FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Benevacantism, Etc.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(03-11-2021, 12:27 AM)Matthew7-7 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-11-2021, 12:17 AM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]I recommend moving this discussion to the dedicated sede thread: https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showth...?tid=84220

(03-11-2021, 12:19 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]If the Gates of Hell have prevailed, Christ was a liar and there is absolutely no reason to be a Christian, let alone a Catholic. Just be a nice person and its all cool. I would pray for anyone who could even seriously ask the question.

(03-11-2021, 12:20 AM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]No.  Next question.

Did any of you actually watch the video, or did you all just react to the title?

I am a sedevacantist who frequently reads and watches the material put together by Novus Ordo Watch.  However, Vox has created a dedicated thread for the discussion of sedevacantism and related material, which is what I directed you to.
(03-11-2021, 12:32 AM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-11-2021, 12:27 AM)Matthew7-7 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-11-2021, 12:17 AM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]I recommend moving this discussion to the dedicated sede thread: https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showth...?tid=84220

(03-11-2021, 12:19 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]If the Gates of Hell have prevailed, Christ was a liar and there is absolutely no reason to be a Christian, let alone a Catholic. Just be a nice person and its all cool. I would pray for anyone who could even seriously ask the question.

(03-11-2021, 12:20 AM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]No.  Next question.

Did any of you actually watch the video, or did you all just react to the title?

I am a sedevacantist who frequently reads and watches the material put together by Novus Ordo Watch.  However, Vox has created a dedicated thread for the discussion of sedevacantism and related material, which is what I directed you to.


Okay, thanks. I wasn't aware there was a specific thread for this.

I found this interesting. I am not a sedevacantist, however I go wherever the truth leads me. This video raises an interesting question, IMHO.

The more I think about Vatican II, the more it makes sense. The 1960s was when society began to radically change.
For anyone curious, this video does not argue that the gates of Hell have prevailed but is meant as a rebuttal to claims that sedevacantism, if true, would lead to that impossible conclusion.  And here ends my discussion of this, as sede discussions on here mostly repeat exactly the same arguments, with exactly the same results.
(03-11-2021, 12:27 AM)Matthew7-7 Wrote: [ -> ]Did any of you actually watch the video, or did you all just react to the title?

I didn't react to the title. I reacted to the novusordowatch in the link.
Fr. Sylvester Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 1895: "it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the Body of the Bishops would be separated from their Head, and the Divine Constitution of the Church would be ruined [=the gates of Hell would prevail]". In other words, it will not happen, and the Indefectibility of the Church requires that a Pope accepted by the Bishops is truly Pope.

I like Novus Ordo Watch. They have some good material. I've dialogued with the owner in the past, Mario his name I believe, and he's a good man. But I believe SVism is mistaken for this reason, and some others. It doesn't sufficiently take into account the doctrine of Universal Acceptance. Robert Siscoe wrote an article about it on One Peter Five.

Of course, the argument will go on! And that's fine. It's probably only when we have a Holy and Saintly Pope once more that we will all agree. God Bless.
I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine who is a sedevacantist. 

While I was listening to him talk about his beliefs, it occurred to me that sedevacantism sounds similar to the Donatism.

If I recall correctly, the Donatists believed that priests and bishops who recanted or offered incense to the idols during the persecutions had by that fact lost their priestly office and could not validly confect any of the sacraments.

Sedevacantism seems to take the same premise, but limit it to heresy and say that a heretic cannot hold an office within the Church and cannot be a pope or bishop. 

Has anyone else thought of this connection? Apologies in advance to the sedevacantists on the forum for my ignorance.
Sedevacantists are schismatics, not heretics.  But they share with Donatists the same mistaken failure to accept that there are weeds among the wheat.

Under Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law, "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."   Schism incurs latae sententiae excommunication.
Some can certainly tend to Donatism, for sure. I'm one of the two sedes here, but I certainly don't believe that clergy need to be impeccable and the vast majority of sedes do not believe that either.

John Lane sums up the sedevacantist position quite concisely: 
"Evil does not come from the Church; the New Mass and the errors and heresies of Vatican II and its aftermath are evil, therefore, they did not come from the Church.  Now, an obvious solution to this problem is to deny the authority of the men who promulgated these evils and have presided over the consequent destruction of the faith.  This is the sedevacantist solution."

His full article on akaCatholic is worth reading as well: https://akacatholic.com/sedevacantism-an...he-church/
It may seem on the surface that sedevacantism is Donatist but I will have to answer (in my wholly un-expert and fallible opinion) in the negative.  Donatists were condemned in that they denied the efficacy of the Sacraments based on personal holiness.  In this regard the Donastist saw the Sacraments as a property of the individual priest and capable of losing its validity due to personal sins of the priest.  This error was condemned because the Sacraments are a property of the Church and as long as the Sacraments are conferred properly it does not matter the wickedness of the priest, it is valid.  It was regarding specifically in the case of re-baptism (a practice shamefully conducted to this day by some Eastern Orthodox) and this was condemned.

It's common to accuse the Donatists of being heretics for being rigorists but that was not why they were condemned by the Church.  They were condemned because they denied the validity of the Sacraments based on moral character. 

I would think that Jansenism is a more appropriate comparison to sedevacantism.  However even then there is a problem because the issue sedevacantists have is that the liturgy of the Mass had changed as well as the prayers for ordaining priests.  In the eyes of the sedevacantists this cannot be done and it's kinda hard to issue a slam dunk because I don't see anytime in history the Church completely redone the Mass and changed the prayers to ordain a priest to "conform to modern times."



(04-02-2021, 08:32 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]Sedevacantists are schismatics, not heretics.  But they share with Donatists the same mistaken failure to accept that there are weeds among the wheat.

That's not easy a claim to make. Sedes are not like the Orthodox who deny the primacy of the papacy. The only issue is that the sedevacantists deny that the current occupant is the Pope. They see the Pope as the anti-Pope because they see Vatican II as an invalid council (kinda hard to argue since Vatican II is riddled with ambiguity and proclaimed no dogmas and is left in a strange state where it's either a super-council or it's a "pastoral council" that can be accepted or dismissed on a whim) and the New Mass as invalid and therefore followers of the Novus Ordo are heretics.

In short it's a mess, it's a damn sorry mess and if the Church of Vatican II would clean up its act (sex abuse, Assisi prayers, Pachamama, hating the TLM and SSPX) it would be very difficult for the sedevacantist claim to hold water.
(04-02-2021, 10:28 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]Some can certainly tend to Donatism, for sure. I'm one of the two sedes here, but I certainly don't believe that clergy need to be impeccable and the vast majority of sedes do not believe that either.

John Lane sums up the sedevacantist position quite concisely: 
"Evil does not come from the Church; the New Mass and the errors and heresies of Vatican II and its aftermath are evil, therefore, they did not come from the Church.  Now, an obvious solution to this problem is to deny the authority of the men who promulgated these evils and have presided over the consequent destruction of the faith.  This is the sedevacantist solution."

His full article on akaCatholic is worth reading as well: https://akacatholic.com/sedevacantism-an...he-church/
The donatist connection is interesting. Im lean towards the sedeprivationist position, and the only difference I see between the two sedes positions is one denys the authority, and the other recognizes the lack of authority. Sounds like semantics but the difference becomes one sede seeing an empty Chair, while the other seeing a corpse in a white cassock sitting in the Chair.