It is currently Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:34 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
 Tips for New Sedevacantists 
Author Message

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Tips for New Sedevacantists
Hello to all !

I just wanted to introduce my self to the forum and say hello. I also wanted to thank John Lane for providing this forum and also thank the many very good contributors to this forum for the effort they have put into the discussions. The thanks often goes unmentioned, but as someone who first discovered and then converted to the Catholic Church via a simple internet search on early Church history, then converted to Tradition via resources such as this forum, I have found many good Catholic resources online (and seen many dubious ones too). Forums such as this one really do help people that are willing to put some effort into reading and want to discover the truth. If it wasn't for the many faithful Catholics who have fought the good fight and kept the Faith alive since the Vatican II council, someone like me +40 years later may not have had the opportunity to convert to the True Faith. You have my sincere thanks.


I have an idea that I thought I would mention to the many experienced contributors of this forum. With Bergoglio seemingly daily making fresh 'converts' to the sedevacante position, perhaps a thread could be started (or this one ?) with ideas and 'tips' for all the new sedevacantists out there. Especially some common blunders/pitfalls to avoid. An example would be 'dogmatic sedevacantism' which may be obvious for some, but maybe not all. I think it could be helpful in that those of us new to the position might be able to avoid retreading the same ground and falling into common traps that some have fallen into over the last 40 or so years. Just an idea.

In Christo

Luke


Wed May 14, 2014 3:13 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Hi Luke and welcome. I'm new too. It seems this forum is the big leagues in comparison to ones like CI. On CI the beginners in theology are the experts and dogmatize error whereas here they ask questions. Your idea seems good to me. I have a problem with the term "dogmatic sedevacantist". It makes it seem that some SVs base their conclusion on a dogma that does not exist. But we know that it is divine law that a public heretic cannot be Pope. Does Divine law carry the same weight as Dogma :)

Is there a more accurate capsulizing term that describes SVs who believe non-SVs are not Catholic or outside the Church?


Wed May 14, 2014 7:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Hi Maria,

I think the term 'dogmatic sedevacantism' comes from the belief by some that if you do not accept the thesis that the See is vacant, then you are not a Catholic you are outside the true Church and they state this fairly 'dogmatically'. This is of course a blatantly wrong idea, but some do go this far, giving the sedevacante position a bad name. Sometimes the labels we give or are given are not perfectly accurate. For instance, sedeplenists are often referred to in shorthand by the label "R&R" which means Recognize (the current claimant) and Resist (his errors). This is a pretty broad catch all term that isn't always perfectly accurate, like "Traditional Catholic" we are of course simply Catholics, but the names have stuck. I don't consider them necessarily pejorative, they are simply shorthand, a way of identifying (broadly) positions easily in the confusing time in the Church.

Luke


Thu May 15, 2014 12:32 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
As I was rooting about in the old discussions I found this gem posted by John Lane. Some thoughts from a Mr James Larrabee. A very good read and some real clear thinking. Here is the link to the thread:

viewtopic.php?p=788#p788


I particularly liked this excerpt:

Quote:
>From James Larrabee responding to a post on the TradCath List:

Gary wrote:

>I have questions (for anyone) which are not meant to be
adversarial or
>provocative. What is the "mission", if you will, of the
sedevacantist?

Let me put it this way. At present, there are basically two
types of "Catholics": those who are happy with the "changes" and
those who are not. Of the latter group, some if not most have
joined some sort of resistance "movement" at least in their
minds. The first group is not Catholic, and I have no concern
with them, though I hope and pray for their conversion to the
Truth as I do for all unbelievers. They are not members of the
Church, and they are not interested in what I or
"traditionalists" have to say. It would take a far greater than
I to convert them. My "mission" is to those who are unhappy with
the "changes" but have not found the way out from conciliar
heresy and schism. I am convinced that on a better understanding
of Catholic teaching, given to us by Our Divine Redeemer for our
comfort as well as for our salvation (and every single syllable
of it was bought and paid for by His Most Precious Blood), they
will see the need, regardless of the "Pope" question, of totally
rejecting the "changes." They will understand the falsity of the
position of so many compromisers who, while not accepting the
heresies of Vatican II openly, are in the position of the
Semi-Arians of the 4th century, of the Jansenists, of other
groups who have diluted the pure truth of Christ to gain a
following, or out of human respect, or because they have been
partly deceived by heretics.

