Sedevacantists answer to Church restoration?

[Paradox2080]

Sedevacantists don’t believe we currently have a Pope; they don’t believe that post Vatican II ordinations are valid for Cardinals/Bishops/Priests. They don’t believe Blessed Pope Benedict XVI is a pope, they only recognize him as a Bishop because that was his last valid ordination which took place pre-Vatican II.

Because it is said that evil will never completely take over the church what is the Sedevacantists solution to restoration?

It is my understanding that they believe that there are still a few valid cardinals in the Vatican who received their ordination pre-Vatican II. They believe that some day one of these cardinals will one day be elected Pope at which time they (Sedevacantists) will return in full communion with Rome.

This idea may not have sounded so far fetched 20 years or so ago when these cardinals were younger but now Sedevacantists are looking more and more stupid.

Is there some other position on this subject that Sedevacantists hold that i am not aware of? What are your thoughts on this?

The reason I’m asking is my wife is a former Sedevacantist and I have thankfully shown her the light but she still gets A LOT of pressure from her family and friends who are still Sedevacantists.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Sedevacantists don’t believe we currently have a Pope; they don’t believe that post Vatican II ordinations are valid for Cardinals/Bishops/Priests. They don’t believe Blessed Pope Benedict XVI is a pope, they only recognize him as a Bishop because that was his last valid ordination which took place pre-Vatican II.

Because it is said that evil will never completely take over the church what is the Sedevacantists solution to restoration?

It is my understanding that they believe that there are still a few valid cardinals in the Vatican who received their ordination pre-Vatican II. They believe that some day one of these cardinals will one day be elected Pope at which time they (Sedevacantists) will return in full communion with Rome.

This idea may not have sounded so far fetched 20 years or so ago when these cardinals were younger but now Sedevacantists are looking more and more stupid.

Is there some other position on this subject that Sedevacantists hold that i am not aware of? What are your thoughts on this?

The reason I’m asking is my wife is a former Sedevacantist and I have thankfully shown her the light but she still gets A LOT of pressure from her family and friends who are still Sedevacantists.

Why one day one of their bishops will become the Pope of Rome, of course!

On how he will get elected, some vague platitiude is offered about the Holy Spirit at the conclave.

In college I actually lived directly behind a sede parish. The priest and I talked at the back fence on a couple of occasions… He was as smart and as crazy as a serial killer who never got caught. Which is to say very.

His arguments were well worded, if not cogent, and his thinking was consistent if problematic.

As for the missus, do you have a good traditional parish around? I have found FSSP priests generally do a GREAT job of explaining why SV is problematic. Also seeing a great traditional parish in communion with the Holy See and local ordinary may help to placate some of the fears and anxieties that SVs seem to thrive on manipulating and exploiting.

 

[Paradox2080]

Why one day one of their bishops will become the Pope of Rome, of course!

On how he will get elected, some vague platitiude is offered about the Holy Spirit at the conclave.

In college I actually lived directly behind a sede parish. The priest and I talked at the back fence on a couple of occasions… He was as smart and as crazy as a serial killer who never got caught. Which is to say very.

His arguments were well worded, if not cogent, and his thinking was consistent if problematic.

As for the missus, do you have a good traditional parish around? I have found FSSP priests generally do a GREAT job of explaining why SV is problematic. Also seeing a great traditional parish in communion with the Holy See and local ordinary may help to placate some of the fears and anxieties that SVs seem to thrive on manipulating and exploiting.

We’ve recently moved into a new Traditional parish and I’m still in the process of getting to know the priests but i will bring this subject up when i get the opportunity.

One thing that really bugs me about Sedevacantists from my observation is that they seems to pat each other on the back when ever one of them says something nasty or scoffs about Rome or a NO church. In my opinion they are like a cult; they are worse than protestants because they should know better!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. .
In college I actually lived directly behind a sede parish. The priest and I talked at the back fence on a couple of occasions… He was as smart and as crazy as a serial killer who never got caught. Which is to say very.

His arguments were well worded, if not cogent, and his thinking was consistent if problematic.
. . …

Chesterton noted that it is quite incorrect to say that a manman has lost his reason. Reason is what he is strongest on; just his premises are out in left field.

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

Chesterton noted that it is quite incorrect to say that a madman has lost his reason. Reason is what he is strongest on; just his premises are out in left field.

That helps! Thank you!

 

[MilesXpisti]

I’m not a sede (though I confess to being sympathetic to them), but as for your question, I don’t think there is a particular timeline to it. It seems from your post that you assume that the prospective Holy Father would come only from the College; this is not the case, as any baptized male can be elected to the Papal office. And while I do not completely share their understanding of the post-conciliar period, they are quite correct in that there is not dogmatic understanding that would prevent an extended interregnum, even to the tune of 40 years (the Great Western schism having last 39 with no clear Bishop of Rome, with three claimants to the Seat at any given time).

 

[Genesis315]

(the Great Western schism having last 39 with no clear Bishop of Rome, with three claimants to the Seat at any given time).

