Was Jesus a Sedevancist?

[latinmasslover]

I’ve been a Catholic less than a year, and used to be Baptist. Maybe I don’t totally understand what the Sedevancists believe, but I think I’m starting to agree with them. I’ve been surprised by almost ridiculous levels of Ecumanism lately. And it seems that a lot of this “anything goes” philosophy seems to find its foundation on Vatican II.

Almost all my family are staunch Baptists including my wife and children. They have been told by many well-meaning Catholics that converting to Catholicism is not necessary for salvation, and that the saying “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” is meant to be interpreted very loosly. (ie: “You’re Catholic, but just don’t know it.”)

Yet John 6:53 says “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” Note: Baptists do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

My family has been told that “God is bigger than His Sacraments” and that He can save whomever He wishes, even if they don’t believe in the Eucharist and Confesion to a priest (among other things). While I agree that God can do whatever He wishes, I don’t buy the logic that Jesus can go back on what He says in John 6 - that would make Him a liar, wouldn’t it?

As I look back in Church history, I don’t see nearly the “casual” interpretation of “There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church” as I do now. Am I misunderstanding things?

Welcome to Mother Church!:hug1:
Sedevacantists are sincere, but tend to be (from my experience with them) very hateful. The refuse to acknowledge the legitamacy of the Popes because of some false opinions they (the popes) had. What they forget is that the Church has had bad popes in the past, not many, but a couple of really, truly, wicked men. And the Church still stands as Jesus promised. St. Peter denied Christ three times, after Jesus named him the Rock. Even still, Jesus entrusted His Church to him. He made mistakes later, but the Church still stands.
“Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Very true, depending on how you look at it. If by salvation you mean not damned, or if you mean in heaven enjoying the Beatific Vision. The Church has never taught that just because somebody is not Catholic that they will go to Hell. Will they go to heaven…? We don’t know. They may go to a sort of limbo until the Second Coming, we simply don’t know. God doesn’t condemn somebody because they’re ignorant (unless the ignorance is deliberate) because His is loving, merciful, and just. Keep in mind that most of Vatican II was pastoral, simply a “this is what we should do.” It doesn’t work, so obviously we shouldn’t. It defined nothing (which is where the Church can NEVER err) so just stick with the writings prior to V-II. Check out some of the writings of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He explains this stuff very well. We’re simply going through that apostacy that Jesus warned about, the one that “if possible the elect would be deceived.” Keep watch and God Bless.

 

[Sure]

Of course not. The Vicar of Christ is to defend the Deposit of Faith. We know Popes are true when they defend the Deposit of Faith and do not deviate. JP2 did not defend all of the Deposit (He did on some issues) but not all. Ecumenism and EENS are good example.
Is he in error and the Pope, or not the Pope because he is teaching error. This is a legitamate question.

So, you have two choices:

1. Declare there is no Pope and become a sedevacantist.

OR

1. Accept that perhaps your analysis of error is wrong, review your understanding of past events and the teaching of the Church, and trust in the Holy Spirit to guide the Holy Father.

I know which one I pick.

 

[latinmasslover]

So, you have two choices:

1. Declare there is no Pope and become a sedevacantist.

OR

1. Accept that perhaps your analysis of error is wrong, review your understanding of past events and the teaching of the Church, and trust in the Holy Spirit to guide the Holy Father.

I know which one I pick.

And “the-Holy Father-can-make-no-mistakes-in-his-[non-infallible] implementations” doctrine can be found where? If JPII is right in everything he said and did, as many suggest, then the Catholic Church, and Jesus Christ, have been wrong in some areas for quite awhile. Not encouraging. Truth and morality don’t change, unless you’re not Catholic.

 

[estesbob]

I’ve been a Catholic less than a year, and used to be Baptist. Maybe I don’t totally understand what the Sedevancists believe, ?

Jesus could not be a Sedevancist as there was no Pope for him to reject.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned and ending when it shows you that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church is wrong.Since the Catholic Church and Jesus are one in the same to make this statement would be saying that there is salvation outside of Jesus Christ which is simply impossible .

Salvation is available for those who are not formally members of the Catholic Church only if they suffer from invincible ignorance or have never been exposed to the Church.

 

[Sure]

And “the-Holy Father-can-make-no-mistakes-in-his-[non-infallible] implementations” doctrine can be found where? If JPII is right in everything he said and did, as many suggest, then the Catholic Church, and Jesus Christ, have been wrong in some areas for quite awhile. Not encouraging. Truth and morality don’t change, unless you’re not Catholic.

