Objections to Sedevacantism?
#41
Noah, this is a good web site for you to explore:  http://www.trueorfalsepope.com
"[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
#42
MacPasquale Wrote:
Clare Brigid Wrote:Their love for argumentation is the problem.  Arguing with them gives them oxygen.  I choose not to do that.  I will continue simply to warn sedevacantists of schism.
What about the sedevacantists who have no interest in arguing and are simply trying to make sense of what's going on in the Church?  

These people may see the refusal to engage in honest discussion as further evidence that the sedevacantist position is correct.  On top of that, an accusation of schism(which in the Trad world may as well be a middle finger) can harden them in their position.  If you toss that accusation out you need to be able to back it up for sake of the person(s) you're accusing.

Back it up?  Okay, here goes.  Francis is pope.  Sedevacantists refuse submission to him.  Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff.  Therefore, sedevacantists are in schism.  QED.
"[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.
[-] The following 2 users Like Clare Brigid's post:
  • LionHippo, ServusDei
Reply
#43
(05-07-2021, 02:02 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: Back it up?  Okay, here goes.  Francis is pope.  Sedevacantists refuse submission to him.  Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff.  Therefore, sedevacantists are in schism.  QED.
RDRR
Reply
#44
Jurisdiction (authority to govern) is the strongest objection to sedevacantism imo. Jurisdiction comes from the Lord, through the Pope, to the bishops and dioceses. Jurisdiction is required for the sacraments. No Pope, no jurisdiction, no sacraments.

Heres some objections Ive heard before:

"What about periods of time inbetween Popes? Once it went on for 3 years. This is just like that except 50+ years."
Yes, jurisdiction is maintained during interim periods through the effect of the deceased Pope's Papacy. But if the sedevacantist makes the claim that the effect of Pius XII's Papacy provides jurisdiction today and this can go on indefinitely until a miracle happens, it logically follows that the Church can continue without a successor to the Papacy because it will just continue deriving its jurisdiction from the Papacy of the last Pope they consider the authentic Magisterium. If perpetual succession of the Papacy going forward from now isn't absolutely essential, then not a single Papal successor wouldve been necessary after St.Peter either, with all jurisdiction to the present day coming solely from our first Pope. The problem is clear.

"Sedevacantist bishops derive their jurisdiction from the Lord Himself."
Against Scripture. The keys to bind and loose were given to St.Peter and his successors.

"How could a heretic possess authority to govern in the Church? If heretics are outside the body, how could they be the head?"
This assumes that jurisdiction and heresy metaphysically existing together is impossible. If it were impossible, supplied jurisdiction in emergency situations would also be impossible, and your confession to an eastern orthodox priest on your deathbed would be in vain. Francis was elected by the same process as previous Popes for centuries, so although he spouts heresy, it does not deprive him of authority to govern as bestowed on him by the proper channels. Even an eclipsed Church still provides jurisdiction to the flock, otherwise the gates of hell prevail.

"If a heretic has authority to govern, must I submit to heretical teachings?"
No. Even if the Pope is a heretic, we submit to his possession of authority to govern, not his every word and deed. The authority for the Church to do what it does flows through the Pope, whether he is authentic or heretical, so to regard an occupied Chair as empty is like a machine pulling its own plug. The priest does not exercise his pristhood when he eats breakfast, or chats with a friend. Likewise the Pope isn't exercising the Papal office when putting pachamama on the Altar, speaking off the cuff on a plane, or even writing pages of warmed up doctrine with drops of heretical poison. Corrupt hierarchy are not exercising their authority when they say or do immoral things. The Spirit protects the Church from this, which is why Vatican II was called pastoral from the get go and never dogmatized/anathematized anything even though it is treated as the new pentecost of the concilliar church.

"What about St.Robert Bellarmine? No one can depose a Pope, but a heretic cannot be a Pope."
Pope Pius IV also wrote that condemned heretics cannot hold office. Condemned is the key word, since only a Pope has the right to attempt judgement or deposition of another Pope. Without denying the Pope's possession of jurisdiction, we are only (obligated) to resist from the Pope that which is immoral and unlawful.

"Is it not judgement to resist from a Pope that which you deem immoral and unlawful?"
A layman displaying the words of a current Pope as contradicting the words of a previous Pope is not judgement by the layperson, but by the previous Pope (aka his equal).
Daily Rosary pray,
Scapular as She asked,
Little Office at my side,
Until the day I pass.

Through the highest heaven,
To the Almighty Three,
Father, Son, and Spirit,
One same glory be. Amen
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lavenderson's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#45
(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
I'm at least "half a cede" since I go to a cede chapel: the thing that I find most uncomfortable about the reasoning, is how and when are "cedes" supposed to know that the Pope has "returned to Tradition?" I have read a lot of comments on this forum (these forums) over the years and see a lot of legalism and scrupulosity. Suppose, just suppose, Francis decided to repudiate V2 and everything that he's done since being pope which outrages trads? There will always be a few who won't accept him as being legit because of one thing or another.
Reply
#46
(05-07-2021, 02:02 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
MacPasquale Wrote:
Clare Brigid Wrote:Their love for argumentation is the problem.  Arguing with them gives them oxygen.  I choose not to do that.  I will continue simply to warn sedevacantists of schism.
What about the sedevacantists who have no interest in arguing and are simply trying to make sense of what's going on in the Church?  

