R
Redeemerslove
Guest
Absolutely correct.
- Status
J
jordan
Guest
Paul Danon:
Furthermore, it speaks of “rifts” in the “Church of God from its very beginnings,” and reminds us that the “Apostle” (St. Paul) strongly censured them as “damnable.”
The Church has not become, as you suggest, “rather small,” although perhaps you are referring to your group of like-minded souls. The problem with Vatican II is not that it taught error, but that its teachings have been misinterpreted by many. The problem today is not a lack of Truth in the teachings of the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium, but a lack of adherence to the Truth that they teach.
Who are we to sit in judgment of the successor of Peter, and the Magisterium of the Church? I continually here the term heretic and heresy used in this thread, and I have yet to see anything of substance that cannot, and has not, been easily refuted. I would strongly suggest that “lesser clergy and the laity” who throw around such terms in regard to the Holy Father and the Magisterium cease to call themselves “Catholic” (although I will grant that you may have access to graces through the Catholic Church!).
It is quite clear what the Catholic Church teaches, and “rendering the Catholic church un-necessary” is the furthest thing from it. Read articles 816-819 of the CCC. It quotes Unitatis Redintegratio’s repetition of VCII’s degree on ecumenism which states:
Paul Dannon, would you not agree that the Scriptures that Anglicans do have came from the Catholic Church? Would you not agree that adherence to the decalogue, and to Our Lord’s clear teachings in, for example, the Sermon on the Mount, would be a source of grace for a devout Anglican, or for any devout Christian (or even for one who has never heard the Gospel but lives by it)? It would be ludicrous to suggest that “elements of sanctification and of truth” cannot be found outside the Catholic Church - the necessity and role of the Church however, are emphatically affirmed.
Furthermore, it speaks of “rifts” in the “Church of God from its very beginnings,” and reminds us that the “Apostle” (St. Paul) strongly censured them as “damnable.”
The Church has not become, as you suggest, “rather small,” although perhaps you are referring to your group of like-minded souls. The problem with Vatican II is not that it taught error, but that its teachings have been misinterpreted by many. The problem today is not a lack of Truth in the teachings of the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium, but a lack of adherence to the Truth that they teach.
Who are we to sit in judgment of the successor of Peter, and the Magisterium of the Church? I continually here the term heretic and heresy used in this thread, and I have yet to see anything of substance that cannot, and has not, been easily refuted. I would strongly suggest that “lesser clergy and the laity” who throw around such terms in regard to the Holy Father and the Magisterium cease to call themselves “Catholic” (although I will grant that you may have access to graces through the Catholic Church!).
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
This, of course is wrong. Each individual is cupable for their own actions, to the extent that their own actions violate the truth they know. I am not responsible for anyone leaving the Church, thats on their head, not mine.
Personally I think there is a grandiosity, and Hippy Liberal mindset, that want’s to “blame us first.” No, the blame must be rested on the responsible party(ies). And who those are, has yet to be determined.
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
Paul Danon:
For example, the Protestants believe Jesus Christ is God, they are correct. The Protestants believe in the Trinity, they are correct. The Protestants teach Faith Alone is needed for Salvation, they are incorrect and this doctrine is morally corrupting.
Hence, Protestents believe two things that are correct and one that is incorrect and morally corrupting. Hence they have some of the Truth, but not all of it.
Now tell me, are you going to say that Protestants have no Truth based on the above examples? Are you going to deny these Truths that they have? And finally, are you going to say that these truths don’t sanctify those who believe in them?
I would have to say that that is a completely ridiculous statement. I suggest you read ,UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO as others have suggested. Other religions have elements of the Truth in them.
For example, the Protestants believe Jesus Christ is God, they are correct. The Protestants believe in the Trinity, they are correct. The Protestants teach Faith Alone is needed for Salvation, they are incorrect and this doctrine is morally corrupting.
Hence, Protestents believe two things that are correct and one that is incorrect and morally corrupting. Hence they have some of the Truth, but not all of it.
