Do any Catholics (or non-Catholics) on here have an opinion on sedevacantism?

Maecenas

Sparrow
My opinion is that given this is a fallen world, why wouldn’t it follow that the human institution of the church, as well as the human pursuit of the Christian faith, could be prone to corruption. If God made it too easy for people to find the answer and find Him, then how would that allow us to exercise free will to show our faith for Him.
 

Kitty Tantrum

Woodpecker
Woman
I've thought quite a lot about this subject, as someone who is as yet unbaptized, and here's the one conclusion to which every path of thought seems to lead me: It would not make any sense to cleave apart my head and my body, in an attempt to save one of them from the other.

We have been warned that there would be false prophets and corruption in the world AND in the church, even in the highest offices. I've got this inkling in my gut that this Pope Francis guy might not be a good egg. I've had that forever. It's one of the things that kept me away from Catholicism initially, when I first began considering it. I can't claim to know one way or the other, I just see some red flags.

But here's the thing, at least from what I've been able to glean without actually having access to a priest:

The throne of The Kingdom does not cease to BE the throne of the kingdom simply because a wicked man or a usurper has been installed in it; neither do the subjects of the kingdom cease to BE the subjects of The Kingdom simply because the King is wicked or illegitimate. When it comes to the various "kingdoms" of the WORLD, running away to a different kingdom is certainly an option, provided the necessary resources and opportunity. But, when it comes to THE Kingdom, The Kingdom of God... there's only the one.

I can't seem to find any actual scriptural or traditional basis for the notion that the body of the church would simply *poof* cease to BE the body of the church, under any circumstances. I was only able to conclude that if my faith really and actually does fall in line with the teachings of Catholicism as I understand them, then I simply cannot conclude that the Holy See is vacant. Corrupt? That's possible. Scripture seems to explicitly suggest and warn of the possibility.

One of the things I love about Catholicism is the idea that we are the Church Militant. Not the "Church Everything is Peachy."

If the Pope is actually corrupt and if there is as much systemic evil lurking in The Vatican as I suspect may be the case, then I would say my Kingdom needs me more than ever to be fighting within its walls, so to speak. Not shouting from without that everybody should run away because they are in danger.

Perhaps there is a traitor to be ousted! That I can easily entertain. But I am no deserter in times of War.
 

NoMoreTO

Hummingbird
I thought of starting this thread once, but figured I since I wasn't Sede Vacante why would I start the division, but its an important topic, so I am glad OP brought it up. We will have to be careful not to get into debates as it is obviously a hot topic.

Since it's the ladies forum, I'll take a less theological approach and a more intuitive approach.

I went to a Novus Ordo Mass for my Father recently. 4/5 pews were roped off, no communion on the tongue allowed, no veils, we were at the "New" Church maximum of 40 or 50 attendees, for a Church that can fit 500 people for Christmas Mass. Most attendees are incredibly uneducated about theology,

The sede vacantes who I have met, take their faith seriously. My impression is that hey tpray the rosary regularly, they study theology, incluiding their views of Vatican 2 . Alot of us look at the State of the Church since Vatican 2, there are alot of questions circling around, especially in the Latin Mass Community who essentially acts as if it's 1962 and V2 never happened. Right now many Latin Mass Catholics are in disbelief as to some of the things the current Pope has done, and happenings at the Vatican.

So, I wonder if a Catholic in a pinch, who attends the Latin Mass would be more comfortable in a Sede V or Novus Ordo Parish. From my experience today, I do feel like going to a Sede V Parish would feel more like The Catholic Church to me than a Novus Ordo given the masks and their effective closure.
 
Last edited:

Luna Novem

Kingfisher
Woman
I thought of starting this thread once, but figured I since I wasn't Sede Vacante why would I start the division, but its an important topic, so I am glad OP brought it up. We will have to be careful not to get into debates as it is obviously a hot topic.

Since it's the ladies forum, I'll take a less theological approach and a more intuitive approach.

