Why do sedevacantists not believe the current Pope is true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kellie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sir Knight said:
mrS4ntA, not just a satanic cult but an international organization with members all over the world. I’m sure that if you look around, you’ll see their symbol everywhere including on street signs telling you when the local lodge is having it’s monthly meeting. I’ve even seen their symbol on the back of cars in our church parking lot.

They have 33 different levels of membership. During the early levels, you are led to believe that you are worshipping God except Jesus Christ is never mentioned by name. As you SLOWLY move up through the ranks, more & more things are GRADUALLY reveiled to you. This is done slowly because if it was done all at once, most members would reject it and leave the organization.

By the time a member gets to the 18th degree, they have been completely turned against the Catholic faith with their goal to destroy our religion. Then by the late twenties or early thirties, it is revealed that it is actually Satan that they worship.

The real scary part is that even in the very early stages, the members are exposed to satanic symbols used to worship lucifer without even knowing it.

Here, check out this cartoon. I don’t agree with the source because they are also anti-catholic but they do a very good job of explaining what the freemasons are all about and how most members aren’t even aware of it.

Getting back to the original topic of this thread … if Cardinals are freemasons (as was stated as one of the reasons why sedevacantists do not accept the Pope), there is GREAT cause for concern!

I cannot wrap my mind around this one. You are essentially talking about my father-in-law here, a man I respect. He is a 33rd degree Mason and as decent a man as I know. By your analysis, at this point, he would be a willing accomplise in Satanism, I don’t buy that for a second.
I am willing to adhere to the ban and not join the Masons personally, no problem. But Satan worshippers? Come on…
 
40.png
mrS4ntA:
Can anyone respond to that? any references I can read?
The only real claim that the sedevacantists have made to show that the Second Vatican Council and the popes after Pius XII have fallen into heresy rests on the statements that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. In my reading of the documents, I found statements that the unity of Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church. I have posted the relevant portions of those documents to show that these statements do not constitute a change in Church teaching. However, it seems to me that the real issue that the sedevacantists is their assumption that the term “subsists” is the operative word that constitutes the change in teaching. They seem to think that, by using subsists instead of another word like exists, the Council and the popes in question have altered the teaching to mean that the unity, and possibly even the nature of the Church is somehow less than was upheld prior to the Council.

Therefore, for the sake of clarity, and for those who have not already looked it up themselves, I am presenting here the meaning of the word in question. I am taking this from Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language published in 1949. I chose this particular version to avoid any claim that I am using some new definition from after the Council.

Subsist: To be, to have existence

Another realted word is also defined that will help to shed light on this discussion:

Subsistor: One who is dependent on another

You can see that “subsists” is not an ambiguous term as the web site you reference claims. With these definitions in mind, let’s take a close examination at the phrase in question to determine if the claims of the sedevacantists are correct. Does the phrase “this unity [of Christ’s Church] subsists in the Catholic Church,” or even the phrase “Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church” constitute a change in teaching? Is it incompatible with the clear teaching from before the Council that Christ established only one Church and that Church is the Catholic Church?

To say that the unity of Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church means the same as saying that the unity of Christ’s Church “has its existence” in the Catholic Church. The teaching prior to the Council was the same that of the Council itself; the unity Christ gave to the Catholic Church is part of her very nature and is something that she can never lose. It cannot even be diminished. So far, I do not see any change in teaching.

In relation to those Christian Churches and other Christian communities that have broken full communion with the Catholic Church, their unity also subsists (has its existence) in the Catholic Church. Their claim to Christian unity is dependent upon the Catholic Church and they cannot possess the unity Christ willed for his followers apart from it. It could be said that, in terms of unity, they are subsistors of the Catholic Church. Their unity is incomplete to the level that they have broken unity with the Catholic Church. This also applies to each of us individually for our unity as members of the Church is completely dependent on the Church. Once again, I can see no change in teaching.
 
