Talk about crazy sedevacantists!

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanCrusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RomanCrusader

Guest
romancatholicism.org

Wow, after reading their articles I have concluded that if these guys are right then it is impossible to attain salvation! I mean I’m a fairly traditionalist Catholic and I think these guys are insane!

They quote St. Pius X a bunch of times for their arguements and then call him a heretic later on for saying infants who die without baptism do not suffer hellfire. They also claim Boniface VIII’s “Unam Sanctam” is an “ex cathedra statement” even though later Popes condemned Unam Sanctam.

These guys have an obsession with unbaptized children and the ignorant going to Hell. I thought it was fairly well-established that unbaptized children and the ignorant had at least hope of salvation.
 
When one jumps out of the Barque of Peter, one is quite likely to bob aimlessly on the waves, at best.
 
Too much time on your hands leads to fanaticism. These guys need a job or a girlfriend.

I declare a fatwa against Sedevacantism !
 
Arbitro360 said:
Too much time on your hands leads to fanaticism. These guys need a job or a girlfriend.
Click to expand...
Well said.

I do not take these people seriously. Unfortunately, these people are the type who like to show off the Catholic faith they claim to hold- and they give the Church a bad name- through their lack of charity. Those who don’t know much about the Church may meet them and think that they are a true representation of the Church. I would have run far away from the Church, had I encountered people like that before I was interested in converting.

I’ve had the unfortunate experience of discovering sedevacantist message boards. They openly called bishops and popes and priests heretics. They encouraged people to lecture their priests on how to do things, to walk out of Mass- making sure to cause a scene, and to exaggerate their gestures “to show everybody else how they’re supposed to be reverent.”
 
Arbitro360 said:
Too much time on your hands leads to fanaticism. These guys need a job or a girlfriend.
Click to expand...
Well said.

I do not take these people seriously. Unfortunately, these people are the type who like to show off the Catholic faith they claim to hold- and they give the Church a bad name- through their lack of charity. Those who don’t know much about the Church may meet them and think that they are a true representation of the Church. I would have run far away from the Church, had I encountered people like that before I was interested in converting.

I’ve had the unfortunate experience of discovering sedevacantist message boards. They openly called bishops and popes and priests heretics. They encouraged people to lecture their priests on how to do things, to walk out of Mass- making sure to cause a scene, and to exaggerate their gestures “to show everybody else how they’re supposed to be reverent.”
 
RomanCrusader said:
romancatholicism.org

Wow, after reading their articles I have concluded that if these guys are right then it is impossible to attain salvation! I mean I’m a fairly traditionalist Catholic and I think these guys are insane!

They quote St. Pius X a bunch of times for their arguements and then call him a heretic later on for saying infants who die without baptism do not suffer hellfire. They also claim Boniface VIII’s “Unam Sanctam” is an “ex cathedra statement” even though later Popes condemned Unam Sanctam.

These guys have an obsession with unbaptized children and the ignorant going to Hell. I thought it was fairly well-established that unbaptized children and the ignorant had at least hope of salvation.
Click to expand...
You are correct that these guys are probably insane, but Unam Sanctam was an(the statment about salvation ) ex-cathedra infallible statement. No Pope has ever condemned it. It has to be interpretated the way the Church inteprets it. It is not to be interpreted in the “Feeneyite” sense. (that water baptism and explicit faith are abosolutley necessary for salvation.)
 
stmaria said:
What Pope’s condemned Unam Sanctuam?
Click to expand...
Nobody condemned it, but several Popes have condemned “rigorist” interpretations that have come from it, such as that of the Feeneyites. A Dogma can only be defined once, and EENS was defined at Lateran IV. Therefore Unam Sanctum is not infallible. The Church alone has the power to interpret a Dogma such as EENS. The Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani and Pope Ven. Pius XII did so in 1949.
 