I went to a Novus Ordo Mass for my Father recently. 4/5 pews were roped off, no communion on the tongue allowed, no veils, we were at the "New" Church maximum of 40 or 50 attendees, for a Church that can fit 500 people for Christmas Mass. Most attendees are incredibly uneducated about theology,

The sede vacantes who I have met, take their faith seriously. My impression is that hey tpray the rosary regularly, they study theology, incluiding their views of Vatican 2 . Alot of us look at the State of the Church since Vatican 2, there are alot of questions circling around, especially in the Latin Mass Community who essentially acts as if it's 1962 and V2 never happened. Right now many Latin Mass Catholics are in disbelief as to some of the things the current Pope has done, and happenings at the Vatican.

So, I wonder if a Catholic in a pinch, who attends the Latin Mass would be more comfortable in a Sede V or Novus Ordo Parish. From my experience today, I do feel like going to a Sede V Parish would feel more like The Catholic Church to me than a Novus Ordo given the masks and their effective closure.
Thanks for your response. I don't mind hearing your theological input, either. Theology is one of my autistic special interests :)
Yes, my tendency toward the more conservative is what has caused me to wonder this. I have yet to attend a Latin Mass, but I do veil, no matter how contemporary the church. I strongly prefer a more traditional church (some women veil; Gregorian chant; confession in a private room) as opposed to a contemporary church (no one veils; guitar/drums/soloist; confession behind a screen).
 

Cyn

Chicken
Woman
I have heard both sides (that it's a heresy, and that it's a response to the heresy of Vatican II). Any opinions here?
I have heard the argument before, as well as seen enough proof to believe, that yes, there is something to this, and yes, just like every other Western Institution, the Vatican has been co-opted and being destroyed from within.
We have been betrayed.
But that doesn’t weaken my resolve, faith, or belief in Him. It only fuels it.

I’m actually exhausted right now and they’re all feed and knocked out from kickin the crap out of eachother...so I’m having a girls night now. Just me and my ladybug (female cat) as were completely out numbered. [email protected]$ everywhere so I’ll try and find some stuff Ive gathered over the years to maybe help you make your own decisions as a family on how to proceed further.
I just can’t think right now.. sorrrry
Its mostly a very compelling argument that the church has been taken over by a “gay mafia,”if you will, and this is what’s behind the pedo stuff at the church. Most of the children abused were boys younger then 17 but older then 12. Not so much pedophiles whom by definition like little children and babies. These homosexual men were pederast. They like twinks if you will (fuggin ew) ...that’s where the abuse came from, but they basically convinced the public it was “straight men”
Give me a couple days and I’ll see what I can find in my bookmarks and stuff if your still interested.
 

NoMoreTO

Hummingbird
Thanks for your response. I don't mind hearing your theological input, either. Theology is one of my autistic special interests :)

Well the one I understand best is called Sede Privationist.

Under old Canon (1917?) if the Pope commits a heresy he is no longer the Pope, but a heretic. Under the new Canon law (1980?) the Bishops must vote or decide the Pope is a heretic.

The theology asserts that Vatican 2 teaching is heresy. The most compelling case to me is Freedom of Religion.

Since Vatican 2 occurred before the new Canon Law, and since Sede Vacantists assert that it is heresy, then the old canon law is in place, the new Canon law is invalid.

So the Popes who continue to promulgate vatican 2 lack jurisdiction. It would be something along the lines of being in a position, but illicitly. When they assert that V2 is heretical, then they will regain their jurisdiction.

So in this way of thinking "The gates of hell do not prevail" , the Church teaching is eternal, it's just that the Pope is a heretic.
 

Luna Novem

Kingfisher
Woman
Well the one I understand best is called Sede Privationist.

Under old Canon (1917?) if the Pope commits a heresy he is no longer the Pope, but a heretic. Under the new Canon law (1980?) the Bishops must vote or decide the Pope is a heretic.

The theology asserts that Vatican 2 teaching is heresy. The most compelling case to me is Freedom of Religion.

Since Vatican 2 occurred before the new Canon Law, and since Sede Vacantists assert that it is heresy, then the old canon law is in place, the new Canon law is invalid.

So the Popes who continue to promulgate vatican 2 lack jurisdiction. It would be something along the lines of being in a position, but illicitly. When they assert that V2 is heretical, then they will regain their jurisdiction.

So in this way of thinking "The gates of hell do not prevail" , the Church teaching is eternal, it's just that the Pope is a heretic.
Interesting. I see similarities with the teachings on invalid marriages. Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon come to mind. It certainly gets complicated.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
We have been warned that there would be false prophets and corruption in the world AND in the church, even in the highest offices.