Just to clarify…

I never said he can make no mistakes. Earlier in this thread I commented that many of his episcopal appointments were poor. The comment to which I was responding pertained to latinmass’ position that Pope John Paul II had taught “error” on issues like EENS. Such an act would make him a heretic, thus my post proposing two choices of action.

 

[latinmass]

So, you have two choices:

1. Declare there is no Pope and become a sedevacantist.

OR

1. Accept that perhaps your analysis of error is wrong, review your understanding of past events and the teaching of the Church, and trust in the Holy Spirit to guide the Holy Father.

I know which one I pick.

I’ll go with he was the Pope and in error. No pointing fingers on judgement day. To be safe go with the teachings of 1965 years that are not ambigious.

 

[Woodstock]

Maybe I don’t totally understand what the Sedevancists believe, but I think I’m starting to agree with them.

By the way, I don’t think the word you want here is sedevacantist. I think you are sympathizing with traditionalists. The sedevacantists have a lot of the same views as traditionalists, but they believe that the pope became a heretic and somehow the entire college of cardinals went into heresy so that not one person was left in the church hierarchy to elect a new pope so everyone in the Church since then is in heresy. Some of them have even elected their own popes.

Traditionalists sound like the group of people you want to align yourself with.

 

[Dauphin]

I’ll go with he was the Pope and in error. No pointing fingers on judgement day. To be safe go with the teachings of 1965 years that are not ambigious.

There is nothing ambiguous about Catholic teaching. Outside of the Church, there is no salvation. You must be joined to the Catholic Church to be saved. You can be joined to the church through water baptism, baptism of desire, or baptism of blood. This is the unchanging teaching of the church, and it has not been altered in modern times. This teaching has been affirmed by the most traditionalist of Catholics, including Pope St. Pius X.

The idea that you must be joined to the church in an explicit way through water baptism in order to be saved is one of the gravest heresies there is, because it directly contradicts the teaching of Christ. Did Our Lord lie to the good thief?

 

[latinmass]

There is nothing ambiguous about Catholic teaching. Outside of the Church, there is no salvation. You must be joined to the Catholic Church to be saved. You can be joined to the church through water baptism, baptism of desire, or baptism of blood. This is the unchanging teaching of the church, and it has not been altered in modern times. This teaching has been affirmed by the most traditionalist of Catholics, including Pope St. Pius X.

The idea that you must be joined to the church in an explicit way through water baptism in order to be saved is one of the gravest heresies there is, because it directly contradicts the teaching of Christ. Did Our Lord lie to the good thief?

You are right my friend. Though not always said so clearly as you have stated. I am speaking more to the false ecumenism which is pure heresy which you did not speak to.

 

[Sure]

I’ll go with he was the Pope and in error. No pointing fingers on judgement day. To be safe go with the teachings of 1965 years that are not ambigious.

If he was in error on EENS as you suggest, then he is a heretic and was not Pope. So, do you believe that the chair of Peter is empty? Or is Benedict the Pope?

 

[LilyM]

Great question. This is going deeper than most responders seem to be willing or able to go. Some old Catholics seem to think that new ones can’t have a lot of insight. You are so right that the lax teaching of no salvation outside the Church is rampant and evidenced by JP2 at Assisi. The unwillingness to stand up for the faith is displeasing to God. Our last few Popes are unwilling to step on toes, let alone not willing to be a martyr for the truth as St. Peter and all the others. Our Lord may very well think that the past Popes were not real Vicars of Christ with the false teachings that have been going on like the one you mentioned. They are in the position, but are they real when teaching error? Great question. Canon Law does indicate that they may not.

Really? JP2 was so unwilling to be a martyr for the faith that he actually took a bullet from Mehmet Ali Agca, an assassin agent of the Communist governments of the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, whose militant atheism was so terribly offended by his radiant faith in Christ and his insistence on the practical (political) demands imposed by that faith?

 

[TMC]

Of course not. The Vicar of Christ is to defend the Deposit of Faith. We know Popes are true when they defend the Deposit of Faith and do not deviate. JP2 did not defend all of the Deposit (He did on some issues) but not all. Ecumenism and EENS are good example.
Is he in error and the Pope, or not the Pope because he is teaching error. This is a legitamate question.

Who is to judge the correct extent of the Deposit of Faith? Are you better positioned for that task than John Paul was? Then Benedict is? If you believe it is clear and obvious that these Popes have deviated from the true faith, why is that not obvious to each of them? Why is it not obvious to the Cardinals that elected Benedict knowing full well his beliefs on these doctrines?