Simply put, it looks to me that there a lot of people have too much time on their hands. I read somewhere that they believe their “pope” lives in Kansas City. Unbelieveable. Pray for them!
 
40.png
davy39:
Simply put, it looks to me that there a lot of people have too much time on their hands. I read somewhere that they believe their “pope” lives in Kansas City. Unbelieveable. Pray for them!
Davy,

Actually, those who have their own “pope” (and there are about a dozen claimants last time I checked) can no longer be perceived as sedevacantists, given that they have progressed to a position, in their mind, of sede plena (the seat is filled). The true sedevacantists are waiting still - for election of a pope, thru the traditional manner, who will restore the Church to its pre-Vatican II status.

Many years,

Neil
 
40.png
kellie:
Can someone please tell me why some people don’t believe the Pope should be in the Seat of Peter?
Kellie,

At its most simple and direct explanation, which I’m not certain I saw anyone address here, most sede vacantists got to where they are at by their rejection of the changes in liturgical practice that came about from Vatican II and/or the concepts and practice of ecumenism that arose from it. They conclude from the institution of what they perceive to be heretical acts that the Pope himself was a heretic or he would not have allowed such to transpire. I think it wouldn’t be out of line to class sedevactists (most at least) as the most far right of all traditionalist Catholics.

Many years,

Neil
 
Irish Melkite:
Kellie,

I think it wouldn’t be out of line to class sedevactists (most at least) as the most far right of all traditionalist Catholics.

QUOTE]

**Indeed they are Traditional Catholics! **

And not only are they "the most far right of all traditionalist Catholics", but they are the the ones who have gotten it right amongst the Traditional Catholics.
 
Joe Omlor and/or Irish Melkite,

Can you please give me a specific item/agenda/change/new law that was introduced or changed or refurbished at Vatican II, that makes the sedevacantists believe the Pope at that time and all others following including the current Pope are heretics.

I have been reading this thread and the other thread, and know now why you think what you do Joe, but I want a specific change.

You say ecumenism is one reason.

Ok, please tell me what was actually changed or introduced at VII, that makes you think it is a heresy.

I would appreciate a link to a site, or a quote.

Love Kellie
 
Thank you Queen of Sheeba,

I will study these 25 errors, and do some research with the tracts I have from Catholic Answers and some other material, and try and see where the Pope at the time of VII was coming from.

Love Kellie
 
Just a quick note…

Cannot contradictions be merely defined statements?

Don’t we learn as we go along through the centuries?

Can’t God be helping us along the way understand His mystery?

Why are these so called contradictions called heresies?

Would there not be minutes of this Council that showed how all these ideas were thrashed around? Or is that not how the councils work?

Pardon my ignorance, but I don’t know enough about these Councils.

Love Kellie
 
Kellie,

If you have not done so already, you might also want to check out the debates on this very topic in other threads of this forum. The two in which I participated, along with some of the sedevacantists who have responded to you, consist of over 500 posts in which both sides presented detailed explanations of their views. Both of these posts are closed for posting but still open for viewing.

The first was titled “Would I be welcome here… IF?”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1240

and the second was a continuation of the first after it was closed simply called “sedevacantism”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4355
 
Well although everyone was very polite and charitable, the **sedevacantists, the one who knew the facts, were banned from this board and their accounts disabled. **

**Makes you wonder why. I wonder now if I am not welcome after all. Like Vatican II teaches all are saved, except Traditional Catholics. Charity stops at the door of the Traditionalist, THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE. **
 
40.png
theMutant:
Kellie,

If you have not done so already, you might also want to check out the debates on this very topic in other threads of this forum. The two in which I participated, along with some of the sedevacantists who have responded to you, consist of over 500 posts in which both sides presented detailed explanations of their views. Both of these posts are closed for posting but still open for viewing.

The first was titled “Would I be welcome here… IF?”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1240

and the second was a continuation of the first after it was closed simply called “sedevacantism”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4355
Go to catholic.co.nr and you can discuss the subject of a “sede vacante” without hindrance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top