Therefore, as I have said, my "mission" (I can't and don't wish
to speak for others) is not per se to prove that the conciliar
Popes are invalid, but to convey the absolute necessity of
believing the doctrine of the unity of the Church, as well as the
sacrosanct character of all Tradition, both doctrinal,
liturgical, and disciplinary. The invalidity of the "popes" is a
conclusion depending on the heretical nature of their teachings.
Those who adhere to their teachings obviously will never agree to
this. There is no point discussing this with them at all, when
there is no antecedent agreement on matters of Faith. For those
who do see the heresy, to a greater or lesser extent, the "pope
question" may be necessary, and is likely to be helpful, as
clearing out an obstacle to the full truth, particularly the
obstacle of confusing a heretical sect with the True Church. If
this is confused, the mind is deprived of clear ideas about
doctrine. The necessary result is that all the doctrines
rejected in the Novus Ordo "church" are reduced, in the minds of
otherwise would-be orthodox people, to matters of opinion. This
is actually the position of certain well-known "traditional"
priests (in communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy). Their
whole position is founded on accepting, a priori, conciliar
"popes" as legitimate and the Vatican Council as a legitimate
council. Their great danger is precisely the appearance, and
their claim, of 100% orthodoxy, enabling them to keep people in
the conciliar slaughterhouse.

There are so many important Catholic principles which have been
lost sight of today. One could clean the Augean stables before
succeeding in restoring these to men's minds. But one of the
most important, and neglected even by traditional priests, is
that of St. Augustine: In necessary things unity, in doubtful
things liberty, in all things charity. (Frequently fractured by
heretics to "in unessential things" as though any matter of
doctrine could be unessential). There need be no division
between Catholics over controverted matters when they are
DIFFICULT, OBSCURE, not clear from past teaching or requiring
proof of facts not evident to us, and of course, not yet decided
by Catholic authority (Pope or general council). Such, it seems
to me, is the question of the legitimacy of the "popes" since
1958. Such is NOT the clear teaching of the Church (whether or
not solemnly defined) which has been overthrown in countless ways
by and since the Council. In these things, there can be no
disagreement. Those who are with us on this are with the Church;
those who are not, are not Catholics. If some of the matters are
difficult, many, if not most, are not.


Thu May 15, 2014 4:01 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Hi Luke,

Welcome!

As long as you're on-time with your monthly membership dues, you should do fine.

:D


Thu May 15, 2014 4:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Luke L wrote:
Hi Maria,

I think the term 'dogmatic sedevacantism' comes from the belief by some that if you do not accept the thesis that the See is vacant, then you are not a Catholic you are outside the true Church and they state this fairly 'dogmatically'. This is of course a blatantly wrong idea, but some do go this far, giving the sedevacante position a bad name. Sometimes the labels we give or are given are not perfectly accurate. For instance, sedeplenists are often referred to in shorthand by the label "R&R" which means Recognize (the current claimant) and Resist (his errors). This is a pretty broad catch all term that isn't always perfectly accurate, like "Traditional Catholic" we are of course simply Catholics, but the names have stuck. I don't consider them necessarily pejorative, they are simply shorthand, a way of identifying (broadly) positions easily in the confusing time in the Church.

Luke


Hi Luke,

I agree with your definition of "dogmatic SV" but I still do not like the term as it obscures the fact that it is Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope. Why not call them "Papal SVs"? Sedevacantists that act like they are Popes. :lol:


Thu May 15, 2014 10:22 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Maria Looch wrote:
I agree with your definition of "dogmatic SV" but I still do not like the term as it obscures the fact that it is Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope. Why not call them "Papal SVs"? Sedevacantists that act like they are Popes. :lol:


I, too, can see no practical difference between the response to the Crisis by the sedevacantist and the "recognize and resister".

It seems that the R&R acts like a sedevacantist while denying (and often condemning) the sedevacantist thesis.

In my personal experience, I have encountered many more "dogmatic resisters" who condemn the sedevacantist as outside the Church than I have the "dogmatic sedevacantist" who condemns the non-sedevacantist as outside the Church. I really don't have numbers to back that up, and perhaps I have it wrong. This is just my personal experience.

I'm just wondering how the October meeting is gong to be spun by the R&R people to show that the Conciliar sect hasn't really defected from the faith. I'm sure they will find legal words and phrases (sort of like when Bill Clinton famously said that it depends on what the meaning of "is" is) to justify their viewpoint. Especially when, it seems, all their chief spokesmen seem to be lawyers.


Thu May 15, 2014 12:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
TKGS wrote:
Maria Looch wrote:
I agree with your definition of "dogmatic SV" but I still do not like the term as it obscures the fact that it is Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope. Why not call them "Papal SVs"? Sedevacantists that act like they are Popes. :lol:


I, too, can see no practical difference between the response to the Crisis by the sedevacantist and the "recognize and resister".

It seems that the R&R acts like a sedevacantist while denying (and often condemning) the sedevacantist thesis.

In my personal experience, I have encountered many more "dogmatic resisters" who condemn the sedevacantist as outside the Church than I have the "dogmatic sedevacantist" who condemns the non-sedevacantist as outside the Church. I really don't have numbers to back that up, and perhaps I have it wrong. This is just my personal experience.

