Sede Vacante Thread

Is the Chair of St. Peter Vacant?

  • Yes

    Votes: 39 37.5%
  • No

    Votes: 34 32.7%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 13 12.5%
  • Not Catholic

    Votes: 18 17.3%

  • Total voters
    104

Sinabelus

Sparrow
So you recognize Pope Francis now? I though you were undecided (since you said it, after all). I guess you changed your mind?
I don't want to get too involved in things that I wasn't concerned with in the first place, but I have to say that your behaviour, SilentCal, is absolutely insufferable. You're hijacking every thread and every post about sedevacantism, spewing vitriol and being passive-agressive if not outright agressive, and your dishonesty and ill-will in arguments boggles the mind.

I was actually surprised when I came around here because I was reading how sedes were accused of exactly that, and Roosh was agreeing with that. It surprised me because this is wholly incoherent with my personal experience. It seems to me that the clergy and learned people (those who looked up and chose V2) exhibits disdain if not hostility to sedes, when they're so quick to lend a hand to muslims, buddhists and whatnot. I've been called a pharisee just for quoting some V2 documents side-by-side with encyclicals from previous popes. So far my experience on this forum has been coherent with that, but maybe I'm wrong and some sedes are indeed problematic? My intent is not to pretend sedes are victims, I actually don't discuss sedevacantism that much, I've done my research, chose the path that seemed most truthful to me, and that's that. But every time I look up this thread or others threads explicitly talking about sedevacantism it is nothing but worthless bickering, usually initiated by someone pro-V2.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
It seems to me that the clergy and learned people (those who looked up and chose V2) exhibits disdain if not hostility to sedes, when they're so quick to lend a hand to muslims, buddhists and whatnot.

Indeed. To be more accurate, they only lend a hand to like-minded Muslims and buddhists, they don't like conservative, traditionalist Muslims and buddhists. Modernists from every religion, unite ...

I've been called a pharisee just for quoting some V2 documents side-by-side with encyclicals from previous popes.
Of course. Today's pharisees accuse other people of being pharisee all the time. Just like today's fascists call themselves "anti-fascists".
 

SilentCal

Robin
I don't want to get too involved in things that I wasn't concerned with in the first place, but I have to say that your behaviour, SilentCal, is absolutely insufferable.
As much as I’d like to be your pal, I guess I’m just going to have to live with the fact that you don’t like me.
 

Augustus_Principe

Woodpecker
You are incredibly critical of Sede Vacante theology, but at the same time very charitable with other Schisms (ie. EO) as I have seen in other threads. I am not quite sure how you reconcile this, given that Sede Vs have a much higher number of councils and dogmas (perhaps all) are in alignment. Feels like you deride Sedes hard but at the same time embrace your EO cousins. To me this isn't consistent.

The 'confusion' of Vatican 2 puts us in this situation. I count myself with @nagareboshi as someone who does not attend Novus Ordo, and at the same time is left wanting with some of the various theological positions related to Vatican 2 of these excellent latin mass apostolates (eg FSSP, SSPX).

This reminds me of how NO Catholics "worship" Eastern Orthodox("Oh you're EO? WWOOWW, I Really respect you guys"), but bash Traditionalist at every moment. You have "muh very reverent" NO Mass Youtube channels like "Reason & Theology" Literally bashing Traditionalism and Archbishop Lefebvre every chance they get, but have an Eastern Orthodox Priest or Monk, who are in a literal SCHISM (Not this made up SSPX/Trad schism) on the show literally every week... Funny how this works. It's almost as if there's a "Catholic Inc" (Made up of groups like Reason and Theology, Matt Fradd, Catholic Answers, etc) that is meant to keep people away from Traditionalism and into the bosom of "Conservative" Catholicism, ie Pope Benedict was amazing and the novus ordo is amazing as long as it's very "reverent", even though finding a "reverent" NO mass is harder to find than a Latin Mass...

