously simple and laborious life. He continued his use of poor garments; occupied but two bare rooms in the Jesuit novitiate of Sant’ Andrea; rose every morning at four and spent the time till seven in devotional exercises, always hearing Mass after saying his own; fasted every Saturday, and toward the end of his days, Friday also, besides using other forms of corporal penance.

Though of delicate heath, Franzelin had always been a constant and most laborious worker, never allowing himself any long recreation during his long years of poor health, severe toils, and painful scruples, save the short recreation after dinner and supper. As a cardinal, his sole departure from strict adherence to the Jesuit rule was to omit this daily recreation. Moreover, though constantly engaged as prefect of the Congregation of Indulgences and Relics, and consultor of several other congregations, he steadily refused the aid of a secretary. His entire income as cardinal he distributed among the poor, the foreign missions, and converts whose property had been seized by the Italian government. As a theologian, Franzelin takes high rank. From the first his works were recognized as a mine of rich material for the preacher; and for years he was accustomed to receive numerous letters from priests in all parts of the world, spontaneously acknowledging the great aid in preaching they had derived from his books. Of his works, which have gone through numerous editions, the treatise “De Divina Traditione et Scriptura” (Rome, 1870) is considered classical. The others are “De SS. Eucharistiæ Sacramento et Sacrificio” (1868); “De Sacramentis in Genere” (1868); “De Deo Trino” (1869); “De Deo Uno” (1870); “De Verbo Incarnato” (1870); some smaller treatises, and the posthumous “De Ecclesia Christi”.

 

[tcraig]

Here is Cardinal Franzelin, the papal theologian at the Vatican Council … Do you think Cardinal Franzelin might have been a “goofball”?

Did you even read what you’ve posted? The Cardinal is talking about the successors of the See of Peter being *mortal men. *Mortal men experience death, which would naturally result in the See being “empty” until another validly elected pope filled it.

It’s a completely different argument than the one sedes propose.

 

[MTD]

It’s a completely different argument than the one sedes propose.

How?

By the way, Gorman is a sedevacantist.

Maria

 

[guanophore]

But it is not unoccuppied. That is my point the world knows who sits in that chair, like the world knows who is president of the U.S. To believe in an unoccupied chair is like believing in an unoccupied presidency. One can not simply decide the president should not be president and thereby ignore all the laws of the land passed since he took office. Nor can one get together with a few friends and like-minded goofballs and vote on which one of them should be president and follow them as the leader of the country.

You say it can’t be done, but as far as I can tell, it has been done. I have little experience with Sedavacantists, but from what I do have, it seems to me that they deny all the popes and magesterial activity since Vat II. So, all the actions taken by subsequent popes and councils they consider to be invalid. there are some who have also set up their own pope, who they say is a valid apostolic successor.

 

[gorman64]

Did you even read what you’ve posted?

Dear tcraig,

Yes, I read it. I posted it to refute the following statement by pnewton:

To believe in an unoccupied chair is like believing in an unoccupied presidency.

If I go back to my Civics class in high school…which was a while ago now…I think I remember that the Vice President and the Speaker of the House are already in the line of succession. When JFK died we knew that LBJ was going to be sworn in…but there was no president between those times…was there? Government still functioned…didn’t it? Is not the office of the President defined by the Constitution? Unless the constitution was changed…the presidency would still be there and ready for a president to occupy the office.

The Church is of a different origin than that of the Presidency of the United States. Does that matter here?

Yours,

Gorman

 

[bear06]

And now we’re back to the super-interregnum. Where is the Visible Church, Gorman?