I'm just wondering how the October meeting is gong to be spun by the R&R people to show that the Conciliar sect hasn't really defected from the faith. I'm sure they will find legal words and phrases (sort of like when Bill Clinton famously said that it depends on what the meaning of "is" is) to justify their viewpoint. Especially when, it seems, all their chief spokesmen seem to be lawyers.


Nice post. Agreed!

It appears to me that many SV's don't want to be "harsh" and condemnatory and so in order to be peaceable downplay the seemingly obvious ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that wishes away the Pope issue. Sure you win souls with sweetness but best to use organic honey rather than honey tarnished or modified in a way that makes it less authentic and healthy.


Thu May 15, 2014 12:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Maria Looch wrote:


It appears to me that many SV's don't want to be "harsh" and condemnatory and so in order to be peaceable downplay the seemingly obvious ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that wishes away the Pope issue. Sure you win souls with sweetness but best to use organic honey rather than honey tarnished or modified in a way that makes it less authentic and healthy.


It is a test of our charity and no one I have read explains it as well as John Lane here: http://sedevacantist.com/general_view.htm.

Below is an extract with my emphasis:

Quote:
We are being asked by God to remain in peace with men with whom we suffer the greatest possible differences outside of those things taught infallibly by Holy Mother Church. We must regard as fellow Catholics men who accept a false pope or reject the true one, depending on our point of view. We are being asked to fight the good fight with men who think that Our Blessed Redeemer is outraged daily in the Holy Eucharist in the Novus Ordo, or with men who think that He isn't there at all, depending once again on the judgement we have formed about the controverted point.

St. Augustine, speaking of controversy on matters not yet settled by Holy Church, after referring to the fact that without charity all other virtue is worthless, explains: "And yet, if within the Church different men still held different opinions on the point, without meanwhile violating peace, then till some one clear and simple decree should have been passed by an universal Council, it would have been right for the charity which seeks for unity to throw a veil over the error of human infirmity, as it is written 'For charity covers a multitude of sins.' For, seeing that its absence causes the presence of all other things to be of no avail, we may well suppose that in its presence there is found pardon for the absence of some missing things." (St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists. Emphasis added.)

Yes, charity. The bond of perfection, the eternal virtue, for the very nature of God Himself is, in the words of St. John, that He is love. And that same charity is the second bond of unity of the Church, and therefore must be practiced not only for the good of our fellow Catholic but also for the very preservation of the Church.

This is the true Catholic spirit, and it is this spirit which maintains the unity of peace despite the gravest differences amongst men of good will. It is for this reason that “sedevacantists” can worship with "sedeplenists." It is for this reason that Archbishop Lefebvre always refused to fall into the trap of refusing sacraments to "sedevacantists." It is this essential virtue which is the second bond of unity of the Catholic Church, visible and indissoluble, even if obscured and weakened to the point of apparent failure. Its survival to this point is so improbable as to constitute a miracle, and we ought to ponder it with awe and reverence. It is, of course, a fruit of the Holy Eucharist -- no less than the chief effect of the Holy Eucharist.


Fri May 16, 2014 9:57 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Wills, thank you for the gentle reminder in helping us to remain grounded and resist the temptation to be condescending or feel the need to ridicule those who differ from us. This thread was started with the intention of helping those who have only recently departed the sedeplenist position so let's not descend into categorising the behaviour of others, sedes included, or supplying motives for such.

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Fri May 16, 2014 12:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
I remember the first person who I spoke to a bit more intimately about this issue (SV'ism). I mention below some of the most important points for SV'ist who are talking about these issues with others, this especially applies more to the indult crowd then lets say SSPX (who already very much understand many of the traditionalist issues + mass attendance). I think that SV'ist too often shy away from Indulter's so I would say be more merciful to them more than anyone else. Simply think of your own situation, and how long and arduous the process was for some people to arrive to this conclusion! For me it was approx. 15 years to return what I believed to be true since 10 years old! I fought intellectually as hard as I could, but one by one every single obstacle (like an unveiling) was removed and then the truth of the reality of our current crisis.

