Objections to Sedevacantism?
#71
(02-09-2022, 01:23 PM)MacPasquale Wrote: If you and all of your siblings are still Catholic it could be your upbringing in general.  That said, knowing how bad many NOs are, attending the Divine Liturgy probably provided some consistency between your religious life at home and in church that some of those other families didn't have.  

If parents are saying the religion is one thing and the priest another I can definitely see that causing kids to wonder if the religion is worth taking seriously at all.

The extremely lackluster attitude of many bishops and priests is, in my opinion, a big reason why many teenagers and young adults fall away from the faith.  They're lukewarm, and it is not for nothing that Our Lord warns the lukewarm that he will soon vomit them out of his mouth (Apocalypse 3:16).  Consider the many priests who had died throughout the ages to deliver the sacraments to the faithful, and are now saints, and compare that to the bishops who, during the early days of the Covid crisis, completely or nearly completely suspended access to sacraments like Extreme Unction.  From "the faith is worth dying for, because Heaven is our true home" to "let's not be radical and put lives in danger; we must build the Kingdom of God on Earth."  Live a faithful life, shunning many of the readily available pleasures of the modern world for...what?  A metaphorical kingdom of God that is mostly social justice warrior stuff?  No thanks.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
[-] The following 2 users Like SeekerofChrist's post:
  • jovan66102, MacPasquale
Reply
#72
(02-09-2022, 02:09 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
Bataar Wrote:
Clare Brigid Wrote:You claim to remain within the Catholic Church, but you are outside of it.  Sedevacantists refuse submission to the pope.  Refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff is schism.  Canon 751.  Those guilty of schism are excommunicated latae sententiae.  Canon 1364.  Those who are schismatic and excommunicated are outside the Church.  Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 23.

It does not matter that you do not believe Francis to be the pope.  Canon law does not make any exceptions for refusal to submit to the Supreme Pontiff.

More here.
He's not a valid pope so therefore we are not guilty of schism. If we're somehow wrong, that's a different issue, but it's definitely not schism. Francis is a public, manifest heretic and it is impossible, according to canon and divine law that he is a valid pope.

Your subjective belief that Pope Francis is not a valid pope does not change the objective fact that you are refusing submission to him.  That puts you in schism.  

There are all kinds of reasons, deemed good subjectively, for refusing submission to the pope.  Yours is just one of them.

It is supremely ironic that sedevacantists, who love to pass judgment on the pope and bishops, are themselves outside the Catholic Church.  They are in a very grave situation and could very well find themselves in the outer darkness.
A heretic is no longer a part of the Church. If you aren't a part of the Church then it's impossible to be the head of that Church, so there is no Pope to be in schism with. It's not that we don't like what the "Pope" is doing - we recognize that there is no Pope.

A schismatic sees the authority of the Pope and rejects it.
A Sedevacantist sees the Novus Ordo as a different religion that is not Catholic and rejects it.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bataar's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#73
I think if sedevacantists are in error (as I believe they are), then their situation is comparable to those who favoured one of the antipopes during the Great Western schism. It could be that they are in good faith and are simply in error of fact. I think sedevacantists ought not be accused of schism automatically. If they are dishonest and engage in wishful thinking, simply not wanting the modern Popes to be Popes and searching arguments for that position, that's a different story.
[-] The following 5 users Like Marmot's post:
  • Galahad3, jovan66102, NoliTardare, SeekerofChrist, Sword of St. Michael
Reply
#74
(02-10-2022, 06:38 AM)Marmot Wrote: I think if sedevacantists are in error (as I believe they are), then their situation is comparable to those who favoured one of the antipopes during the Great Western schism. It could be that they are in good faith and are simply in error of fact. I think sedevacantists ought not be accused of schism automatically. If they are dishonest and engage in wishful thinking, simply not wanting the modern Popes to be Popes and searching arguments for that position, that's a different story.

Honestly, this is the position I hold as well with sedes. Before, I used to think it was clearly black and white, accept the pope or in schism. Also used to think that the SSPX was in schism but that is another matter. As I have joined a latin mass, read more of the church fathers as well as pre-vatican2 popes/saints etc, it is now for more complicated and more of a grey area then just accept or schism. Until we get clarity from a pope on the issue, in a similar vein to how the reign of antipopes ended, or God informs us directly on the matter, then as long as one is well versed in their faith (not just parrotting what others say but actually have studied and come to a conclusion), and are acting in good faith to try and be as Catholic as they can, then I would say they or we are in error. Once its clear, if submission is still rejected due to pride, habit etc, then there would be schism. Now, since its muddied and we are not getting clear cut answers on even dogma never mind the papacy, its now more grey if in good faith.

On that note, according to the pope, as long as your baptised we are already in the communion of saints, so any schismatics EVEN if after this mess is cleared up would apparently still be not only in the church but already saints. So what do I know
Reply
#75
It all goes back to Vatican II. Vatican II is either fully Catholic and we all have a moral obligation to accept and follow it or it's not and we don't. If the Vatican II popes have all been valid, than they have the valid authority to institute Vatican II and require that all Catholics follow it. If Vatican II is not fully Catholic, than we have a moral obligation to reject and resist it along with those who claim the authority to enforce it. You can't reject Vatican II and believe the popes behind it have the authority of Christ.
Reply
#76
(02-13-2022, 08:59 PM)Bataar Wrote: It all goes back to Vatican II. Vatican II is either fully Catholic and we all have a moral obligation to accept and follow it or it's not and we don't. If the Vatican II popes have all been valid, than they have the valid authority to institute Vatican II and require that all Catholics follow it. If Vatican II is not fully Catholic, than we have a moral obligation to reject and resist it along with those who claim the authority to enforce it. You can't reject Vatican II and believe the popes behind it have the authority of Christ.