Now tell me, are you going to say that Protestants have no Truth based on the above examples? Are you going to deny these Truths that they have? And finally, are you going to say that these truths don’t sanctify those who believe in them?
S
SocaliCatholic
Guest
Reedemmerslove,
Amen! (except for the part about me being wrong!)
Carefully read what post I was responding to. Let me rephrase:
If one of the sedevacantists claims were to convert one of *us * (Catholics) to “sedevacantistism” then it would be the *fault of the person converted * for their lack of knowledge or faith
S
SocaliCatholic
Guest
sedevacanist problem same as protestant problem:
The burden of proof will always be on the sedevacanist to prove that their church is built on **authority ** from Christ.
The burden of proof will always be on the sedevacanist to prove that their church is built on **authority ** from Christ.
G
Gratias_Grace
Guest
bernie said:“Protestant: someone who denies there is an authority so it comes down to what I think”
I’m a former Catholic, now Protestant. Can I define a Catholic as one who blindly follows hierarchy? Or would that be as inflammatory as the above statement?
…Bernie
www.FreeGoodNews.com
NO, Bernie! A catholic is one who obey the will of God!
"that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (John17:21)
A former protestant, now catholic wish you all the best!
God Bless!
G.G.
G
Gratias_Grace
Guest
I agree!
G.G.
S
Sparky
Guest
Amen. Authority is everything.
–Ann
G
Gratias_Grace
Guest
Jordan, I think you have got the point: “We have to be lojal to Church Authority”.
Proteatants (Sola Schriptura) are not that.
Sedevacanists are not that.
Catholics wanting to pick and choose are not that, either.
“ … Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?” 28He answered, “An enemy has done this.” The slaves said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” 29But he replied, “No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. 30Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’ (Mat 13:27-30)
Like you said it, Jordan: "When we depart from the fold, we make ourselves gods by making ourselves the authority"
God Bless!
G.G.
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
Amen. And it wasn’t clear.
J
JohnDeP
Guest
I’ve read all six pages of this thread and the sedevacantists STILL have not produced an AUTHORATATIVE document (or other device) that declared the “chair vacant” around the time of Vatican II forward. 
By authoratative, I mean cardinals and/or bishops declaring themselves to be the appropriate authority and stating that the chair was/is vacant. A single priest, single bishop, or even a small group of them does NOT “an authority make”.
Sedevacantists claim *they (or “we”) * have that power just by answering “yes” to the question of whether the pope can be a heretic. This “I have the authority” mentality is the main pillar used by Luther to separate from the Catholic Church. Though I may be beating a dead horse (please don’t flame me!), this is a tenet of Protestantism; and needs to be treated as such.
Also, the quotes from prior Catholic documents dealt with doubt of the validity of the election of the Pope not about his continued validity.
So far I’ve really enjoyed the posts in this thread; they’ve made my head hurt thinking so hard!
-JohnDeP
By authoratative, I mean cardinals and/or bishops declaring themselves to be the appropriate authority and stating that the chair was/is vacant. A single priest, single bishop, or even a small group of them does NOT “an authority make”.
Sedevacantists claim *they (or “we”) * have that power just by answering “yes” to the question of whether the pope can be a heretic. This “I have the authority” mentality is the main pillar used by Luther to separate from the Catholic Church. Though I may be beating a dead horse (please don’t flame me!), this is a tenet of Protestantism; and needs to be treated as such.
Also, the quotes from prior Catholic documents dealt with doubt of the validity of the election of the Pope not about his continued validity.
So far I’ve really enjoyed the posts in this thread; they’ve made my head hurt thinking so hard!
-JohnDeP
J
Joe_Omlor
Guest
Greetings,
I have not read all this thread yet, but did you know that this thread is in this forum also?
Myrna,
I hope no one is calling you a “non-Catholic” or “schismatic”!
I may read the previous posts and then contribute…otherwise, au revoir.
Joe
**Why do sedevacantists not believe the current Pope is true? **
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3760
I have not read all this thread yet, but did you know that this thread is in this forum also?