So I kept answering each and every question she had, because she was wondering how is it that if my position is correct could I still think that those outside of that position could be in communion with people who are not SV'ist (why can I consider her Catholic). After a long conversation, she really understood that I had thought about this issue very thoroughly. At the very end of the conversation she said, "What now? What do you do?", I responded without hesitation to simply keep the faith whole and entire. Attend the mass from priest who don't have dubious orders and who you know for example are not schismatics (think of Bishop Vezelis with his whole he is the Patriarch of the United States, laughing out loud!). Just do a little research and ask the priest some questions before committing your soul to him, I am sure that any true priest would not mind being asked to confirm his faith! It simply does not end with knowing Sedevacantism, is once you have the faith then you make sure to keep the commandments. Many forget about this, they somehow think that because they now they know better about what is going on and this somehow will make them "holier"! Also explain to other's that just like with anything there are some people that became Sedevacantist for the wrong reasons. They already were schismatic in the first place, so changing to a true position changes little. Remember that schism is a sin against Charity first and foremost, some of these folks make the Pharisees look like innocent doves comparitively speaking in their "self-righteoussness." You see a semi-Protestant approach (think of the Fundamentalist protestant preacher so filled with his own "righteousness" this individual is a big turn off to most people towards true religion) to authority, instead of using the Bible they use Denzinger (solemn magisterial documents) self-interpret them and then accuse everyone else of bad will because we don't see what they see. They fail to try to understand the church as the CHURCH understands herself, as the church has understood everything she has taught over the centuries etc... The closest error that I can think of and have often argued before on other forums. It is what i have called, "neo-Novatianism" (with a tad-bit of the errors of Donatus) it comes from anti-Pope Novatian who although initially as the Fathers write was not a heretic, but overtime he developed heresies with respect to who constitutes a member of the Mystical Body of Christ etc... They refuse communion with fellow Catholics, assumming that this whole matter has been completely settled in a juridical way. These folks are most often zealots of Most Holy Family Monastery (who although have lots of good material must be condemned for their schism) and company. There are two branches from this school of thought, Ibryani type of radical schismatic (i.e. those who contend that Pius XII to x date were heretical anti-popes now he goes back to the 11th century, most of the radical schismatics are not that stupid and only go back to Leo XIII) and then those who believe that anyone who does believe in Baptism of Desire, Blood etc... Are apostate heretics, just as much as the current Conciliar Church (if not worse), because in their eyes we are the 1 drop of poison that will damn you to hell because we are that much closer to the truth. If you have read their book, and still remain unconvinced then you are a bad-willed heretic. They are so convinced of this, that even having a 5 minute conversation with you they are able to know your hearts deepest thoughts on different questions. Yes sometimes you can be able to know what someone thinks, because they have told you so, but not so with them. You can say one thing, and they will say that you believe the total opposite. This is plain intellectual dishonesty about the external forum, to them objective evidence matters little. We don't presume that someone is a heretic, until there is real substantial evidence that this is the case. A mistaken Catholic, is not a formal heretic remember that!

You do what you can, given the circumstances that you are in, if you can't attend a mass where there are no dubious sacraments then you simply do the right thing and pray at home. Don't fret about things outside of your control, this is what Padre Pio the sainted Stigmatist would often say, "Pray and don't worry." If you really can't go to mass, then now you have something to talk to with the Good Lord! Maybe if you storm heaven enough, just like the example of the woman and the judge parable. He will listen to you out of stubborness ^_^! If it is possible travel every once in a while, according to your disposition (income, age, health etc...) as often as you can to get the sacraments. Most people don't realize that for most of the United States History very few people had access to the mass especially in more Urban areas. The advent of the car, and modern transportation has very much increased access to the Sacred Mysteries for many. It was fitting that when such a time should come in the world where the Universal Great Apostasy would begin that you would have greater resources available (such as the ability to have priest travel to plane to give masses in as many places possible). If this is not enough think of the persecution that catholics have had to suffer in the past, and how you are relatively living in so much comfort as compared to them. Sometimes studying history helps you gives you perspective. Also despite the on-slaught of modernism, and universal heretical literature out there at the same time we have a near zero marginal cost to all the books of the church Fathers, Councils, magisterial teaching, papal documents. The library that each of us has available which can be freely downloadable because the copyright for most of the material that is really good is already expired. All the books that really matter to us are freely available and easily scannable + uploadable to others to share in our dark times. Call it our specific manna from heaven :), via the internet we can also be able to find comfort that there are other Catholics who are in just as much distress as we are but keeping the faith under the same circumstances (stubborn/apostate family, converts and so forth). There is a certain supernatural hope that is shared in the small communities we live in, that we hope against hope. This is what St. Paul meant by, "Fight the Good fight." This means that despite you never seeing victory, as a good soldier you will stand your ground and do what the Divine commander Wills for you.