There are three possibilities. 1 - the Pope and the majority of the Cardinals are actively working against God, surely a dire sin if true. 2 - the teachings on EENS and Ecumenism that concern you are not and never have been infallible teachings, leaving you room to believe the Church is merely in error. 3 - you don’t really understand the nature of the infallible teaching on this topic.

Is there another option? You seem to be asserting # 1. I think the answer is # 3.

 

[latinmasslover]

Really? JP2 was so unwilling to be a martyr for the faith that he actually took a bullet from Mehmet Ali Agca, an assassin agent of the Communist governments of the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, whose militant atheism was so terribly offended by his radiant faith in Christ and his insistence on the practical (political) demands imposed by that faith?

Being shot unexpectedly doesn’t exactly make one a “martyr.”

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Of course not. The Vicar of Christ is to defend the Deposit of Faith. We know Popes are true when they defend the Deposit of Faith and do not deviate. JP2 did not defend all of the Deposit (He did on some issues) but not all. Ecumenism and EENS are good example.

The problem is not the Church nor the Pope, it is the inability of vast amounts of people to detect the extreme subtlty of Catholic teaching on salvation, particularly in light of the Second Vatican Council.

The Church, as ever, affirms that it is a unique Institution with a unique calling that only She can fulfill. Neither Vatican II nor John Paul II changed this.

The Catholic Church has within it the “full means of salvation”. This does not mean that members of other churches or “communities” are definitively excluded from the saving grace of the Lord. There is nothing in another church conductive to salvation that the Catholic Church does not already posess. Yet this does not mean she is making use of it, and in this sense we can even open ourselves up to learning from other communities about ourselves.

By no means should this exclude an encouragment of conversion to the Catholic Church.

I would think all human beings, in the struggle for the salvation that God has offered us, would want the full means of salvation; all the tools available for their salvation which are found in their entierty only within the Catholic Church.

 

[latinmasslover]

Who is to judge the correct extent of the Deposit of Faith? Are you better positioned for that task than John Paul was? Then Benedict is? If you believe it is clear and obvious that these Popes have deviated from the true faith, why is that not obvious to each of them? Why is it not obvious to the Cardinals that elected Benedict knowing full well his beliefs on these doctrines?

There are three possibilities. 1 - the Pope and the majority of the Cardinals are actively working against God, surely a dire sin if true. 2 - the teachings on EENS and Ecumenism that concern you are not and never have been infallible teachings, leaving you room to believe the Church is merely in error. 3 - you don’t really understand the nature of the infallible teaching on this topic.

Is there another option? You seem to be asserting # 1. I think the answer is # 3.

Do you also claim the pope can make no mistake? Nobody said the pope was doing this to corrupt the Church. His beliefs are, in my opinion, very sincere, but in some instances, sincerely wrong. Who made latinmass (or anyone else who shares that view) know more than the pope? The better question is what makes a modern pope know better than the canonized popes who actually made statements *defending *the Church and Jesus Christ. Modernism has been condemned by the Church since the beginning; now adherence to tradition is what’s condemned by many. Was he mistaken on his interpretation? Obviously yes. Did he see that, we can’t say for sure. Martin Luther was sincere, but sincerely wrong. Did he see it?

Your #1 is correct, to a point; I don’t believe the pope and some cardinals are doing this intentionally.
Your #2, if correct, means there’s no right or wrong.
Your #3, we side with the Church’s constant teaching on this, and not a modern, convenient invention. The Church was correct then, or is correct now (at a time when the popes even admit there’s corruption in the upper hierarchy). I’m going to side with Christianity on this point.

 

[estesbob]

Do you also claim the pope can make no mistake? Nobody said the pope was doing this to corrupt the Church. His beliefs are, in my opinion, very sincere, but in some instances, sincerely wrong. Who made latinmass (or anyone else who shares that view) know more than the pope? The better question is what makes a modern pope know better than the canonized popes who actually made statements *defending *the Church and Jesus Christ. Modernism has been condemned by the Church since the beginning; now adherence to tradition is what’s condemned by many. Was he mistaken on his interpretation? Obviously yes. Did he see that, we can’t say for sure. Martin Luther was sincere, but sincerely wrong. Did he see it?

