Will sedevacantists elect their own pope?
#11
Random thought on the general issue of sedevacantism:

I think that as regards the view espoused by sedevacantists, the fact whether or not Jorge Bergoglio is the pope (and whether his predecessors were) is less important than the validity of new sacraments. The Church could do very long without a head or hierarchy. But without real sacraments, it's a dreadful thought to assume that 99,9% of world's Catholics have no access to penance or to eucharist. What most sedevacantists indeed teach is that there's a massa damnata comprising almost all of the world. Imagine: an elder person, even one baptised and raised before Vatican II, goes to confession regularly and lives a good life. But his/her sins are not forgiven, as nowadays he/she almost always confesses to an invalidly 'ordained' priest. They go to Hell assuming they weren't able to have perfect contrition. This is what most sedevacantists logically believe.

The problem of the papal throne, and whether it's occupied or not, is really trivial compared to the above.

But, I think, not all sedevacantists hold to this view. Polish Fr Trytek in one speech would name a Novus Ordo Priest "Father", without any inverted commas or irony. So I think it's not a 'dogma' for sedevacantists. (Amusingly though, after he left SSPX, he would have himself baptised conditionally. I believe nowadays he wouldn't do such a thing.)
The Christian and Catholic religion, in fact, is the legitimate daughter of Jesus, king of the Mages. A simple scapular worn by a truly Christian person is a more invincible talisman than the ring and pentacle of Solomon.
The Mass is the most prodigious of evocations. Necromancers evoke the dead, the sorcerer evokes the devil and he shakes, but the Catholic priest does not tremble in evoking the living God.


Perhaps Christ had not only one precursor, John, last of the prophets, but three: John the Baptist for the Chosen People, Socrates from the heart of antiquity, and Buddha, who spoke the ultimate word in Eastern religious cognition.
Reply
#12
The more I think about the papacy, the more I find myself asking this simple question: is Pope Francis even a Catholic?  How can someone who disagrees with the faith be the bishop of Rome?

I don't doubt he was legitimately elected and all that, of course.  I just can't see how Modernist Rome is the same thing as Catholic Rome.  There's something gone seriously wrong here.
Reply
#13
(12-25-2017, 11:02 PM)FultonFan Wrote: I just can't see how Modernist Rome is the same thing as Catholic Rome. 

I don't think enough people have asked how the two can be reconciled doctrinally(not just liturgically.  I'd sure love to have me some vernacular propers,  mmmm mmmm good!) in a public fashion to the hierarchy(not just signing petitions).   From what I have seen most clerical types just seem to brush this question to the side(at best they'll give a quick mention of the "hermeneutic of continuity").

What many influential church members have been emphasizing is the importance of "dialogue".  I'd say we start calling them out on it!!!.....  in an aggressive, but still polite manner.  

Let's get them to clearly answer all the traditionalist questions(no matter how crazy it may seem to get).  If they refuse to answer at all, let's call them out in their refusal to engage in dialogue.  If they write us off as a small sect of nuts, lets say they are making a mockery of us who are on the periphery of society(and we are), and that all men, no matter how wise or sane, should hear the Truth of the Catholic Church and, when possible, they should be clearly instructed by those who's job it is to preach the Catholic Faith.
Reply
#14
(12-25-2017, 02:30 PM)PolishTrad Wrote: The Church could do very long without a head or hierarchy.

Actually if you consider the Church by its traditional theological definition as a Society, then this is a serious issue. 

If there can be a lengthy (or even permanent) absence of a head or hierarchy, then it destroys the traditional Ecclesiology (and effectively means Protestants and Modernists are correct).

A Society is defined as a permanent union of individuals united under an authority who, using common means, act for a common goal. For the Church of it's nature it is an hierarchically-order whole bound by a triple union : (1) Social profession of a common Faith, (2) Public and true worship, (3) A single authority and government.

Such is clear and unmistakable when reading Pastor Æternus of Vatican I, Satis cognitum (Leo XIII), the Catechism of St. Pius X, Mortalium animos (Pius XI) and Mystici corporis (Pius XII).

If the authority ceases to exist the bond of unity will eventually cease. Historically the longest interregnum was just under 4 years (1268-1271) -- and that only because the local magistrate, frustrated with the progress of things, locked the Cardinals in and had the roof removed, thus how we got a "conclave".

Protestants and Modernists (à la the "Subsistit in" from Vatican II) want the Church to be defined as a loose union of whoever has part of the Faith, Worship or authority. Thus "partial" or "full" Communion. If you profess the Trinity, but reject the Mass, you have some "Church" so you're in "partial communion". 

In fact as Cardinal Journet eventually concluded (wrongly), thinking this true, that the only real bond of unity is Charity, which means the Church is not a visible society.

In short, if there is no visible hierarchy, nor visible authority, there is no visible Church, and thus the Gates of Hell have prevailed.

Far from being a minor point, having a Pope and a hierarchy is essential. We can do without a Pope for some time, while we wait for those with the authority to choose him to do so, but it cannot last indefinitely, or for a very long time, because it would mean an essential element of the Church, as Society, was missing.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#15
No, they will not elect their own Pope.  I telephoned every sedevacantist and sedeprivationist Bishop in the world, multiple times, and asked them this precise question over about a 2 month span in 2015.  I called many times, and left many messages and really made a sincere due diligence effort, something that I felt was necessary for my vocation.  Two Bishops responded, Bishop Neville and Bishop Webster, and they were not favorable to the cause of having an election at that time.  Everyone else, was silent.  I think that those who are looking at sedevacantism from the outside, would be clearly warned about the people involved, by this.  I believe that this silence speaks a lot about the merit of their cause, from the perspective of the outside in.  After all, every Catholic is a conclavist, with every Pope, that they have elected, during every vacancy, that ever has been.