These people may see the refusal to engage in honest discussion as further evidence that the sedevacantist position is correct.  On top of that, an accusation of schism(which in the Trad world may as well be a middle finger) can harden them in their position.  If you toss that accusation out you need to be able to back it up for sake of the person(s) you're accusing.

Back it up?  Okay, here goes.  Francis is pope.  Sedevacantists refuse submission to him.  Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff.  Therefore, sedevacantists are in schism.  QED.
So you're saying that it's possible for the pope to use the authority of Christ to contradict the authority of Christ?
Reply
#47
Sedevacantism is based on misreading of the Nestorian controversy. Nestorius lost his authority as a Patriarch but was not formally dismissed as a Patriarch until his deposal. In sum.
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
Reply
#48
(10-01-2021, 10:01 AM)Lavenderson Wrote: Jurisdiction (authority to govern) is the strongest objection to sedevacantism imo. Jurisdiction comes from the Lord, through the Pope, to the bishops and dioceses. Jurisdiction is required for the sacraments. No Pope, no jurisdiction, no sacraments.

Heres some objections Ive heard before:

"What about periods of time inbetween Popes? Once it went on for 3 years. This is just like that except 50+ years."
Yes, jurisdiction is maintained during interim periods through the effect of the deceased Pope's Papacy. But if the sedevacantist makes the claim that the effect of Pius XII's Papacy provides jurisdiction today and this can go on indefinitely until a miracle happens, it logically follows that the Church can continue without a successor to the Papacy because it will just continue deriving its jurisdiction from the Papacy of the last Pope they consider the authentic Magisterium. If perpetual succession of the Papacy going forward from now isn't absolutely essential, then not a single Papal successor wouldve been necessary after St.Peter either, with all jurisdiction to the present day coming solely from our first Pope. The problem is clear.

"Sedevacantist bishops derive their jurisdiction from the Lord Himself."
Against Scripture. The keys to bind and loose were given to St.Peter and his successors.

"How could a heretic possess authority to govern in the Church? If heretics are outside the body, how could they be the head?"
This assumes that jurisdiction and heresy metaphysically existing together is impossible. If it were impossible, supplied jurisdiction in emergency situations would also be impossible, and your confession to an eastern orthodox priest on your deathbed would be in vain. Francis was elected by the same process as previous Popes for centuries, so although he spouts heresy, it does not deprive him of authority to govern as bestowed on him by the proper channels. Even an eclipsed Church still provides jurisdiction to the flock, otherwise the gates of hell prevail.

"If a heretic has authority to govern, must I submit to heretical teachings?"
No. Even if the Pope is a heretic, we submit to his possession of authority to govern, not his every word and deed. The authority for the Church to do what it does flows through the Pope, whether he is authentic or heretical, so to regard an occupied Chair as empty is like a machine pulling its own plug. The priest does not exercise his pristhood when he eats breakfast, or chats with a friend. Likewise the Pope isn't exercising the Papal office when putting pachamama on the Altar, speaking off the cuff on a plane, or even writing pages of warmed up doctrine with drops of heretical poison. Corrupt hierarchy are not exercising their authority when they say or do immoral things. The Spirit protects the Church from this, which is why Vatican II was called pastoral from the get go and never dogmatized/anathematized anything even though it is treated as the new pentecost of the concilliar church.

"What about St.Robert Bellarmine? No one can depose a Pope, but a heretic cannot be a Pope."
Pope Pius IV also wrote that condemned heretics cannot hold office. Condemned is the key word, since only a Pope has the right to attempt judgement or deposition of another Pope. Without denying the Pope's possession of jurisdiction, we are only (obligated) to resist from the Pope that which is immoral and unlawful.

"Is it not judgement to resist from a Pope that which you deem immoral and unlawful?"
A layman displaying the words of a current Pope as contradicting the words of a previous Pope is not judgement by the layperson, but by the previous Pope (aka his equal).

If Vatican II was pastoral, how is that binding in the present? Is there a time limit?
Does that mean that a future pope can cancel Vatican II? 

Sorry for the annoying questions. This is the first I’ve heard it being a Pastoral council. The definition of which I cannot find.  

Can a man be forced to swear allegiance to a pastoral council? This opens up yet another complication with the Council. 


On top of the many others. 


Guys, I’m starting to get a bit worried, that the new Springtime isn’t coming!
Reply
#49
Vatican 2 was pastoral and did not dogmatize or anathematize anything. It was essentially a board meeting on steroids. Councils make definitive statements regarding what is and is not of the faith, as opposed to Vatican 2 which was warmed up doctrine with drops of absolute poison.

Theres no need to worry about binding yourself to the teachings of a "Council" which did not even bind itself.
Daily Rosary pray,
Scapular as She asked,
Little Office at my side,
Until the day I pass.

Through the highest heaven,
To the Almighty Three,
Father, Son, and Spirit,
One same glory be. Amen
Reply
#50
Don’t know if anyone said this, but sedevacantism seems to turn Papal Infallibility into a totally moot point. Of course “the pope” won’t err in faith and morals in a universally binding definitive act. If he were erring, he just wouldn’t be pope any more. See, Pastor Aeternas is turned into a kinda joke.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Username1's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)