The Sedevacantist Position

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_M
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Michael_M

Guest
I recently found this website: (Removed link as per CAF policy)

Basically, the sedevacantists believe that Vatican II is heretical, that we don’t have a valid Pope and haven’t since Vat II, and that the sacraments are now invalid and everyone who participates in the invalid sacraments and in the Novus Ordo mass are going to hell.

I read a bit from this website, and it has me a bit concerned. Can anyone reassure me that I am actually a real catholic, and not a hell-bound heretic?
 
Yes you are a Catholic, Vatican II is a legitimate ecumenical council, Francis is a valid Pope, the ordinary form and all the sacraments including the Ordinary Form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as universally done throughout the world by Catholics are valid. The CMRI is out of communion with the Catholic Church, and is in schism.

Any other questions?
 
The only people who are possibly “hell-bound heretics” are the one who spew this kind of stuff! Stay away! Stay far, far away!
 
Cojuanco said:
Yes you are a Catholic, Vatican II is a legitimate ecumenical council, Francis is a valid Pope, the ordinary form and all the sacraments including the Ordinary Form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as universally done throughout the world by Catholics are valid. The CMRI is out of communion with the Catholic Church, and is in schism.

Any other questions?
Click to expand...
That is certainly what I want to be told, but how do I know it to be true? They claim that VAT II over-turned certain infallible dogmas. I looked into it, and it appears to be true. How does thr church respond to these claims?
 
Michael_M said:
That is certainly what I want to be told, but how do I know it to be true? They claim that VAT II over-turned certain infallible dogmas. I looked into it, and it appears to be true. How does thr church respond to these claims?
Click to expand...
Which dogmas do they claim the Council overturned?

As for me, put it this way. If they are right, that means the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. Christ promised us it would never happen. So either God is a liar, or more likely, they teach error. These people have failed to think with the Church as much as their liberal (theologically) counterparts have.
 
Cojuanco said:
Which dogmas do they claim the Council overturned?

As for me, put it this way. If they are right, that means the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. Christ promised us it would never happen. So either God is a liar, or more likely, they teach error. These people have failed to think with the Church as much as their liberal (theologically) counterparts have.
Click to expand...
This page (Removed link as per CAF policy) outlines what they think is heretical about the church post-VAT II. There are quite a few things, and they make reference to previous councils.

But, yes, you’re right. “And you are Petros, and on this rock I will build my church on earth; and not even the gates of Hades shall prevail against it.”

Yet, this kind of thing is rather disconcerting. Two sides who claim to have truth, and I’m a lay person without a sophisticated knowledge of church history or canon law.
 
Michael_M said:
This page (Removed link as per CAF policy) outlines what they think is heretical about the church post-VAT II. There are quite a few things, and they make reference to previous councils.

But, yes, you’re right. “And you are Petros, and on this rock I will build my church on earth; and not even the gates of Hades shall prevail against it.”

Yet, this kind of thing is rather disconcerting. Two sides who claim to have truth, and I’m a lay person without a sophisticated knowledge of church history or canon law.
Click to expand...
They misinterpret what the Council said on religious liberty and on ecumenism. As to the Holy Sacrifice, the changes to the Mass after Vatican II are no more revolutionary as to the changes wrought by the Council of Trent.
 
Michael_M said:
But, yes, you’re right. “And you are Petros, and on this rock I will build my church on earth; and not even the gates of Hades shall prevail against it.”

Yet, this kind of thing is rather disconcerting. Two sides who claim to have truth, and I’m a lay person without a sophisticated knowledge of church history or canon law.
Click to expand...
There have always been heresies and rebellion against the Catholic Church right from the beginning …so nothing new here. It started off with the rebellion of the bad angels, and continues…

No “two sides” exist - there is only one true Church.
 
I too have a question about the sedevacantist position. Do they review their position after each election of a new Pope? Or is it a permanent thing.
 
Who made them Pope? By what authority do they declare anything?

What is concerning is that the devil is real and that he seeks to divide the Body of Christ. Even worse, he influences brother Catholics to doubt - and doubt is the devil’s primary weapon. Resist him and he will flee.
 