To be honest there has never been something that I have thought more profoundly and with more tenacity then this issue. Like many of you have probably thought before, "What if I am wrong and I am eternally damned because of it...". It kind of reminds me approx. 6 years ago when I was staying at the Monastery at Silver City when a Novus Ordo seminarian had asked me about the position of the SSPX was schismatic or not. I frankly told him, that if I am truly wrong then I will be truly damned. Like many of you, this is why we go into this issue so deeply, because we are willing to stake our eternal salvation based on the objective evidence (intellectual honesty). Real formal schism, as the Church teaches damns you to hell. Now in the Conciliar Church you can return souls from Hell to the Church Triumphant you see this more recently with anti-B XVI and the whole "lifting of the excommunications" which in reality was in completely solidarity + continuity with anti Paul VI Balamand declaration with the schismatic Orthodox. Think of it, if +ABL died a schismatic and then he is forgiven does he go back to heaven from hell? So two possibilities are true, that he was right and the Vatican was wrong which is the correct scenario, or that he was wrong but the Vatican lifted something which was juridically valid (the only way such a valid juridical act can be properly reversed, is if the accused makes a formal profession of faith i.e. shows in the external forum a change towards Unschism + proper doctrine). Now remember, +ABL never repented, never made any changes to his positions (just as the Orthodox never changed any of their theology) nor any of the 4 Bishops of the SSPX. You see Schism is something laetae sententiae so long as the initial conditions are held true, i.e. whether they have left their state of schism behind, and made a formal profession of faith in public or in private before the eyes of the Good Lord.

What damns you to hell is not believing in the Dogma's and doctrines that flow from the magisterium. So this is why Joe Catholic can be able to still retain belief in the doctrines of the Church while at the same time believing wrongly in the claim of Bergoglio (and those before him). Just like us we know that they are apostates, but we retain belief in the Petrine related Dogmas which is why we have the faith also. However, with Bergoglio doing the two worst canonizations ever done by the Conciliar Church and with all the external acts of apostasy he has committed is greatly making it more and more dangerous to remain a sedeplenist and Catholic at the same time. We don't presume to make Universal judgements to everyone because each case is different, but we can make a reasonable assumption that it is not safe to be in such a scenario. SSPX is safe because they reject just as we do, their false ecumenism + apostasies, however, joe Catholic in the pew has to self-internatlize this things in his head. If he totally accepts these acts as true and defends obvious sins against the first commandment among other things then he really has lost of the faith, but there are some that are troubled (they want to believe that this is true, but still have some sort of internal intellectual resistance going on). These folks because they have not given full assent of the will and intellect, have retained the purity of the catholic faith (presuming they believe in the dogmas + doctrines). Many in the indult have done this, by saying "Well they are Saints, but I can't follow his ecumenism" to give you a solid example. They accept the reality that it is impossible to be Catholic, and commit such acts. Just because they are in a state of contradiction in their mind does not make them formal heretics, it is precisely this contradiction in their mind that preserves for them the faith because you can't accidentally be heretical. The person needs to be able to understand clearly what he is believing, i.e. that what he believes is truly against Church teaching.

Its important to understand that historically speaking we are not tied to any previous condemned errors etc... We are actually quite in line with catholic theological thought and praxis etc... We have the "Doctor of the Papacy" on our side (St. Bellarmine) whose doctrine presided over Vatican I (gloriously and triumphantly) so that one can be very at home with the idea that it is impossible that our theological conclusion could ever be considered an "error" as the SSPX tries to belligerently argue over and over again. Its the equivalent of saying that the overwhelming majority of the early Father's + modern theologians were wrong on this issue.

_______
Here are some apologetic tips to get your R&R in a paralyzed position :) . The debate is over, if we believe Vatican I to be true we have an undoubted act of an exertion of the infallibility of the Pope and yet it is rejected. All teaching previous to Vatican I settled the matter as to what we mean by the infallibility of the Papacy. When you have an act from the Pope that uses all four of those, you cannot reject it. Period. Anything other then that, we can debate but here is an example which even the best indult/sspx apologist cannot defend, since it is undefensible.

Now take yesterday's Eleison comments from H.E. Williamson #357: "Catholic minds and hearts an agony which found in sedevacantism a simple solution". Now all of the serious R&R apologist will have to readily admit, that it is the "simplest" solution. I.e. that even a child can come up with this solution to the problem. Now what is hypocritical, o the irony!
Quote:
So they positively crusade for others to share their simple solution, and in so doing many of them – not all -- end up displaying an arrogance and a bitterness which are no signs or fruits of a true Catholic.
Yet we are the ones that are arrogant! It is the SSPX that claims that they have theological knowledge above that of the masses of men, that you have to make a million distinctions to what is obvious (by this time) and that even though something talks, walks, looks, writes, acts like a heretic. That he really is not! If you can't prove that Bergoglio is really FORMALLY heretical, then heresy is merely an intellectual theoretical possibility now! There is no way I can ever be able based on the external forum to prove that ANYONE is a heretic, if they say that they are "catholic", but they attend protestant baptist services for Sunday morning. You see for them to know that someone is heretical, they need to be certain of his interior dispositions! Imagine that! Luther might have never been a heretic, because you don't know if he really meant what he said! Before your brain goes into further cogntive dissonance, briefly pause for a minute and then continue reading :lol: .

Code:
Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.