But that was not a sedevacantist situation–the chair was not empty. There was a true Pope “sitting” in it, with two false claimants. The modern sedevacantist position is that there is no true pope at all and hasn’t been one for that period.

What I’ve always wondered is why the Pius XIII, Gregory XVII, Michael I, etc. types don’t get together and iron out their situation in a Council of Constance style thing. If they really are sincere in their beliefs and desire to do the best for the Body of Christ, you’d think they’d all gladly abdicate humbly, elect one person, and unite under one visible head.

 

[MilesXpisti]

But that was not a sedevacantist situation–the chair was not empty. There was a true Pope “sitting” in it, with two false claimants. The modern sedevacantist position is that there is no true pope at all and hasn’t been one for that period.

What I’ve always wondered is why the Pius XIII, Gregory XVII, Michael I, etc. types don’t get together and iron out their situation in a Council of Constance style thing. If they really are sincere in their beliefs and desire to do the best for the Body of Christ, you’d think they’d all gladly abdicate humbly, elect one person, and unite under one visible head.

Probably because they’re not Pontiffs, and most not even priests. And a situation like that, similar in scope to the Arian heresy would need a confessor the likes of St. Athanasius.

As for it not being a case of sede vacante, it is easy to pronounce who was the Holy Father at the time in hindsight, but given the canonized saints followed different Popes during this time, it’s fairly obvious that there was more than just a case of anti-popes coming out of the woodwork and being shrugged off. But even if it weren’t, there are still no dogmas against an extended interregnum, and there have historically been sede vacante of several years.

 

[TNT]

The Sede position is more likely in your own Catechism. Read Par. 677 Real Slow…Disect each word…Real slow.
Post it here and the anti-sede’s can chew on it.

Oh, and paste par 675 above it to get the context.
After all, it’s the very book of teachings you believe in.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

As for it not being a case of sede vacante, **it is easy to pronounce who was the Holy Father at the time in hindsight, but given the canonized saints followed different Popes during this time, it’s fairly obvious that there was more than just a case of anti-popes coming out of the woodwork and being shrugged off. ** But even if it weren’t, there are still no dogmas against an extended interregnum, and there have historically been sede vacante of several years.

Again, confusion over WHOM was the Pope is not an empty see. This confusion lends no credence whatsoever to the notion of SV being tenable.

More succintly, there is NO precedent for 40+ year “interegnum” during which time the preponderance of Catholic faithful were deluded into thinking FIVE anti-popes were real.

 

[Genesis315]

The Sede position is more likely in your own Catechism. Read Par. 677 Real Slow…Disect each word…Real slow.
Post it here and the anti-sede’s can chew on it.

Oh, and paste par 675 above it to get the context.
After all, it’s the very book of teachings you believe in.

I’m assuming you are referring to the death and resurrection part. The Church follows Christ in that. Christ did not apostize,he physically was put to death unjustly. If you read the Scripture cited (Apo. 19:1-9) it involves the physical persecution of the Church–with blood and martyrs and whatnot.

 

[Genesis315]

I suggest a reading of the works of St. Francis de Sales TNT posted earlier in the thread on ecumenism. The arguments concerning the visibility and size of the Church used against Protestants who claimed the true faithful were small, scattered, or even underground is also a good argument against the sedevacantists. St. Francis does not argue that one day the Church would be as they describe, but rather that it must always have that large visible nature.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I suggest a reading of the works of St. Francis de Sales TNT posted earlier in the thread on ecumenism. The arguments concerning the visibility and size of the Church used against Protestants who claimed the true faithful were small, scattered, or even underground is also a good argument against the sedevacantists. St. Francis does not argue that one day the Church would be as they describe, but rather that it must always have that large visible nature.

Excellent suggestion. Would that be found in the book TAN publishes of his work? I believe that is in my TBR (to be read) pile in the office…

 

[TNT]

Excellent suggestion. Would that be found in the book TAN publishes of his work? I believe that is in my TBR (to be read) pile in the office…

It’s actually ONLINE if you’re interested. See the Site on my early post.

 

[TNT]

I’m assuming you are referring to the death and resurrection part. The Church follows Christ in that. Christ did not apostize,he physically was put to death unjustly. If you read the Scripture cited (Apo. 19:1-9) it involves the physical persecution of the Church–with blood and martyrs and whatnot.

Post the par’s. They’re short. Then let’s discuss it so others can look at our conclusions and the par’s.

My point is that those requiring the Sede to produce a classic restoration scenario are looking in the wrong place.
Or, at the wrong premise.

.

 

[I_Believe]

Sedevacantists answer to Church restoration ?

I dunno, but a good document shredder would keep them occupied for a while

 

[MilesXpisti]

Again, confusion over WHOM was the Pope is not an empty see. This confusion lends no credence whatsoever to the notion of SV being tenable.