Off topic, but had to rant about this somewhere. On a final note, I feel like there are plenty of users here that go on the EO forum and have very sympathetic feelings....
 

SilentCal

Robin
This reminds me of how NO Catholics "worship" Eastern Orthodox("Oh you're EO? WWOOWW, I Really respect you guys"), but bash Traditionalist at every moment.
Because Orthodox are actually traditional in their observance of the ancient faith. They celebrate the liturgy, receive the sacraments, and are obedient to the apostolic successors. A Catholic can look at their life and find joy in the fact that they are living the sacramental life.

Sedes, on the other hand, do virtually nothing in terms of sacramental religion, and they abide only by their own gnostic interpretation of current events and ecclesial documents, which has them seething in the corner and spitting venom at anyone any other living Christians (including the SSPX!)

There is nothing traditional about believing that 99% of Catholics, including almost the whole hierarchy, are cut off from the sacraments without even knowing it. It’s a claim more novel than anything in Vatican II.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Because Orthodox are actually traditional in their observance of the ancient faith. They celebrate the liturgy, receive the sacraments, and are obedient to the apostolic successors. A Catholic can look at their life and find joy in the fact that they are living the sacramental life.

Sedes, on the other hand, do virtually nothing in terms of sacramental religion, and they abide only by their own gnostic interpretation of current events and ecclesial documents, which has them seething in the corner and spitting venom at anyone any other living Christians (including the SSPX!)

All this sacramentalism is a claim more novel than anything in Vatican II.
Interestingly, among NO Catholics the class of trad-bashers and the class of sacramentalists usually coincide.
As if life outside the ritual didn't matter. A priest friend of mine once said that the judged the faith of his parishioners not by how they behaved during mass, but by how they behaved in their daily life outside mass.
There are well-known (or should I say "frequent") historical examples of people scrupulously observing ritual while trampling love of neighbor under their foot - the word "Pharisee" readily comes to mind.
"Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar." (1 John 4:20).

FYI in Japan, Catholics under a very anti-Christian regime survived for centuries without priests - all the sacraments they had was baptism and marriage.
 

SilentCal

Robin
All this sacramentalism is a claim more novel than anything in Vatican II.
How can you believe this? The whole reason for the Church to exist is to save souls by bringing them Christ’s grace, and the sacraments are the divinely instituted vehicles of grace to men. Persecuted Christians like the old Japanese were practically starving for the sacraments for precisely that reason, and that’s why brave missionary priests would risk their lives to visit them - to administer the sacraments. And there wasn’t a century between each priest’s visit, by the way.
 

Sinabelus

Sparrow
Because Orthodox are actually traditional in their observance of the ancient faith. They celebrate the liturgy, receive the sacraments, and are obedient to the apostolic successors. A Catholic can look at their life and find joy in the fact that they are living the sacramental life.

Sedes, on the other hand, do virtually nothing in terms of sacramental religion, and they abide only by their own gnostic interpretation of current events and ecclesial documents, which has them seething in the corner and spitting venom at anyone any other living Christians (including the SSPX!)

There is nothing traditional about believing that 99% of Catholics, including almost the whole hierarchy, are cut off from the sacraments without even knowing it. It’s a claim more novel than anything in Vatican II.
That's assuming sedes don't do anything in regards to the sacraments, which depending on one's location can be true or false. I myself have been baptised in a sedevacantist parish, attend TLM non una cum masses every week, confess my sins… I know two people from the parish who have received their confirmation, and one couple is due to be married soon. Everything is non una cum and follows the rites exactly as they were before V2.

Besides do you believe in trinitarianism? I'm sure you do. It was made a dogma by the top clergy in Nicea at Constantin's behest, but many emperors after him returned to Arianism despite that. You had a situation where the new germanic kingdoms, the emperors, the missionaries, a big if not majority portion of the clergy… subscribed to Arius' views. Yet the niceans were proven right in the end. Is it then impossible to today also, the majority could be wrong?
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Persecuted Christians like the old Japanese were practically starving for the sacraments for precisely that reason, and that’s why brave missionary priests would risk their lives to visit them - to administer the sacraments. And there wasn’t a century between each priest’s visit, by the way.
Reference please ?
 