Myrna,
I hope no one is calling you a “non-Catholic” or “schismatic”!
I may read the previous posts and then contribute…otherwise, au revoir.
Joe
**Why do sedevacantists not believe the current Pope is true? **
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3760
J
Joe_Omlor
Guest
Greetings,
I have not read all this thread yet, but did you know that this thread is in this forum also?
Myrna,
I hope no one is calling you a “non-Catholic” or “schismatic”!
I may read the previous posts and then contribute…otherwise, au revoir.
Joe
**Why do sedevacantists not believe the current Pope is true? **
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3760
I have not read all this thread yet, but did you know that this thread is in this forum also?
Myrna,
I hope no one is calling you a “non-Catholic” or “schismatic”!
I may read the previous posts and then contribute…otherwise, au revoir.
Joe
**Why do sedevacantists not believe the current Pope is true? **
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3760
J
Joe_Omlor
Guest
Has anyone posted this yet?
Joe
**Have I “Rejected the Authority of the Pope”?
**A Letter to The Remnant
By Father Anthony Cekada part one
In his column in an April 1992 *Remnant, *Michael Davies reprinted a favorable review of my recent study, *The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass *(Rockford IL: TAN Books 1991). The editor of *The Remnant, *Walter Matt, appended his own commentary to the review, and stated that I have “apparently rejected the authority of the Pope.” In a subsequent issue, Mr. Matt printed a letter to the editor attacking me on the same grounds.
The charge is utterly false and unfairly portrays me as a schismatic. The following is a letter I sent to *The Remnant *shortly after the first article appeared. After two letters and a phone call from me inquiring why this letter never appeared, *The Remnant *finally published it in late 1992.
May 25,1992
The Remnant
Attn. “The Remnant Speaks”
2539 Morrison Avenue
St. Paul MN 55117
Editor, The Remnant:
I commend Walter Matt and Michael Davies for their objectivity in printing a review of my study, *The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass. *(The Remnant, April 31, 1992.) We have indeed often disagreed over the source of the problem in the post-Conciliar Church and over the solutions to be applied. Some of my past writings dealing with Mr. Matt and Mr. Davies, moreover, wandered off into personal attacks instead of coolly sticking to issues. Age makes one a bit wiser, and I apologize for any offense.
I must write, however, in order to correct Mr. Matt’s unfortunate statement that “sedevacantists” - he lumps me among them - have “apparently rejected the authority of the Pope.” I fear Mr. Matt has misunderstood something.
All traditional Catholics know the disastrous effects the changes produced. We resisted those changes as harmful to souls, even though they were approved with what purported to be the authority of the Church. All of us have grappled with the problem of how to reconcile the doctrine of the indefectibility of the one, true Church of Christ and her authority on one hand, with the state of the post-Vatican II Church on the other. Traditional Catholics have offered various solutions. Some (including *The Remnant *and Mr. Davies, I assume) base their resistance to the changes on the notion that individual members of the post-Conciliar hierarchy are abusing their authority. Others (sedevacantists) contend that men who have defected from the faith now occupy the Holy See and all (or most) episcopal sees, and that all such sees at present are therefore juridically vacant - or that there is at least a doubt present as to whether the current occupants of these sees obtained or retain juridical authority.
J
Joe_Omlor
Guest
** ****Have I “Rejected the Authority of the Pope”?
**A Letter to The Remnant
By Father Anthony Cekada
part two
The sedevacantist position - I risk oversimplifying a complex issue - flows from two considerations; one of fact, the other of law.
Now, one who opposes the sedevacantist position may care to argue that members of the modern hierarchy are not guilty of heresy, or that (pace Robert Bellarmine and commentators on the 1983 Code) a pope cannot fall from office through heresy.
It is unfair and unreasonable, however, to assert that the sedevacantist - who merely puts two entirely defensible propositions together and draws a logical conclusion from them - has “rejected the authority of the Pope.” Such is tantamount to calling the sedevacantist a schismatic. But he is no such thing, as is evident from one highly respected commentary on the Code:
"Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI) or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church.’ (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian 19371, 7:398, my emphasis.)