Viva Papa Francisco!
https://twitter.com/EliRotello

#20DecadeRosary
#LocalDiocesanParish
Reply
#16
I remember now that Bishop Stuyver did not respond to my messages, but he did pick up the phone a few times. I believe I was hung up on twice, and one time, his opinion was that an election was "not Marcel Lefebvre enough," he told me in French.  Also, to their credit, Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in Connecticut responded, but their Bishop did not, and I know that Father Bernard Hall was stationed at Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel, but it was not him who returned my call.  I do know that Fr. Hall some society that he has tried to put together, for some purpose relating to the nature of the Papacy.  It has been a long time since I have looked into these issues.  I have the name of the Priest who called me back from Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel, but I don't have it on hand at the moment.
https://twitter.com/EliRotello

#20DecadeRosary
#LocalDiocesanParish
Reply
#17
(12-25-2017, 02:30 PM)PolishTrad Wrote: I think that as regards the view espoused by sedevacantists, the fact whether or not Jorge Bergoglio is the pope (and whether his predecessors were) is less important than the validity of new sacraments. The Church could do very long without a head or hierarchy. But without real sacraments, it's a dreadful thought to assume that 99,9% of world's Catholics have no access to penance or to eucharist. What most sedevacantists indeed teach is that there's a massa damnata comprising almost all of the world. Imagine: an elder person, even one baptised and raised before Vatican II, goes to confession regularly and lives a good life. But his/her sins are not forgiven, as nowadays he/she almost always confesses to an invalidly 'ordained' priest. They go to Hell assuming they weren't able to have perfect contrition. This is what most sedevacantists logically believe.

I think it depends on how dogmatically sede (think the Dimond Brothers) they are.

The CMRI, as far as I know, hold a "We don't see you as being in danger for thinking there is a Pope" position.

I think the whole premise is absurd, though. God isn't going to leave a large swath of the Catholic world without valid Sacraments for fifty plus years. 

Our Lady of Akita gave Sr. Agnes Sasagawa a series of messages in the 1970s. If 'mainstream sedevacantism' (if you can even call it that) is true and Paul VI was not a valid Pope, surely she would have told her.
Reply
#18
This is a major error, in my opinion, with sedevacantism--all previous groups who believed in the primacy and that a particular Pope either fell out of the Church through heresy (e.g. Hippolytus and his backers or Ockham and his group) or that a Pope's election was invalid (e.g. Laurentius and his followers) took the necessary steps to elect a proper successor. The impossibility of electing a successor is contrary to the faith.

It is a dogma of the faith defined by the First Vatican Council that the succession of Roman Pontiffs is perpetual.  For this to be true, the Church must either have a head, or, in times when she doesn't (death or resignation--tacit or otherwise), must have the ability to recognize this fact and have the means to remedy it (the papacy must remain in potency).  You'll never have a case where there is no head and either no one in the Church recognizes it or, if it is recognized, it cannot be remedied by the Church as is (ie the Church always retains this power--Christ would not have to restore this power to the Church--it would not require a miracle, Peter coming down and re-starting the papacy, etc.).  Otherwise, the Church would have lost a constituent element.  It was also among Hus's heresies definitively condemned at Constance that the Church could simply choose to carry on popeless or carry on without there being the possibility of a Pope.
[Image: catherinesiena-1.jpg]
[-] The following 2 users Like SaintSebastian's post:
  • HailGilbert, jovan66102
Reply
#19
(12-26-2017, 02:50 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(12-25-2017, 02:30 PM)PolishTrad Wrote: The Church could do very long without a head or hierarchy.

Actually if you consider the Church by its traditional theological definition as a Society, then this is a serious issue. 

If there can be a lengthy (or even permanent) absence of a head or hierarchy, then it destroys the traditional Ecclesiology (and effectively means Protestants and Modernists are correct).

A Society is defined as a permanent union of individuals united under an authority who, using common means, act for a common goal. For the Church of it's nature it is an hierarchically-order whole bound by a triple union : (1) Social profession of a common Faith, (2) Public and true worship, (3) A single authority and government.

Such is clear and unmistakable when reading Pastor Æternus of Vatican I, Satis cognitum (Leo XIII), the Catechism of St. Pius X, Mortalium animos (Pius XI) and Mystici corporis (Pius XII).

If the authority ceases to exist the bond of unity will eventually cease. Historically the longest interregnum was just under 4 years (1268-1271) -- and that only because the local magistrate, frustrated with the progress of things, locked the Cardinals in and had the roof removed, thus how we got a "conclave".

Protestants and Modernists (à la the "Subsistit in" from Vatican II) want the Church to be defined as a loose union of whoever has part of the Faith, Worship or authority. Thus "partial" or "full" Communion. If you profess the Trinity, but reject the Mass, you have some "Church" so you're in "partial communion". 

In fact as Cardinal Journet eventually concluded (wrongly), thinking this true, that the only real bond of unity is Charity, which means the Church is not a visible society.

In short, if there is no visible hierarchy, nor visible authority, there is no visible Church, and thus the Gates of Hell have prevailed.

Far from being a minor point, having a Pope and a hierarchy is essential. We can do without a Pope for some time, while we wait for those with the authority to choose him to do so, but it cannot last indefinitely, or for a very long time, because it would mean an essential element of the Church, as Society, was missing.
Peace.....well, the Church WILL prevail and we will do that by worshiping underground.  We will also be united in prayer and have spiritual communion.  Remember not to be worried about the body, only the soul - that's yours and God's and nobody can take that!  Unless you let them...:)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)