Objections to Sedevacantism?
#31
Please read through this and consider it well:

http://www.papastronsay.com/resources/se.../index.php
[-] The following 1 user Likes Marmot's post:
  • Memories_in_Rain
Reply
#32
(05-06-2021, 09:45 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(05-06-2021, 09:10 PM)DNJC.org Wrote: I am not advocating for it, but given your position why you aren't going SSPV or one of the other "traditional" sedevacantism groups?  I think you would do a disservice to those who you'd minister to if you were to enter a seminary of of a group that recognizes the Pope.

Sede is schism.  At the end of the day it's no different that what Luther did.  If you're not part of the Church, I don't think you can do much to help the Church.  The Church has survived scandal, corruption, and more, even a Papacy bought and sold.  An amazing example of Divine Providence.  You may not like the current Pope but it doesn't change the unbroken apostolic succession from Peter.  You must submit to the Pope's authority as the Vicar of Christ and have a little trust in God.  His will be done, not ours.

I don't think you understood my point. My point was that in two years I have to make a pretty big and final decision which I am sure of concerning the present Crisis in the Church today. When I make that decision, that will then decide whether I go to the ICKSP, SSPX, or RCI seminary. I'm not saying I am going to stay Sede and go to an ICKSP seminary, that would be ridiculous. 

Concerning your objection, thank you for it.

Ok, that helps.  I think most of the arguments which appeal to logic or fact have already been said or can be found with a quick search.  There is likely a sede rebuttal to it all.  If there wasn't you probably wouldn't have any sedes.  So, I will appeal to you on a personal level for the simple reason you are different that most sedes.  You are very special.  You are a young man who's been called to the priesthood.  

If you look at eras of corruption in the Church, it has always been reformed from the inside.  Take a look at the Council of Trent.  Luther didn't have a seat at the table, the reformers who were part of the Church did.  Look at the role played by Saint Pope Pius V not just in the Council but during his Papacy as a reformer.  

Imagine what would happen if more people like you, who love the tradition of the Church, entered the priesthood with seminary in communion with Rome.  Imagine if all of those "traditional" priests who broke away had stayed and fought.  Lefebvre died excommunicated.  The SSPX schism begat the SSPV schism.  Look at how protestants broke away from Luther and Calvin.  

If you become a priest through a seminary in communion with Rome you might one day become a Bishop, or Cardinal, or even Pope.  You may become a reformer in the Church who helps restore tradition.  Even if you don't rise to those levels of prominence you could be someone who helps instruct the faithful in tradition within the confines of the Church in communion with Rome.  Who would have thought that a poor boy, Giuseppe Sarto, born to a poor family, one of ten children, would become the great Saint Pope Pius X.  Who knows what God has planned for you.  

But, if you go the sede route, none of that is possible.  You will have as much of a chance of reforming the Church or helping to restore its traditions as a female methodist preacher.
[-] The following 2 users Like DNJC.org's post:
  • Anon777, Memories_in_Rain
Reply
#33
(05-07-2021, 10:06 AM)DNJC.org Wrote: If you look at eras of corruption in the Church, it has always been reformed from the inside.  Take a look at the Council of Trent.  Luther didn't have a seat at the table, the reformers who were part of the Church did.  Look at the role played by Saint Pope Pius V not just in the Council but during his Papacy as a reformer.  

Pretty sure that there were Protestants who attended, or were at least invited to, the Council of Trent (someone please correct me if I am wrong). Luther died the year after it began.

Quote:Imagine what would happen if more people like you, who love the tradition of the Church, entered the priesthood with seminary in communion with Rome.  Imagine if all of those "traditional" priests who broke away had stayed and fought.  Lefebvre died excommunicated.  The SSPX schism begat the SSPV schism.  Look at how protestants broke away from Luther and Calvin.  


I have some problems with some of what the Archbishop said, but you really can't say he broke away from the Church. He certainly wanted to remain faithful to the Church. You can challenge the prudence of some of his decisions and question some of his language about certain matters, but I think the man's life shows he wanted to be faithful to the Church and to what he'd received.

By the way, stop regurgitating the "SSPX schism" nonsense. Has there not been enough evidence from Rome that there is no schism? I mean, they pray for the Pope and the ordinary, at the beginning of the year the pastor of our chapel announced that the Holy Father had announced that this was the Year of St. Joseph, the excommunications for the four bishops have been lifted (pretty sure Williamson is excommunicated again, though), Rome says you can donate to their chapels, they can perform marriages (which go through the local ordinary, by the way), they can here confessions, etc., etc. What more do we possibly need!

Not comparable to Luther. Not the same as Calvin.

The Society of St. Pius V is another thing in itself...
"Especially will I do this if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ... so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ." St. Ignatius of Antioch

"But Polycarp... waving his hand towards them, while with groans he look up to heaven, said, 'Away with the Atheists.'" Martyrdom of Polycarp
Reply
#34
I recommend a True or False Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors, by John Salza and Robert Siscoe.
"[I]t is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal."  Pope St. Pius X.