I’m not saying it does. But the very point of having a Holy Father is to have an anchor of communion within the visible Church. This communion is damaged, and faith severely tested, in such incidences. Is it so hard to imagine that many during this period could have concluded that they didn’t know what to believe, refused to decide, and merely prayed for the restoration of a clear successor to the Chair?

ASimpleSinner:

More succintly, there is NO precedent for 40+ year “interegnum” during which time the preponderance of Catholic faithful were deluded into thinking FIVE anti-popes were real.

This is rather grossly misconstrues history, sir. The only outstanding point in your proposed situation is the presence of anti-popes without a true visible head, that is to say an apparent defectibility of all or nearly all the hierarchy of the Church. Historically, this would describe the Arian heresy during which it’s projected that only between 1% and 3% of bishops and clergy still practiced the authentic faith. Whole regions were completely without any juridical form of hierarchy as they’d all become heresiarchs.

 

[TMC]

The Sede position is more likely in your own Catechism. Read Par. 677 Real Slow…Disect each word…Real slow.
Post it here and the anti-sede’s can chew on it.

Oh, and paste par 675 above it to get the context.
After all, it’s the very book of teachings you believe in.

OK, I’ll bite. Not sure why you won’t post it yourself if you want to discuss it so much, but here it is:

675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.573 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth574 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.575

676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,576 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.577

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.578 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.579 God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.580

So I’m guessing that your point is that Benedict is the Anti-Christ (or Paul, or John Paul, or all of them?) And that there will be no restoration because we are in the midst of the end times.

Whatever. Its hard for me to take the sede positions too seriously. Their position is no different than the schismatics that broke to have married priests or women priests. At least those groups have the intellectual honesty to admit that they are rebelling, instead of pretending that the REST of the Church is rebelling.

 

[TNT]

OP Wrote:
It is my understanding that they believe that there are still a few valid cardinals in the Vatican who received their ordination pre-Vatican II. They believe that some day one of these cardinals will one day be elected Pope at which time they (Sedevacantists) will return in full communion with Rome.
….
Well, first of all, your understanding is far from universal among Sede’s.​

AsimpleSinner wrote:
Why one day one of their bishops will become the Pope of Rome, of course!

More New Order Useless Ridicule
…
In college I actually lived directly behind a sede parish. The priest and I talked at the back fence on a couple of occasions… He was as smart and as crazy as a serial killer who never got caught. Which is to say very.

Personal slandarous commentary from the New Order hypocritical “charity” mindset.

Paradox2080 Wrote:
…they seems to pat each other on the back when ever one of them says something nasty or scoffs about Rome or a NO church. In my opinion they are like a cult; they are worse than protestants …

Here we have a complete lack of the least charity which JPII and B16 have offered even to Muslims and other anti- or non-christian idolaters.
The poster himself oozes with what he professes to be “nasty” by Sede’s.

AsimpleSinner Wrote:
More succintly, there is NO precedent for 40+ year “interegnum” during which time the preponderance of Catholic faithful were deluded into thinking FIVE anti-popes were real.

Also irrelevant. At the time of the Arian Crisis, at the time of Great Western Schism, WHERE were their precedents??

Genesis315 Wrote:
St. Francis does not argue that one day the Church would be as they describe, but rather that it must always have that large visible nature.

Of all the things St Francis de Sales possessed, being a prophetic seer was not one of them.
I don’t recall him stating a “LARGE” visible nature.
He also never mentioned that one day the Muslim Sect would outnumber or overshadow the Catholic Church, but lo, here we are. Does that make Islam the real Church?

I_Believe Wrote:
…a good document shredder would keep them occupied for a while

Another New Order lack of charity and useless toward the OP’s inquiry.

===============
The Sede position is but one way to reconcile the near universal rise of evil WITHIN this New Order church’s “clergy” i.e. unprecedented embezzlements in size, frequency & longevity, rape of same-sex youth , the lack of action, except protection & coverup, on these matters by its highest leaders, the collapse of its religious vocations, the vulcanic explosion of divorce under the guise of anullments , its friendship and fascination toward the sin that cries out to heaven for vengence, the man centered theology of its members & leaders, its distorted “worship” services, its Masonic inspired edifices, its idea of salvation for anti-Christ religions, its constant double-speak and finally the overthrow of all traditional catholicism and the practices that sustained and grew the Catholic Church for so many centuries.

 

[TNT]

OK, I’ll bite. Not sure why you won’t post it yourself if you want to discuss it so much, but here it is:

So I’m guessing that your point is that Benedict is the Anti-Christ (or Paul, or John Paul, or all of them?) And that there will be no restoration because we are in the midst of the end times.

Whatever. Its hard for me to take the sede positions too seriously. Their position is no different than the schismatics that broke to have married priests or women priests. At least those groups have the intellectual honesty to admit that they are rebelling, instead of pretending that the REST of the Church is rebelling.

Thanks for your cooperation.
Now, read:
The Par DEFINTION or description of the antichrist…think outside the conclusion that it is a single person. I don’t see that being what is said there.
Gotta go to work, but I’ll be back , and thanks again.