We have to be clear about this.
The Church is a Church of sinners, but not a Church of faithless people, or of people with the wrong faith.
There may well be (and there is) plenty of corruption in the Church, but anything outside the faith is not in or of the Church.
For example, there may well be people succombing to homosexuality in the Church, but anyone teaching that homosexuality is not sinful is simply not in the Church no matter what he or she believes or says.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
I hope you're ready for the local sedes to jump in and start arguing. But in the meantime, Church Militant's "General Response" is a good place to start:

I disagree about the value of the linked article, and not just because I happen to be on the sede side. The article is sloppy writing, by someone who obviously is not very knowledgeable about the issue. It has this weird way of conceding unnamed points to its opponents (thus it acknowledges that sedes "may have many legitimate criticisms of the Church" without ever naming one).


Now, to answer what is in my view the only really meaningful point in the article :

The sedevacantist heresy is the claim that the See of Peter is vacant and that we have no true and visible head of the Church. The Catholic response is that to believe this is to believe that Our Lord's promise to be with His Church until the end of time and protect Her from conquest by the Gates of Hell was a lie. Since Our Lord cannot lie, sedevacantist claims must be false.

The main problem with this argument is of course that it assumes that we are not near the end of time or the time of the Antechrist, but this possibilityy was seriously considered by many distinguished people Catholic and non-Catholic, including several pre-Vatican II popes.

The fact that the author of the article does not even stop to think about this aspect seems to indicate that he or she does not take the current crisis in the Church very seriously, despite all the vague talk he or she makes about it.
 
Last edited:

Cyn

Chicken
Woman
I think it is heresy. The Church has gone through much worse than what we are going through today.
I don’t know sir, nothing can survive this type of corruption. Heresy? I think Pope Francis just said jews don’t need Christ to be saved, sodomy and gay marriage is old hat at this point, and now a-ok, abortion is on the table and a viable option, gay priest are endemic and there’s no doubt the church nefariously hid and protected their pedo and pederast class.
I have no doubt they are being singled out with this whole thing to further weaken goy culture and faith, as I’m well aware of what goes on in certain other religious orthodoxies that are never addressed, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are heretics, and worse. If they didn’t commit these acts and weren’t so corrupt (((others))) wouldn’t have this ammo against them.
I fear His flock is truly not safe anywhere on Earth,any more. All of our institutions have been infiltrated and our church’s we’re very high on that list.
 
Last edited:

Cyn

Chicken
Woman
We have to be clear about this.
The Church is a Church of sinners, but not a Church of faithless people, or of people with the wrong faith.
There may well be (and there is) plenty of corruption in the Church, but anything outside the faith is not in or of the Church.
For example, there may well be people succombing to homosexuality in the Church, but anyone teaching that homosexuality is not sinful is simply not in the Church no matter what he or she believes or says.
It’s should only serve to bolster our faith. Amen!
 
I've thought quite a lot about this subject, as someone who is as yet unbaptized, and here's the one conclusion to which every path of thought seems to lead me: It would not make any sense to cleave apart my head and my body, in an attempt to save one of them from the other.

We have been warned that there would be false prophets and corruption in the world AND in the church, even in the highest offices. I've got this inkling in my gut that this Pope Francis guy might not be a good egg. I've had that forever. It's one of the things that kept me away from Catholicism initially, when I first began considering it. I can't claim to know one way or the other, I just see some red flags.

But here's the thing, at least from what I've been able to glean without actually having access to a priest:

The throne of The Kingdom does not cease to BE the throne of the kingdom simply because a wicked man or a usurper has been installed in it; neither do the subjects of the kingdom cease to BE the subjects of The Kingdom simply because the King is wicked or illegitimate. When it comes to the various "kingdoms" of the WORLD, running away to a different kingdom is certainly an option, provided the necessary resources and opportunity. But, when it comes to THE Kingdom, The Kingdom of God... there's only the one.

I can't seem to find any actual scriptural or traditional basis for the notion that the body of the church would simply *poof* cease to BE the body of the church, under any circumstances. I was only able to conclude that if my faith really and actually does fall in line with the teachings of Catholicism as I understand them, then I simply cannot conclude that the Holy See is vacant. Corrupt? That's possible. Scripture seems to explicitly suggest and warn of the possibility.