Augustus_Principe

Woodpecker
Because Orthodox are actually traditional in their observance of the ancient faith. They celebrate the liturgy, receive the sacraments, and are obedient to the apostolic successors. A Catholic can look at their life and find joy in the fact that they are living the sacramental life.

Sedes, on the other hand, do virtually nothing in terms of sacramental religion, and they abide only by their own gnostic interpretation of current events and ecclesial documents, which has them seething in the corner and spitting venom at anyone any other living Christians (including the SSPX!)

There is nothing traditional about believing that 99% of Catholics, including almost the whole hierarchy, are cut off from the sacraments without even knowing it. It’s a claim more novel than anything in Vatican II.

Fair enough. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you. I find Sedevecantism ridiculous and self-defeating(and most online are of ill-behavior, similar to Orthobros behavior towards Catholics), I just kept that opinion to myself in order to not participate in this thread(please do not reply to my opinion). I completely understand the sentiment however, because of how fallen the church has gone since VII, so I can somewhat sympathize with Sedes. However, I am of the opinion that no matter how bad it gets, we must recognize the Pope, no matter how corrupt and modern he may be...The tide will turn in the end, but how long that will take is anyone's guess. My guess is 3 generations.

Lastly, as far as the NO catholics falling at the feet of EOs, they could also show that sentiment to Traditionalist...but they dont. Again, very strange situation, but thats a conversation for a future thread.
 
Fair enough. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you. I find Sedevecantism ridiculous and self-defeating(and most online are of ill-behavior, similar to Orthobros behavior towards Catholics), I just kept that opinion to myself in order to not participate in this thread(please do not reply to my opinion). I completely understand the sentiment however, because of how fallen the church has gone since VII, so I can somewhat sympathize with Sedes. However, I am of the opinion that no matter how bad it gets, we must recognize the Pope, no matter how corrupt and modern he may be...The tide will turn in the end, but how long that will take is anyone's guess. My guess is 3 generations.

Lastly, as far as the NO catholics falling at the feet of EOs, they could also show that sentiment to Traditionalist...but they dont. Again, very strange situation, but thats a conversation for a future thread.
It's a mystery as to how the mess will be fixed, sure, but a mystery is a good deal better than a flat-out contradiction where the Pope isn't Catholic and we're expected to submit to a Marxist who insists religious differences are necessary and who presides over Pachamama worship. That's the whole sedevacantist argument, in fact: the Papacy is protected from error, and only appears to have defected since 1958 because the men occupying the See starting with John XXIII were and are ineligible to be Pope, because they're not Catholics, since they all refuse to accept Papal magisterium from before Vatican II by continually and pertinaciously promoting ideas and opinions that all prior Popes condemned and anathematized in their encyclicals.

The Bible prophesies a Great Apostasy (or "falling away"), so it was bound to happen anyway. It's looking more and more like Vatican II was it. Also, the history of the Church is supposed to reflect the life of Jesus Christ, so being crucified and buried in a tomb, with seemingly no hope of recovery, is supposed to happen to the Church. Well, at least that's over with now. And the Bogus Ordo "Mass" is very nicely described in the Bible as the "abomination of desolation".
 
There is nothing traditional about believing that 99% of Catholics, including almost the whole hierarchy, are cut off from the sacraments without even knowing it. It’s a claim more novel than anything in Vatican II.
“For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.”—Matthew 24:25

A deception that is so great as to (almost) deceive even the elect will have to be clever indeed. For sure, it will have to deceive the Catholic masses; it would have to be a deception that has the power to take that large number of Catholic faithful and make them faithless. What better way to do this than by setting up a false church in place of the Catholic Church, from within her, a sect that retains the outward appearance of the Catholic Church while changing the doctrines of the Faith, the sacraments, and Catholic piety? If there is one person on earth whom Catholics follow, it is the Pope; hence, the apostasy will have to be imposed from the top. The target, therefore, will be the Pope — the papacy must be usurped, in some way or another, for the enemies of the Church to be able to realize their wicked dream of perverting the Catholic Faith of millions with the ultimate desired end of establishing the reign of man in place of the reign of Christ.