I concede (ruefully) that members of the sedevacantist camp have frequently adopted a rabid tone against others in the traditional movement. But sedevacantists aren’t the only ones guilty of this. Their opposite numbers in the movement -partisans of positions similar to those of Mr. Davies or *The Remnant or the St. Pius X Society - have in return consistently tried to demonize the sedevacantists.
All this poisons the atmosphere and makes impossible any rational discussion of a serious and complex issue.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Recently the Rev. Donald J. Sanborn *(Catholic Restoration, *1409 W. 14 Mile, Suite 100, Madison Heights MI 48071, December 1991 and May 1992) and the Most Rev. Richard Williamson (“Letter to Friends and Benefactors,” St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, RR1 Box 97 A-1, Winona MN 55987, April 1992) crossed swords (pens, actually) over the *sede vacante *thesis. While each strongly criticized the other’s position, they both managed to do so without resorting to the nasty and irrational polemics which usually characterize such exchanges. An enlightening debate resulted.
I’m announcing, therefore, the foundation of a new school of thought for traditional Catholics who wish to debate the pope issue: “sedevacationism.” The first part is from sede - as in “Sit down.” The second part is from vacation - as in “…and take a vacation from reading out of the Church those with whom you debate.”
Anyone care to join? In Christo,
The Rev. Anthony Cekada
**A Letter to The Remnant
By Father Anthony Cekada
part two
The sedevacantist position - I risk oversimplifying a complex issue - flows from two considerations; one of fact, the other of law.
- **Fact. **Certain pronouncements of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar popes on religious liberty, ecumenism and various other doctrinal matters appear to contradict, sometimes word for word, previous Church teachings, or appear to propose as true certain teachings which the Church has condemned in the past. Those who adhere to the sedevacantist position would contend that such pronouncements represent a public defection from the Catholic faith.
- Law. According to church law, public defection from the Catholic faith automatically deprives a person of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold. Theologians and canonists such as St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez, Torquemada, and Wernz and Vidal maintain, without compromising the doctrine of papal infallibility, that even a pope may himself become a heretic and thus lose the pontificate. (Some of. these authors also maintain that a pope can become a schismatic.) This possibility is recognized even by an authoritative commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon “Law”.
Now, one who opposes the sedevacantist position may care to argue that members of the modern hierarchy are not guilty of heresy, or that (pace Robert Bellarmine and commentators on the 1983 Code) a pope cannot fall from office through heresy.
It is unfair and unreasonable, however, to assert that the sedevacantist - who merely puts two entirely defensible propositions together and draws a logical conclusion from them - has “rejected the authority of the Pope.” Such is tantamount to calling the sedevacantist a schismatic. But he is no such thing, as is evident from one highly respected commentary on the Code:
"Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI) or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church.’ (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian 19371, 7:398, my emphasis.)
I concede (ruefully) that members of the sedevacantist camp have frequently adopted a rabid tone against others in the traditional movement. But sedevacantists aren’t the only ones guilty of this. Their opposite numbers in the movement -partisans of positions similar to those of Mr. Davies or *The Remnant or the St. Pius X Society - have in return consistently tried to demonize the sedevacantists.
All this poisons the atmosphere and makes impossible any rational discussion of a serious and complex issue.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Recently the Rev. Donald J. Sanborn *(Catholic Restoration, *1409 W. 14 Mile, Suite 100, Madison Heights MI 48071, December 1991 and May 1992) and the Most Rev. Richard Williamson (“Letter to Friends and Benefactors,” St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, RR1 Box 97 A-1, Winona MN 55987, April 1992) crossed swords (pens, actually) over the *sede vacante *thesis. While each strongly criticized the other’s position, they both managed to do so without resorting to the nasty and irrational polemics which usually characterize such exchanges. An enlightening debate resulted.