:lol: This syllogism is self-defeating. A Liberal is not a catholic, just like a modernist is not a Catholic. You might be able to better serve your aguments if you quantify it with a better adjective. "Liberal tendencies", or "modernistic tendencies" or "smells of heresy" as many FSSP preachers do, because they understand that once you actually say "liberal", "modernist" in an unqualified way is that you have already formally accepted that they are heretics. Or are we to believe that out of all errors in Church history these are the only ones exempt from expulsion in the church? The idea is absurd of course, but this is what they take for granted.

Here we have some more gobbledygook,
Quote:
here is the weak point in their argument – whenever the Pope teaches solemnly even outside of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he must also be infallible.
.

So does Bergoglio using the highest possible solemn language, using his Apostolic authority etc... Not qualify as an infallible act? Just look at the recent canonizations. All four of the Vatican I teachings on infallibility qualify as such. We are not talking about his interviews with the media as a private person we are talking about him as "the head of the Church" acting as the head of the Church to the whole Universal Church, giving a binding act that Catholics are BOUND to accept under pain of schism. Yet they reject it!

Quote:
Pope is certainly infallible only when he engages the four conditions of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium by teaching 1 as Pope, 2 on Faith or morals, 3 definitively, 4 so as to bind all Catholics.


_______

Overall the main thing to understand as someone who has finally lifted the veil over this issue, is that there is no change whatsoever. You keep on doing what you have to do, i.e. your duties in your state of life. The main difference is that now you know how to defend yourself against certain wolves (Conciliarist wolves) and it is easier to fight when you are aware of what is the root of the modern Great Apostasy we live in. You have an advantage, but don't become so obsessed about it that you forget about the other enemies of your soul. There is no need (however much I might want to), to prepare in an underground bunker against the coming of the anti-Christ. Sure you can prepare in some manner, but most importantly it must FIRST be spiritual preparation as opposed to going with your tin foil hat and prepare for the impending Apocalypse. As Our Dear Lord said
Quote:
Matthew 10:28
And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.
, ergo get your priorities straight as a SV'ist. The world, the flesh and the devil all of these are the enemies of your salvation, even more so then these apostate anti-Popes and their wicked minions.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sun May 18, 2014 8:56 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Jorge Armendariz wrote:

_______

Overall the main thing to understand as someone who has finally lifted the veil over this issue, is that there is no change whatsoever. You keep on doing what you have to do, i.e. your duties in your state of life. The main difference is that now you know how to defend yourself against certain wolves (Conciliarist wolves) and it is easier to fight when you are aware of what is the root of the modern Great Apostasy we live in. You have an advantage, but don't become so obsessed about it that you forget about the other enemies of your soul. There is no need (however much I might want to), to prepare in an underground bunker against the coming of the anti-Christ. Sure you can prepare in some manner, but most importantly it must FIRST be spiritual preparation as opposed to going with your tin foil hat and prepare for the impending Apocalypse. As Our Dear Lord said
Quote:
Matthew 10:28
And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.
, ergo get your priorities straight as a SV'ist. The world, the flesh and the devil all of these are the enemies of your salvation, even more so then these apostate anti-Popes and their wicked minions.



Thank you very much for writing out this post ! There is much sound advice here and I shall return to this and read it again to refresh my memory. But I did want to highlight this part that you wrote, I think it is worth emphasizing. I have noticed this already as well personally. It is a great relief to have a mental 'framework' with which to deal with this crisis in the Church. As the crisis continues you are able to keep things in their proper perspective rather than have to scramble around and swallow fresh spoonfuls of cognitive dissonance as the conciliar church hands them out, now with Francis, seemingly on a weekly basis.

But our duties remain, to keep and live our Catholic Faith, to know, love and serve God and love our neighbour as ourselves for His sake. I do agree that it must be God's loving Providence that only allowed this crisis to happen when we had so many more resources such as modern transportation, communication, cheap and abundant printing etc. to help us in every way to keep the Faith. It is quite amazing when you stop and think about it, just how much we have at available our finger tips at either no cost, via the internet or the low cost of good books (such as TAN reprints). I have since my conversion a few years ago, never ceased to be amazed at the seemingly limitless Catholic treasures that are available, if one is willing to make but a small effort to look. It is such a shame that so few Catholics are willing to make that effort.

Thanks again for your post,

Luke


Mon May 19, 2014 2:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Thank you very much for this informative posts. I just want to be clear that the main reason I do not like the term "Dogmatic Sede vacantist" [DSV] is that it gives the impression that there is no Dogma that SVs base their conclusion on. When it is Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope. I know in reality in means "SVs who condemn non-SVs as being outside the Church". But sense the term is used to negatively describe certain SVs those new to the situation might conclude that SV is just an opinion with no sound basis when in fact it is based on the soundest of things -- Divine Law itself. It is a negative term that gets SVs defensive which results in them/us coming up with negative terms such as Dogmatic sedeplenist which in turn gets the R and R's defensive etc.