One of the things I love about Catholicism is the idea that we are the Church Militant. Not the "Church Everything is Peachy."

If the Pope is actually corrupt and if there is as much systemic evil lurking in The Vatican as I suspect may be the case, then I would say my Kingdom needs me more than ever to be fighting within its walls, so to speak. Not shouting from without that everybody should run away because they are in danger.

Perhaps there is a traitor to be ousted! That I can easily entertain. But I am no deserter in times of War.
Some wise words here my friend. Christ said that he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Not that we would always have great popes. You don't have to look far to see there have been some very bad people who have occupied the throne of Peter. I too, am no deserter.
 

Cyn

Chicken
Woman
Some wise words here my friend. Christ said that he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Not that we would always have great popes. You don't have to look far to see there have been some very bad people who have occupied the throne of Peter. I too, am no deserter.
Amen!
 

nathan

Robin
I don’t know sir, nothing can survive this type of corruption. Heresy? I think Pope Francis just said jews don’t need Christ to be saved, sodomy and gay marriage is old hat at this point, and now a-ok, abortion is on the table and a viable option, gay priest are endemic and there’s no doubt the church nefariously hid and protected their pedo and pederast class.
I have no doubt they are being singled out with this whole thing to further weaken goy culture and faith, as I’m well aware of what goes on in certain other religious orthodoxies that are never addressed, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are heretics, and worse. If they didn’t commit these acts and weren’t so corrupt (((others))) wouldn’t have this ammo against them.
I fear His flock is truly not safe anywhere on Earth,any more. All of our institutions have been infiltrated and our church’s we’re very high on that list.

A lot of this is just not true. Sodomy and gay marriage are not allowed in The Church. The Pope not even 2 years ago called gay marriage a machination of Satan. Abortion is not on the table at all and the USCCB, themselves not exactly a right wing institution, stated a week before the election that the most important political issue for Catholics was abortion.

What we do have is a gay priest problem, and a Pope who frequently speaks off the cuff and says things that are opposed to Church teachings. But his words are almost always walked back and the underlying doctrine does not change. There are a few instances that are still questionable (pachamama) but in the 1200s we supposedly had popes who banged prostitutes and told parishoners they could sin if they paid a bribe.
 

Kitty Tantrum

Woodpecker
Woman
We have to be clear about this.
The Church is a Church of sinners, but not a Church of faithless people, or of people with the wrong faith.
There may well be (and there is) plenty of corruption in the Church, but anything outside the faith is not in or of the Church.
For example, there may well be people succombing to homosexuality in the Church, but anyone teaching that homosexuality is not sinful is simply not in the Church no matter what he or she believes or says.
See, my main issue with sedevacantism is that it seems to require the conflation of "in" with "of" -- AND, somewhat by extension, the conflation of the spiritual body of the church (all those people "in communion" with God's will; those with the "right faith," if you will) with the WORLDLY STRUCTURE OF CHURCH AUTHORITY established on Earth.

As if it is NOT POSSIBLE for these two distinct manifestations to be out of harmony with each other -- thus, the Pope cannot be a corrupt Pope. If he is corrupt, there must be NO POPE. This seems like a very willful and counter-productive sort of blindness, to me. I am not able to make this position make logical sense, without abandoning key tenets of the faith I would ostensibly be trying to defend and preserve.

An individual who believes and teaches things in blatant contradiction of doctrine/scripture is certainly not "OF" the church in any spiritual sense. But that individual certainly CAN be "IN" the church, in terms of its worldly systems and structures of influence -- and their power and authority are not simply negated because they're "evil."

I believe this is analogous in principle to how we, as individuals, DO HAVE the unfortunate ability to give a measure of AUTHORITY, over ourselves and our physical bodies, to demons -- in many ways, wittingly or otherwise. And yet - the soul does not flee from the body when this happens. The body remains the temple of the spirit, no matter how materially corrupt.

We can surrender the soul to such corruption. We can arm the soul to fight against the corruption. A LOT of folks end up doing both, in that order.

But to deliberately separate the human soul from the body over concerns of physical/material corruption would be called S U I C I D E.
 
Top