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
Regarding traditional Catholics, vs, Sedes, I'm not in a proper position to endorse one viewpoint over the other.

1 Corinthians 1:10 indicates that there are to be no divisions among believers; it really is an 'all or nothing', black and white issue. If major dogma is in conflict, at least one of the belief-systems must be wrong.

That being said, to look for trivialities to justify breaking away from a religion - this usually indicates a jealous disrespect of the authority structure of that demonination, rather then a genuine motivation of protest against (supposed) transgressions. However, if any religion has officially embraced ideas that the scriptures clearly condemn, then the corruption has begun from the top and will trickle down everywhere like a cancer. The logical course of action in this instance is to either force the removal of the church 'leader(s)', or breakaway from the offending denomination.

1 Peter 4:17 makes it clear that, upon Christ's return, judgement begins with his one true church.
So we must ask ourselves these questions:

1) What is that one true church?
2) Since that one true church (whichever that is) is prophecied to degrade into apostasy before Christ's return, should we take the truth which that church once represented and go off on our own, or should we remain inside (what was) the one true church and wait for God to remove all the weeds from amongst the wheat? (Matthew 13:24-30)
 
A schismatic „Catholic“ accusing all the others that do not deny reality and do not want to join a „church“ that does mental gymnastics that would put SJW to shame, is very convincing. But I will leave you in your delusions that there is no Pope in office. Oh, the arrogance of the select few.
By the way, regarding your tirade about politics, in most of Europe, one is already actively discriminated against, if one does not take the vaccine. The denigration and fall has be prophecized. There are no political instruments against it; I’ll trust in the Lord. This is the last post on the topic for me. I‘m still going to wait for a convincing argument that the Church does not have a Pope at this moment.

And yet you still cling to a "pope" that states openly that is a sin not to take the vaxx...


YOu need to understand that the Pope or the buildings or the hierarchy and its bureaucracy are not the Church, at least not all of it.
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
Regarding traditional Catholics, vs, Sedes, I'm not in a proper position to endorse one viewpoint over the other.

1 Corinthians 1:10 indicates that there are to be no divisions among believers; it really is an 'all or nothing', black and white issue. If major dogma is in conflict, at least one of the belief-systems must be wrong.

That being said, to look for trivialities to justify breaking away from a religion - this usually indicates a jealous disrespect of the authority structure of that demonination, rather then a genuine motivation of protest against (supposed) transgressions. However, if any religion has officially embraced ideas that the scriptures clearly condemn, then the corruption has begun from the top and will trickle down everywhere like a cancer. The logical course of action in this instance is to either force the removal of the church 'leader(s)', or breakaway from the offending denomination.

1 Peter 4:17 makes it clear that, upon Christ's return, judgement begins with his one true church.
So we must ask ourselves these questions:

1) What is that one true church?
2) Since that one true church (whichever that is) is prophecied to degrade into apostasy before Christ's return, should we take the truth which that church once represented and go off on our own, or should we remain inside (what was) the one true church and wait for God to remove all the weeds from amongst the wheat? (Matthew 13:24-30)
“Traditional Catholics vs. Sedes” !?

Sedes ARE Traditional Catholics.

Sedevacantism is not a religion, a sect, or a church. The word sedevacantism is a compound of two Latin words — Sede Vacante — which together mean “the Chair is vacant.”

Sedevacantism is simply the theological position of traditional Catholics who most certainly believe in the papacy, papal infallibility, and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and yet do not recognize “Pope” Francis as a legitimate successor of Peter in the primacy.
Or to put it another way, sedevacantism is the theological position of Catholics who hold that there has been no (known) true Pope of the Catholic Church since the death of Pius XII in 1958, and that the current Vatican establishment is not the Catholic Church. To be clear: We adhere fully to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church from her founding in 33 A.D. by the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ through the death of the last known Pope, Pius XII, on October 9, 1958. We are Roman Catholics.

The one true church — which IS the Roman Catholic Church — is NOT prophesied to “degrade into apostasy”. Or, at least, not in the way that I think you think it means. What is prophesied is a great revolt, a great apostasy (i.e. a “falling away”), in which the greater portion of the Church’s members — the vast majority even — will lose the faith and cease to be members of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. Yet we know that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to defect. We know that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to cease to exist. We know that whatever is not incompatible with the promises and guarantees of Christ with regard to the Church, is possible, even though it may seem extremely unlikely to us, or we find it terribly distressing or very difficult to accept. We know that we are not permitted to follow heretics, or anyone teaching a false gospel — we are commanded to have nothing to do with them. We know that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to change her teaching substantially. While doctrine can develop (in order to become more explicit), dogma cannot; and while teaching can be further clarified, any clarification can never contradict what was taught before. Anything contradictory would not be a development or a clarification but a corruption of that teaching. We know that the Novus Ordo Sect differs substantially in her teachings, her laws, and her liturgy from the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors. We therefore know that the Novus Ordo Sect (a.k.a. “Vatican II Church”, the institution of which John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have been the leaders so far) is not the same institution as the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors. We know that a teaching that was true at one point in the past cannot be false now. We know that our situation today has been foreknown by God from all eternity and is passively willed by Him at this very moment. It is part of the Divine Plan, not a negation of it. We know that towards the end of the world, there will be a spiritual deception so great that even the elect would be deceived if God did not prevent it (Mt 24:24). St. Paul calls this the “operation of error” (2 Thess 2:8-11).