I'm not sure if I was clear on why I did not like the term or not.

To be clearer (I hope). Some might see the phrase "Dogmatic Sedevacantist" and think their are two different types of Sedevacantists.

1. Those who "falsely believe" they base their conclusion on dogma (the bad guys)

2. Those who admit that SV is just an opinion not based on anything substantial (the good guys)

Perhaps a better term for "Dogmatic Sedevacantist" would be "No Salvation Outside of Sedevacantism" or "NSOS". Or ESNS. Extra Sedevacantism Nulla Salus.

I have a feeling my suggestion won't catch on but there it is. I am a dogmatic SV properly understood. I base my conclusion on Divine Law and on ecclesiastical theology i.e. the fact that the V2 leaders have bound on their Church what no valid Pope can bind on the Catholic Church.


Mon May 19, 2014 12:17 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Maria Looch wrote:
I just want to be clear that the main reason I do not like the term "Dogmatic Sede vacantist" [DSV] is that it gives the impression that there is no Dogma that SVs base their conclusion on. When it is Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope.


This divine law is not a dogma. If it were, you'd find it in theology books clearly stated as a dogma. Actually, it is openly disputed by men of such eminence as Francisco Suarez, for example. So it is not a dogma.

In my opinion it is definable, of course, after which it will indeed be a dogma.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 19, 2014 2:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Thanks for the clarification, John.

So, the term “Dogmatic Sedevacantist” accurately describes those who believe that it is dogma that a public heretic can’t be pope and as a result believe that Francis’s non-papacy is a dogmatic fact.

It looks to me like they err on two points; the dogmatic one and the elevation of their own judgment by which they apply this pseudo-dogma to the concrete case of Francis.

So, the term stands.

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Mon May 19, 2014 3:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Quote:
John Lane
The way that many traditionalists talk one would think that the faith is infused with all of its objects and the reason that we must reject novelties is because we, that is, the infallible judges of faith(!), know what is true and what isn't (because of some interior light - perhaps the sensus catholicus). This is Protestantism, or superstition, or something else utterly unCatholic.


I believe, given their is no living visible authority for many Catholics today, all Catholics, sedevacantist or not, are in a real danger in becoming our own authorities i.e. Protestant.


Mon May 19, 2014 4:04 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
John Lane wrote:
Maria Looch wrote:
I just want to be clear that the main reason I do not like the term "Dogmatic Sede vacantist" [DSV] is that it gives the impression that there is no Dogma that SVs base their conclusion on. When it is Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope.


This divine law is not a dogma. If it were, you'd find it in theology books clearly stated as a dogma. Actually, it is openly disputed by men of such eminence as Fransisco Suarez, for example. So it is not a dogma.

In my opinion it is definable, of course, after which it will indeed be a dogma.


Thank you John. Divine law is above dogma though isn't it. This raises a new question. What is the relationship between Divine Law and Dogma [doctrine] [ecclesiastical law]? Sure the later two can never contradict Dogma or Divine Law but I'm interested in the distinctions between the classifications.

What is Dogma?

What is Doctrine?

What is the difference between Dogma and doctrine?

What is the difference between Divine law, dogma and doctrine?

I need to get back to basic premises in order to be more precise and in order not to err completely. It is amazing not only how much I don't know but also how much I forget. I hope the above questions are okay to ask. I cannot even begin to talk about things semi-complex when I do not even know the basics.

Thank again for your patience.


Mon May 19, 2014 5:19 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Katie wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, John.

So, the term “Dogmatic Sedevacantist” accurately describes those who believe that it is dogma that a public heretic can’t be pope and as a result believe that Francis’s non-papacy is a dogmatic fact.

It looks to me like they err on two points; the dogmatic one and the elevation of their own judgment by which they apply this pseudo-dogma to the concrete case of Francis.

So, the term stands.


But it is divine law that a public heretic cannot be Pope. And if I were to be labeled a "dogmatic SV" for this reason, I am guilty as charged.

Where do we get our proof that divine law teaches that it is impossible for a public heretic to be Pope? Is it from the scripture, "the heretic, avoid"? I'm sorry I'm not sure of the exact verse and quote I am referencing. I'm sure someone will know what I'm talking about.


Mon May 19, 2014 5:23 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Maria Looch wrote:

But it is divine law that a public heretic cannot be Pope. And if I were to be labeled a "dogmatic SV" for this reason, I am guilty as charged.


Well, you won't be. It's the dogmatic "dogmatic sedevacantists" that usually earn that label. You've a long way to go in showing that you are made of that mettle. :)

Maria Looch wrote:
Where do we get our proof that divine law teaches that it is impossible for a public heretic to be Pope? Is it from the scripture, "the heretic, avoid"? I'm sorry I'm not sure of the exact verse and quote I am referencing. I'm sure someone will know what I'm talking about.