What makes this terrible persecution of the Church by the Masonic infiltrators and their spiritual offspring even more powerful and also quite tragic is that oftentimes the people who are ensnared by these false teachings and promote them are nevertheless of good will, pious, and sincerely seek to serve God. In other words, a great many of those who propel the apostasy forward are not deliberate deceivers but rather themselves victims of the deception.

In a sermon given on Pentecost Sunday of 1861 the famous Fr. Frederick Faber (best known as author of the hymn “Faith of our fathers, living still”) warned that this was exactly what would make so many people fall for the deception:

“We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.”—(quoted in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World by Fr. Denis Fahey)
 
Last edited:

SilentCal

Robin
Clearly not.
Matthew 24:25 is obviously about false prophets who will really deceive many people - they will be famous, at a minimum.
And why is that obvious? I don’t see “famous” or “many” anywhere in the verse. Could just as well be many false prophets who each deceive a few. But maybe you are reading the Greek?

And don’t you find it strange that besides explicitly claiming to be pope, Dave sounds just like all the sedes on this forum?

Although, come to think of it, I guess the sedes here do all act as if they think of themselves as little popes.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
And why is that obvious? I don’t see “famous” or “many” anywhere in the verse. (...) But maybe you are reading the Greek?
Well, my English translation does not say "many" but it says "insomuch", in fact it says "insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect". This somewhat suggests, you know, that the deception will reach many non-elect and nearly miss the elect.
Could just as well be many false prophets who each deceive a few.
Even in that hypothesis, overall there will be many people deceived.
If there are too many prophets and they all make "great signs and wonders" as the text says, the wonders will stop being wonders and become commonplace.
 

SilentCal

Robin
Well, my English translation does not say "many" but it says "insomuch", in fact it says "insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect". This somewhat suggests, you know, that the deception will reach many non-elect and nearly miss the elect.

Even in that hypothesis, overall there will be many people deceived.
If there are too many prophets and they all make "great signs and wonders" as the text says, the wonders will stop being wonders and become commonplace.
Okay, but at this point we’re just speculating, aren’t we.
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
Fr. Nicolás Despósito of the sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity Seminary gave an eloquent and highly informative sermon explaining what “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church” actually means. In 23 minutes, Fr. Despósito lays out the basic tenets of the Roman Catholic religion, beginning with the nature of Faith and the so-called motives of credibility, which constitute the rational foundation of the Faith and so demonstrate that it is reasonable to believe. Father also explains the nature and purpose of the Church, how she teaches, and how Catholics must adhere to her doctrine.

Here is the full sermon:


Having thus made the case for Catholicism, Fr. Despósito then contrasts it with the Vatican II Church (Novus Ordo Church), its false doctrines, its harmful laws, its contempt for the sacred, and its other evil effects. In short, Father shows how the counterfeit church dissolves Roman Catholicism. Father also explains how, in light of the Church’s teaching, the recognize-and-resist position is an absurdity that does not fit into the framework of the Catholic Faith.

This sermon is a keeper! It’s a handy guide to introduce newcomers to a general overview of the facts, and it is definitely worth sharing with prospective converts or anyone who needs help understanding why we are traditional Roman Catholics and disavow the Modernist sect of the Second Vatican Council.

For those new to real Catholicism, or anyone who wants to have a comprehensive overview or better understanding of Catholic belief and practice, I highly recommend The Catholic Catechism (1932) compiled by Cardinal Peter Gasparri. It is available for free download here.

Thank you, Fr. Despósito!

Indeed, “blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed” (Jn 20:29).
 
Top