This guy is extremely crazy. First of all he is a Nazi. Second of all he is a Jansenist, and claims that all the Popes who condemned Jansenism were heretics. He is also a Feeneyite. He also claims that Popes Innocent X, Pius V, Clement XI, Pius VI, Pius IX, Pius X, Piux XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI were all heretics. Hard to believe the Church has even survived with all these heretical Popes. :rolleyes: His problem is he believes himself to be the only true Pope.

However you think this guy is wacky, you should take a look at this guy:

johnthebaptist.us/sbw/default.htm

He believes most converts will go to hell because they are insincere. :eek:

He claims that the Dimond Brothers, SSPV, CMRI, SSPX, and the sedevacantist “popes” are all heretics. So basically everybody but himself is a heretic.

johnthebaptist.us/sbw/default.htm

These guys have surely “fallen off the wagon.”
 
SemperFidelis said:
Nobody condemned it, but several Popes have condemned “rigorist” interpretations that have come from it, such as that of the Feeneyites. A Dogma can only be defined once, and EENS was defined at Lateran IV. Therefore Unam Sanctum is not infallible. The Church alone has the power to interpret a Dogma such as EENS. The Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani and Pope Ven. Pius XII did so in 1949.
Click to expand...
The statment in Unam Sanctam about submitting to the Roman Potiff is absolutley infallible. The Pope (Boniface VIII) uses all of the proper words. We pronounce, declare, and define that it is necessary for salvation…----THE STATEMENT IS INFALLIBLE----THE INTEPRETATION OF THIS STATMENT IS ANOTHER MATTER-------- also Boniface in his statment mentions submission to the Holy Roman Pontiff. He mentions EENS earlier in the Bull—but not in the infallible statment at the end of the Bull.
 
Talk about crazy sedevacantists!
Talk about Evil!
I suppose every society no matter how praisworthy had it crazies.
A few Vat II church bishops & Cd’s. come to mind.
Then there are the downright evil in the pristine VAT II church no less.

It seems too easy to call people names when you don’t have to confront them…sheltered on another Forum so to speak.
The right thing to do is go to them and raise your conclusions by contacting them, not calling them names here.

Unbelieveable isn’t it?
 
Victory5 said:
The statment in Unam Sanctam about submitting to the Roman Potiff is absolutley infallible. The Pope (Boniface VIII) uses all of the proper words. We pronounce, declare, and define that it is necessary for salvation…----THE STATEMENT IS INFALLIBLE----THE INTEPRETATION OF THIS STATMENT IS ANOTHER MATTER-------- also Boniface in his statment mentions submission to the Holy Roman Pontiff. He mentions EENS earlier in the Bull—but not in the infallible statment at the end of the Bull.
Click to expand...
here is the Holy father’s quote: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
 
Wow! An anonymous psychological diagnosis of insanity and craziness can be found right here on CAF folks! Step right up and get your mental state assessed to be sure you’re not crazy or insane.:rolleyes:

And to think real doctors have to go to med school for years to be able to pronounce a diagnosis.
 
Victory5 said:
The statment in Unam Sanctam about submitting to the Roman Potiff is absolutley infallible. The Pope (Boniface VIII) uses all of the proper words. We pronounce, declare, and define that it is necessary for salvation…----THE STATEMENT IS INFALLIBLE----THE INTEPRETATION OF THIS STATMENT IS ANOTHER MATTER-------- also Boniface in his statment mentions submission to the Holy Roman Pontiff. He mentions EENS earlier in the Bull—but not in the infallible statment at the end of the Bull.
Click to expand...
The whole purpose of ExCathedra statements is clarity of meaning. They need no “interpretation”.
They say what they mean and they mean what they say.
Now if one wanted to dissemble that Dogma, all they have to do is redefine WHO is in the church. VAT II did that (and threw Pius XII’s defintion out the window) by including everyone in the “church”…".imperfect communion", “defective communion” “Holy Spirit is present in their beliefs and rituals” etc.

Nothing wrong with that unless you try to foist it off as being in any way Traditional Catholic Dogma.