Your #1 is correct, to a point; I don’t believe the pope and some cardinals are doing this intentionally.
Your #2, if correct, means there’s no right or wrong.
Your #3, we side with the Church’s constant teaching on this, and not a modern, convenient invention. The Church was correct then, or is correct now (at a time when the popes even admit there’s corruption in the upper hierarchy). I’m going to side with Christianity on this point.

We have 2 choices:

1. The gates of hell have prevailed against the Church
2. You are a Sedevancist and for some reason are afraid to admit it.

{Personally I think its number 2. if it walks like a Sedevancist, talks like a Sedevancist and acts like a Sedevancist it probably is a Sedevancist.

 

[TMC]

Do you also claim the pope can make no mistake? Nobody said the pope was doing this to corrupt the Church. His beliefs are, in my opinion, very sincere, but in some instances, sincerely wrong. Who made latinmass (or anyone else who shares that view) know more than the pope? The better question is what makes a modern pope know better than the canonized popes who actually made statements *defending *the Church and Jesus Christ. Modernism has been condemned by the Church since the beginning; now adherence to tradition is what’s condemned by many. Was he mistaken on his interpretation? Obviously yes. Did he see that, we can’t say for sure. Martin Luther was sincere, but sincerely wrong. Did he see it?

Your #1 is correct, to a point; I don’t believe the pope and some cardinals are doing this intentionally.
Your #2, if correct, means there’s no right or wrong.
Your #3, we side with the Church’s constant teaching on this, and not a modern, convenient invention. The Church was correct then, or is correct now (at a time when the popes even admit there’s corruption in the upper hierarchy). I’m going to side with Christianity on this point.

Did you not suggest in post 23 that the current Pope’s teachings are inconsistent with the traditions of the Church and Christ’s teaching? If the version of ecumenism that you seem to be advocating is the infallible and true position of the Church is it possible that Benedict, a life-long Catholic theologian does not know this? You have discerned this basic truth of Catholic theology but he missed it? If this is clearly the true teaching of the Church Benedict must be willfully deviating. If its not clearly an infallible teaching then I think I’ll go with Benedict’s opinion on the topic.

Luther is actually a great example. He believed he was right, but he knew he was in conflict with the Church. You are suggesting that the best known Catholic theologian of our time has accidently tripped into a pretty serious heresy. That doesn’t make any sense.

As far as who said that latinmass knows more than the Pope, well latinmass did when he called the Pope a heretic:

You are right my friend. Though not always said so clearly as you have stated. I am speaking more to the false ecumenism which is pure heresy which you did not speak to.

You deny the Church’s authority to speak on faith and morals by saying that the current Pope cannot do anything but parrot long dead Popes. Why are the dead Popes more authoritative then the one we have now? When did the Vicar of Christ lose the ability to speak on faith and morals?

 

[estesbob]

You deny the Church’s authority to speak on faith and morals by saying that the current Pope cannot do anything but parrot long dead Popes. Why are the dead Popes more authoritative then the one we have now? When did the Vicar of Christ lose the ability to speak on faith and morals?

Evidently when he decided God could understand languages other than latin…

 

[LilyM]

Being shot unexpectedly doesn’t exactly make one a “martyr.”

Deliberately speaking such truth (about Christ among other things) that you arouse hatred in godless Communists and they attempt to kill you - and it was hardly unexpected, they were well known for bumping off opponents - AND forgiving the one who dealt the blow as St Maria Goretti did and JP2 did - absolutely does.

The fact that he survived is thanks to the grace of God and irrelevant. Not like he ducked or anything.

 

[latinmass]

I am getting mixed messages. If a Pope teaches heresy, does that mean he is not a Pope? Or does it mean he is the Pope, but teaching error? Is the gathering at Assisi and praying with these heretics, without teaching these false religions that Christ and His Church is the only way to salvation at the very least wrong, if not heretical since it gives the false idea that these heretical beliefs have some validity. I keep hearing about the “dead Popes” The job of the Vicar of Christ is to defend the Deposit of Faith. This Deposit has been set 2000 years ago. The job of the Church is from that time on to keep and defend it. There are no new and better ways. Many of you seem to think that these modern Popes need to change things, and defend there modernism. Would Jesus or Paul do what JP2 did at Assisi? Jesus would have the love and compassion of JP2, but be sure to tell them that judgement awaits those who do not accept Him. The fatal error that JP neglected to do. The Church of true believers will always be here. So the unwise comment that if a Pope teaches error means the Church has fallen is nonsense. I am not so worried if I am a sedevacantist or not. I will speak the truth of the Catholic Church that has been established for 2000 years, and true believers will always be guided to the truth of Christs Church.