Mario, from St. Robert Bellarmine, for one, of course! Who else?

This subject has been covered here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=529;; here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... c.php?t=17 and here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... c.php?t=13. And now here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... 586#p16586

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Mon May 19, 2014 5:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Maria Looch wrote:
Divine law is above dogma though isn't it.


Huh?

Divine law is nothing else than the law established by God Himself, as opposed to human law. The Ten Commandments are divine law. Also, the natural law is divine law. The fact that things fall if not supported is gravity, a divine law. The fact that a manifest heretic is not a Catholic is divine law, it's in the nature of the Church itself, the body that consists of all of those who outwardly profess the true faith, amongst other qualifications. And it is actually another divine law that only a member can hold an office in the Church.

Divine law, insofar as it is revealed to man, is part of divine revelation. All of divine revelation is definable. If it is defined, it becomes dogma - that is, it is added to that body of truths which must be believed with divine and catholic faith. Until it is defined, it's still revealed, and still true, and so any individual who realises this is obliged to believe it with divine faith, but he has not the additional obligation which arises from the infallible assurance and authority of the Church, so he does not believe with divine and catholic faith. This is how it was with the Immaculate Conception, for example, in the Middle Ages. Divinely revealed, believed by many with divine faith, but not yet a dogma, to be believed with divine and catholic faith.

Maria Looch wrote:
This raises a new question. What is the relationship between Divine Law and Dogma [doctrine] [ecclesiastical law]? Sure the later two can never contradict Dogma or Divine Law but I'm interested in the distinctions between the classifications.

What is Dogma?

What is Doctrine?

What is the difference between Dogma and doctrine?

What is the difference between Divine law, dogma and doctrine?

I need to get back to basic premises in order to be more precise and in order not to err completely. It is amazing not only how much I don't know but also how much I forget. I hope the above questions are okay to ask. I cannot even begin to talk about things semi-complex when I do not even know the basics.

Thank again for your patience.


No problem, but it is all here already, so do some searches and browse around. Seriously, everything you are in doubt about is covered here already, and should not be too hard to find. This is not like any other forums. There are not pages and pages of threads with rubbish in them.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 20, 2014 1:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 1:05 pm
Posts: 8
Location: Virginia
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Katie wrote:
...So, the term “Dogmatic Sedevacantist” accurately describes those who believe that it is dogma that a public heretic can’t be pope and as a result believe that Francis’s non-papacy is a dogmatic fact...


I thought a dogmatic sedevacantist is one who believes that the current claimant is not a valid pope and if you do not also believe it, then you are outside of the Church. They make proclamations and pronouncements that all must adhere to, no?

........

I was reading today about the Great Western Schism on this forum, and especially about St. Vincent Ferrer. There were many public Saints that God raised up to fight against the errors/evils of that time. During every single crisis that the Church faced in Her history, there were always visible Saints fighting for Her.

It seems that a confirmation that we have no pope is that we have no visible Saints. No public miracles. It seems that there is silence in Heaven.


Wed May 21, 2014 11:17 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
My tip for new sedevacantists?

Remember that you weren't a sedevacantist five minutes ago, so don't criticise anybody else for not being a sede!

And when you've been a sedevacantist for ten years? The mere passage of time doesn't change a principle, so still don't criticise anybody else for not being a sede!

:)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 22, 2014 7:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
This is a tip, for myself as much as for anyone else, spend some time reading through the texts section here and old discussions. There is some great stuff here !

Like this thread in the texts section, Tolerance by Vermeersch:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=404


Sat May 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
A quick question of the practical order, when it comes to disciplinary practices of the Church (I am thinking of fasting, abstinence, Holy days of obligation etc.) what should we still consider ourselves bound to ? Do we go with a safe date, like 1965 or 1958 and follow those obligations ?

If we assist at an SSPX chapel would we just follow what the priest tells us to do ? I wonder because it seems the severely mitigated practices of the 1983 code are considered binding. I wonder how others here deal with this practical aspect of the crisis.


Mon May 26, 2014 6:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Tips for New Sedevacantists
Observe the 1917 CIC. For the most part, not much changes-- remember that days the SSPX "encourages" you to fast and/or abstain are actually days you're bound to, so hopefully you've been practicing and gotten into some good habits. Three hour fast before Holy Communion. Let's see... Holy week gets a little difficult, depending on where you are attending mass. Pius XII moved the vigil so the Lenten Fast goes til Midnight Easter, but Chapels where the pre-Pian Holy Week is observed will tell you that you can stop fasting at noon Holy Saturday. Christmas eve is a day of fast and abstinence. All the Holy Days are the same.


Mon May 26, 2014 8:59 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.