Oh, yes. I don’t have any explicit desire for baptism, therefore I am baptized by my implicit desire which is in no way demonstrable, like it or not… That’s my favorite because it makes everyone a church member…like it or not. And, they don’t have to follow all those catholic articles like Confession, Real Presence, stuff like that.
I defined it as a new Rite, called the Rite of the Free Ride. So we have Roman Rite, Eastern Rite(s) and the Free Ride Rite (everyone else who is not explicitly in these 2 Rites).

More Nasty stuff:
2 Corinthians 4:3:“And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost*, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them*.”:eek:
 
Victory5 said:
here is the Holy father’s quote: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Click to expand...
Thank you.
That nasty unpopular word “absolutely”. How are we to “interpret” that word?
Well, it means NOT absolutely If there are ANY exceptions.
Because an exception precludes the meaning of “absolutely”.
 
TNT said:
Originally Posted by Victory5
here is the Holy father’s quote: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Click to expand...
The odd thing is that people who are outside the Church and acknowledge themselves to be outside it usually agree with “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”. Dawkins certainly believes that those outside of the Catholic Church have no hope of heaven, for example.

The opposition comes from Catholics, and those claiming to be the “real” or “restored” Church, or to have an extra source of revelation.
Click to expand...
 
TNT said:
Thank you.
That nasty unpopular word “absolutely”. How are we to “interpret” that word?
Well, it means NOT absolutely If there are ANY exceptions.
Because an exception precludes the meaning of “absolutely”.
Click to expand...
Thats all fine and such, but it is unfortunate the Roman Pontiffs themselves, to whom this is applying, allow for an “interpretation” of this Dogma. Even Pius XII, the contemporary pope of Feeney, taught Invincible Ignorance.

And its funny too how the people who press hardest for a literal interpretation of this aren’t even in communion with Rome, and thus not subject in authority to the Roman Pontiff- by their own reasoning they are damned!

As for me, I will not be a Protestant and jump ship when I don’t like how things are going. If the Pope thinks we should interpret this liberally, then, as Augustine said, “Rome has spoken; the case is closed”
 
TNT said:
The whole purpose of ExCathedra statements is clarity of meaning. They need no “interpretation”.
They say what they mean and they mean what they say.
Now if one wanted to dissemble that Dogma, all they have to do is redefine WHO is in the church. VAT II did that (and threw Pius XII’s defintion out the window) by including everyone in the “church”…".imperfect communion", “defective communion” “Holy Spirit is present in their beliefs and rituals” etc.

Nothing wrong with that unless you try to foist it off as being in any way Traditional Catholic Dogma.

Oh, yes. I don’t have any explicit desire for baptism, therefore I am baptized by my implicit desire which is in no way demonstrable, like it or not… That’s my favorite because it makes everyone a church member…like it or not. And, they don’t have to follow all those catholic articles like Confession, Real Presence, stuff like that.
I defined it as a new Rite, called the Rite of the Free Ride. So we have Roman Rite, Eastern Rite(s) and the Free Ride Rite (everyone else who is not explicitly in these 2 Rites).

More Nasty stuff:
2 Corinthians 4:3:“And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost*, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them*.”:eek:
Click to expand...
TNT–UNFORTUNATLEY FOR YOU–PiusIX, The council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope ST. Pius X, and the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII disagree and dont interpret EENS the way you do------
 
paramedicgirl said:
Wow! An anonymous psychological diagnosis of insanity and craziness can be found right here on CAF folks! Step right up and get your mental state assessed to be sure you’re not crazy or insane.:rolleyes:

And to think real doctors have to go to med school for years to be able to pronounce a diagnosis.
Click to expand...
Hey, PMG,

have you checked out this group’s links to “National Socialism?”

I don’t need to be a meteorologist to tell you when it’s raining on my head.

(Happy Thanksgiving, btw!)
 
I was wondering what church/es do sedevacantists attend, considering they’re so few and probably only very few parishes exist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top