"If anyone deludes himself by thinking he is serving God, when he has not learned to control his tongue, the service he gives is vain.  If he is to offer service pure and unblemished in the sight of God, who is our Father, he must take care of orphans and widows in their need, and keep himself unstained by the world."  James 1:26-27.
Reply
#35
(05-03-2021, 08:39 AM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: Hi everyone, hope you’re all well. As you know, I’m one of the very very few public Sedevacantists here, specifically a Sedeprivationist. So I wanted to ask, what are your objections to Sedevacantism in general and Sedeprivationism specifically? I am not going to debate you, I promise. I will not even respond with an objection to an objection. 

What I am doing is trying to engage in an honest and intellectual testing of my position. I have 2 years before I enter either the SSPX, ICKSP, or RCI (Bishop Sanborn’s organization) seminary. Thus in these 2 years I want to be completely sure of my position, completely sure of defending it and having it as the rock I’m on.

I’m very thankful for whatever you list down, I will be creating a list of all of the objections. If I cannot face them with all the research and help from the Sede side, then I will honestly submit and return to the post-Conciliar church.

Thanks, 

Noah
Noah, I hope to write a more detailed and researched reply, but the main reasons I am not a sedevacantist are the following: 
- the indefectibility of the Church is a Catholic teaching: Dictionary : INDEFECTIBILITY | Catholic Culture
- if there is currently no Pope at all - that would mean that there would probably never be another Pope. This is different than in situations we've had in history where there have been multiple possible Popes - because there has always been a valid one, in addition to an invalid antipope. It is also different from the time between the death of a Pope and the next conclave. If there is no valid Pope at all, and hasn't been for decades, then there are no valid Bishops (as they are appointed), then I don't see how there could ever be another Pope at all. But this would mean that the Church has fundamentally changed in its structure, which seems to contradict the indefectibility of the Church... especially as Christ said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church built on Peter. It is one thing to say that there is no Pope for a short time, but this is different from sedevacantism which claims there are simply no valid Popes anymore. (Unless someone believes in "Pope Michael" or someone else, but this is also unlikely to be true). 
I hope to do more research and respond in more detail though in a few days.
Reply
#36
In addition to what I wrote above, I also don't hold the sedevacantist position because it seems Protestant to me. It means relying on MY judgement of whether the Pope is valid or not. I realize many would hold Bellarmine's idea that a heretical Pope loses office automatically... but how do we judge if the heresy was formal? what if it was material, or the Pope meant something else and didn't even commit heresy? It seems like we are putting ourselves up as the judge of what happened, and if people like Cardinal Burke and Bishop Shneider did not become sedevacantist, how could I say that my interpretation would be better? As I understand, the Bishops and Cardinals would need to say that the Pope lost his office, not because they depose him, but so that the faithful understand that this has happened. Otherwise, we are just relying on our own interpretation, and this is very risky when our salvation depends on this. If we obey our confessor in something, we do not sin, unless he is clearly wrong in something... if he makes a mistake, that is not our fault. In a similar way, if we trust the Church, I think that is safer, and a better disposition because it is not placing our judgement above that of those who lead us.
I realized that your question is not only about sedevacantism, but also sedeprivationism. I think that a Pope who has office but no charisms along with it, is hard to understand because charisms are not for the sake of the individual, but for the sake of others. If he is unable to lead others in any supernatural way, what is the point of his office? It becomes a mere formality. I hope to research this further and respond more in depth. I hope this helps!
Reply
#37
(05-07-2021, 11:58 AM)adoro.te.devote Wrote: This is different than in situations we've had in history where there have been multiple possible Popes - because there has always been a valid one, in addition to an invalid antipope.
I tried to find a counter-example, but I couldn't so far. The antipopes I found (Christopher and Boniface VII) who "reigned" for a few months while there was no true pope, came to power by throwing the true pope in prison.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Marmot's post:
  • adoro.te.devote
Reply
#38
(05-07-2021, 12:06 PM)adoro.te.devote Wrote: I realize many would hold Bellarmine's idea that a heretical Pope loses office automatically... but how do we judge if the heresy was formal?
Note that this was not the belief of Bellarmine, but one of the opinions he presented:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-fiv...rmine.html
[-] The following 3 users Like Marmot's post:
  • adoro.te.devote, Clare Brigid, jovan66102
Reply
#39
(05-07-2021, 01:08 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 12:06 PM)adoro.te.devote Wrote: I realize many would hold Bellarmine's idea that a heretical Pope loses office automatically... but how do we judge if the heresy was formal?
Note that this was not the belief of Bellarmine, but one of the opinions he presented:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-fiv...rmine.html

Thank you!
Reply
#40
(05-07-2021, 01:01 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(05-07-2021, 11:58 AM)adoro.te.devote Wrote: This is different than in situations we've had in history where there have been multiple possible Popes - because there has always been a valid one, in addition to an invalid antipope.
I tried to find a counter-example, but I couldn't so far. The antipopes I found (Christopher and Boniface VII) who "reigned" for a few months while there was no true pope, came to power by throwing the true pope in prison.

Yes I'm basically just aware of cases where there was a valid Pope but there was either disagreement on who the real Pope is, or the real one was imprisoned
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)