I'm curious. How does one accept or reject a Council that never claimed to be infallible and issued no anathemas, but was called a 'pastoral' Council, whatever that is? I like what someone said (was it Vox?), 'I believe with interior and exterior assent every doctrine that Vatican II requires the Faithful to believe'. Which is absolutely zilch, nada, nothing. 

I accept with interior and exterior assent everything the Council said that repeats 'that 
which has been believed 'everywhere, always, and by all' Catholics. I reject totally the attempts to 'pastorally' change doctrine.

I think the day will come that either a) Vatican II is simply forgotten and consigned to the dustbin of history, or b) that it is officially anathematised by a future Pope or Council. In the meantime, I will remain safely in the Barque of Peter, the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, Mother and Teacher of all Churches, and not force myself to do mental gymnastics trying to prove that Vatican I was in error when it said that Peter would have 'perpetual successors' in the See of Rome.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • choosetowitness
Reply
#77
(02-13-2022, 11:53 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(02-13-2022, 08:59 PM)Bataar Wrote: It all goes back to Vatican II. Vatican II is either fully Catholic and we all have a moral obligation to accept and follow it or it's not and we don't. If the Vatican II popes have all been valid, than they have the valid authority to institute Vatican II and require that all Catholics follow it. If Vatican II is not fully Catholic, than we have a moral obligation to reject and resist it along with those who claim the authority to enforce it. You can't reject Vatican II and believe the popes behind it have the authority of Christ.

I think the day will come that either a) Vatican II is simply forgotten and consigned to the dustbin of history, or b) that it is officially anathematised by a future Pope or Council. In the meantime, I will remain safely in the Barque of Peter, the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, Mother and Teacher of all Churches, and not force myself to do mental gymnastics trying to prove that Vatican I was in error when it said that Peter would have 'perpetual successors' in the See of Rome.

Close this thread, folks. The answer you're all looking for is right here.
[-] The following 2 users Like choosetowitness's post:
  • jovan66102, oldrover
Reply
#78
(02-13-2022, 11:53 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(02-13-2022, 08:59 PM)Bataar Wrote: It all goes back to Vatican II. Vatican II is either fully Catholic and we all have a moral obligation to accept and follow it or it's not and we don't. If the Vatican II popes have all been valid, than they have the valid authority to institute Vatican II and require that all Catholics follow it. If Vatican II is not fully Catholic, than we have a moral obligation to reject and resist it along with those who claim the authority to enforce it. You can't reject Vatican II and believe the popes behind it have the authority of Christ.

I'm curious. How does one accept or reject a Council that never claimed to be infallible and issued no anathemas, but was called a 'pastoral' Council, whatever that is? I like what someone said (was it Vox?), 'I believe with interior and exterior assent every doctrine that Vatican II requires the Faithful to believe'. Which is absolutely zilch, nada, nothing. 

I accept with interior and exterior assent everything the Council said that repeats 'that 
which has been believed 'everywhere, always, and by all' Catholics. I reject totally the attempts to 'pastorally' change doctrine.

I think the day will come that either a) Vatican II is simply forgotten and consigned to the dustbin of history, or b) that it is officially anathematised by a future Pope or Council. In the meantime, I will remain safely in the Barque of Peter, the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, Mother and Teacher of all Churches, and not force myself to do mental gymnastics trying to prove that Vatican I was in error when it said that Peter would have 'perpetual successors' in the See of Rome.
The problem with this though is that Paul VI said Vatican II was done using the Ordinary Magisterium. However, Vatican I declared that the Ordinary Magisterium is to be believed and followed as divinely revealed:

"All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.

(Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3, “Concerning Faith”, Denzinger 1792)"

The “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium” designates the teaching power of the pope and bishops of the whole world together. No special kind of teaching is required. Nor is it necessary for the teaching to be given over a lengthy period of time. If the universal teaching authority, i.e. the pope and the bishops with moral unanimity, pass on to the faithful a teaching as revealed, the faithful are obliged under pain of heresy to believe that doctrine with divine faith. It is a denial of the certain meaning of this dogma to reject some teaching that the pope and bishops are transmitting to the faithful today on the grounds that the same consensus cannot be traced back in history.

Even if the Council did not issue those solemn judgments known as acts of the Extraordinary Magisterium, its doctrines necessarily belong to the infallible teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Mag­isterium assuming of course, that they were promulgated by a true pope, for the bishops without their head have no such protection.

As to the perpetual successors argument, that is still not a solid argument because we were never promised there would not be a long period where there was no head. There is no time limit given. 60 years is a long time, but if a true, valid pope comes forth in 10 more years, than this teaching from Vatican I would still be true.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bataar's post:
  • SeekerofChrist
Reply
#79
I think you make good points about the Ordinary Magisterium, Bataar.  These were the kinds of questions that I had (and still have) as a sedevacantist, and why I do not wholly endorse the R&R position.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)