I’m announcing, therefore, the foundation of a new school of thought for traditional Catholics who wish to debate the pope issue: “sedevacationism.” The first part is from sede - as in “Sit down.” The second part is from vacation - as in “…and take a vacation from reading out of the Church those with whom you debate.”
Anyone care to join? In Christo,
The Rev. Anthony Cekada
N
newcrusader92
Guest
Good morning, everyone.Personal interpretation of scripture, Tradition and Canon Law
I love it how Canon Law is interpreted by sedevacantists when Canon Law says the only one qualified to do so is the Pope (who they claim doesn’t exist) and anyone he has appointed to do so (who they don’t accept) so basically any canon law arguments they make don’t make sense, since they’re rejecting the very authority who penned that canon law
Actually, I don’t even have to use Canon Law to support my view. If you read the Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, you will find out that an automatic deposition and excommunication takes effect for a pope who falls into heresy (paragraph 3). In addition, if a manifest heretic is elected pope, the election is null and void (paragraph 6). (These two principles form the basis for Canon 188.4 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, by the way.)
Through this, Pope Paul IV supports the infallible teaching of the Church that a heretic is not a Catholic. And if only a Catholic can be pope, then it must follow that a heretic can not be pope.
The Church teaches also that the gates of hell are actually heretics. So, to say the Holy See is actually vacant because of a heretic attempting to claim something he has no right to actually preserves the indefectibility of the Church.
From what I’ve read over the past several months, I understand that Vatican II teaches many heresies, so it can not be considered a valid council - and those who signed the documents (which would include John Paul II when he was a bishop at the time) gave consent to heresy, and were automatically excommunicated from the Church.
J
Joe_Omlor
Guest
From what I’ve read over the past several months, I understand that Vatican II teaches many heresies, so it can not be considered a valid council - and those who signed the documents (which would include John Paul II when he was a bishop at the time) gave consent to heresy, and were automatically excommunicated from the Church.
**There is also some very valuable information on this site by Catholic clergy about the subject. **
Be open to the truth and have a look!..
traditionalmass.org
Joe
**There is also some very valuable information on this site by Catholic clergy about the subject. **
Be open to the truth and have a look!..
traditionalmass.org
Joe
T
theMutant
Guest
Joe Omlor:
In the first paragraph I reference in this post, you claim that the sedevacantists have simply put together “two entirely defensible propositions.” By what authority do you summarily render judgment on the very issue that we have been debating? We (those who assert that Vatican II and the last four popes are valid) contend that their position is not in any way defensible and have given them plenty of opportunity to defend their position. Every example they have submitted to defend ther position has, in fact, shown them to be incorrect. If you are now claiming that their position is defensible, could you please explain how it is so? I’m sorry, but I won’t except it on your word alone.
[/quote]
I have already addressed the quote you give in the second paragraph I have referenced in this post. I would respectfully ask that you review my post on this topic and explain to us why we must consider this text as authoritatively binding or why we cannot consider people who use this text without any evidence for suspecting the person or election of the Roman Pontiff to have fallen into schism.
In the first paragraph I reference in this post, you claim that the sedevacantists have simply put together “two entirely defensible propositions.” By what authority do you summarily render judgment on the very issue that we have been debating? We (those who assert that Vatican II and the last four popes are valid) contend that their position is not in any way defensible and have given them plenty of opportunity to defend their position. Every example they have submitted to defend ther position has, in fact, shown them to be incorrect. If you are now claiming that their position is defensible, could you please explain how it is so? I’m sorry, but I won’t except it on your word alone.
[/quote]
T
theMutant
Guest
Once again, we have someone summarily declaring Vatican II and the popes to have taught heresy but only referencing a source that takes the texts completely out of context. Many of the points on this web site you linked to have already been soundly refuted in this thread. The source of the error is a failure to take EVERYTHING the council and the popes said into account. It is only by selectively focusing on individual passages removed from their context that you can come to the conclusions you have reached. I will be happy to review the remaining and show how Vatican II does not teach anything different than what was taught prior to it.
- Status