Michael_M said:
Two sides who claim to have truth, and I’m a lay person without a sophisticated knowledge of church history or canon law.
Click to expand...
Then you would do well my friend to listen to the Church and to the Church only.

If there is a Church teaching you do not understand, this forum has been a Godsend - please just ask.

Here is a great resource to go to checkout a “Catholic” website before you go there: catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/
 
Darryl_B said:
I too have a question about the sedevacantist position. Do they review their position after each election of a new Pope? Or is it a permanent thing.
Click to expand...
It depends on why the group believes the chair is vacant and what they think needs to be done to have a valid Pope elected. Since none of the Cardinals electing the Pope care what these groups think, I would hazard a guess no Pope elected by Rome will suffice for them.
 
Darryl_B said:
I too have a question about the sedevacantist position. Do they review their position after each election of a new Pope? Or is it a permanent thing.
Click to expand...
They believe that the office of the bishop of Rome is vacant, and will be until a new pope is elected who upholds everything that the Vatican II Council did away with. Hope that makes sense.
 
Michael_M said:
That is certainly what I want to be told, but how do I know it to be true? They claim that VAT II over-turned certain infallible dogmas. I looked into it, and it appears to be true. How does thr church respond to these claims?
Click to expand...
The problem with these people is that they presume to know more about Catholicism than the Pope, all of the Cardinals and all of the Bishops.
Doesn’t it sound incredible that the hundreds of Bishops and Theologians who participated in Vatican II were all heretical?
These people themselves are victims of their egos and themselves have been prompted by satan to go against Holy Mother the Church. They are no different than the Eastern members of the Church who split from the Church in the11th Century, or the protestants of the 15th Century! They will fall by the wayside into being an insignificant sect, much like the Old Catholic Church did after Vatican I. Today they are of no importance.
 
Michael_M

Think about this. Who is more powerful man or the Holy Spirit ? Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide his church to all truth. He promised that the church would be protected from error by the Holy Spirit. What the Sedevacantist are saying is that the Holy Spirit guided the Church for 1962 years more or less. Then somehow the Holy Spirit abandoned the bride of Christ.:eek: Their beliefs would make our Lord a liar.
 
Michael_M said:
They believe that the office of the bishop of Rome is vacant, and will be until a new pope is elected who upholds everything that the Vatican II Council did away with. Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that makes sense, so the problem is Vatican II and not the validity of the Pope?
 
I’d like to think the handsome fellow who wrote [this blog post](this blog post) does a good job of explaining why sedevacantism is a huge error.
 
Michael_M said:
That is certainly what I want to be told, but how do I know it to be true? They claim that VAT II over-turned certain infallible dogmas. I looked into it, and it appears to be true. How does thr church respond to these claims?
Click to expand...
It is best to take one doctrine at a time and examine it. However, there are not two sides. This group is a sliver of a sliver of a sliver. Most groups like this number in the thousandths, or ten thousandths of one percent of Catholics and can hardly be described as a “side”.

Consider that we have now had four conclaves. If these folks are still waiting, then they must believe the Holy Spirit has goofed four times now. Their position demands that the Gates of Hell have prevailed.
 
Michael_M said:
They believe that the office of the bishop of Rome is vacant, and will be until a new pope is elected who upholds everything that the Vatican II Council did away with. Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...
“Until a new pope is elected…” by whom:confused:
I believe they already have elected anti-popes of their own, depending on whether they are"Conclavists" …

Conclavism is the belief and practice of some who, claiming that Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, and other recent occupants of the papal see are not true popes, elect someone else and propose him as the true pope to whom the allegiance of Catholics is due.
  • Pope Athanasius I (2011). In late 2011, Bryan Richard Clayton of Spokane, Washington organized a papal election via mail-in ballot and was himself elected, taking the name Pope Athanasius I.[7]
or “Mysticalists”…

Technically distinct from the above conclavist antipopes is the category of “popes” (sometimes called “mysticalists”) whose claims to the papacy derive from alleged divine revelations or apparitions. In these cases, there is no “conclave” process, and hence the term “conclavism” is arguably inappropriate.

The first post-Vatican II anti-pope to come to wide public notice, Pope Gregory XVII of the Palmarian Catholic Church, whose papal claim was asserted in 1978, fell into this category. Other antipopes of the same sort include the following:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top