St. Athanasius lived in the fourth century during the time of what used to be considered the greatest crisis of faith ever to befall the Catholic Church, the Arian Heresy. The vast majority of Churchmen fell into this heresy, so much so that Saint Jerome wrote of the period, "The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian". Athanasius was the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt for 46 years. He was banned from his diocese at least five times and spent a total of 17 years in exile. He even suffered an unjust excommunication from Pope Liberius, who was under Arian influence. Athanasius stood virtually alone against the onslaught of heretical teaching ravaging the Church of his day, begetting the phrase “Athanasius contra mundum”— “Athanasius against the world”. St. Athanasius was hands down one of the most courageous defenders of the Faith in the entire history of the Church. The following letter of his could, almost word for word, have been written yesterday:
"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...

"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

I’ll repeat that again:

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (St. Athanasius)
 
Last edited:

SilentCal

Robin
And yet you still cling to a "pope" that states openly that is a sin not to take the vaxx...


YOu need to understand that the Pope or the buildings or the hierarchy and its bureaucracy are not the Church, at least not all of it.
That article doesn’t say anything about whether refusing the vaccine is sinful. Are you lying or just mistaken?
 
That article doesn’t say anything about whether refusing the vaccine is sinful. Are you lying or just mistaken?

Here we go, but you are right, I thank you for the clarification and I stand corrected. I should 've posted this


“I believe that ethically everyone should take the vaccine,” the Pope said in an interview with TV station Canale 5. “It is an ethical choice because you are gambling with your health, with your life, but you are also gambling with the lives of others.”

The news report I posted previously states how he claims that there should be vaccines for all, not only for the "rich countries" but for the poor as well. I'll grant him that given his age and background, one cannot expect him to savvy to all the details, however one would expect that he would be at least aware that those vaccines were made using cells cloned fom aborted fetusses and last time I checked, abortion was still regarded as murder...Let alone collaborate with an obvious plot to destroy the world economy and make suffer (at best) or die (at worst) everyone who is not a millionaire or a minion, but I guess he is to busy to notice this. The least he could do is to stay quiet.

And by the way, in case anyone doubted his commitment with at least the vaxx agenda:


Let's agree to disagree on this.
 

SilentCal

Robin
Here we go, but you are right, I thank you for the clarification and I stand corrected. I should 've posted this




The news report I posted previously states how he claims that there should be vaccines for all. I'll grant him that given his age and background, one cannot expect him to savvy to all the details, however one would expect that he would be at least aware that those vaccines were made using cells cloned fom aborted fetusses and last time I checked, abortion was still regarded as murder...Let alone collaborate with an obvious plot to destroy the world economy and make suffer everyone who is not a millionaire, but I guess he is to busy to notice this. The least he could do is to stay quiet.

And by the way, in case anyone doubted his commitment with at least the vaxx agenda:


Let's agree to disagree on this.
That one doesn’t say it’s a sin to refuse the vaccine either. Sure seems like you’re caught in a lie. But maybe you can try again.
 
That one doesn’t say it’s a sin to refuse the vaccine either. Sure seems like you’re caught in a lie. But maybe you can try again.

I wasn't lying but you missed the part where Bergoglio states:

"“I believe that ethically everyone should take the vaccine,” the pontiff told Italy’s Canale 5 TV station. “It is an ethical choice because you are gambling with your health, with your life, but you are also gambling with the lives of others.”


Technically you are right, he is not calling it a sin to refuse the jab....yet, however the ambiguity of it all just furthers the agenda. But as I said, let´s agree to disagree, your decision is already taken, and so is mine. I accept my mistake...about Bergoglio in this regard and I thank you for that.

I'll just leave with this:

 

Pioneer

Sparrow
+Ad majorem Dei gloriam

@Bismark_Geist1571
Don’t bother with SilentCal! He is not worth your or anyone’s time. As far as I can see his sole objective on this forum is to troll, harass, and heckle True Catholics, to derail threads and to degrade the overall discourse with cheap drive-by taunts and jeers. Seriously, just browse through his post history…That’s ALL he does. Bad juju all around.

Here’s how another forum member so accurately put it:
“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.” Touché!

Mindful of Our Lord’s wise counsel in Matthew 7:6, I for one have concluded that, where SilentCal is concerned, silence is golden indeed. So, I’m making use of this forum’s convenient “Ignore” feature. I encourage anyone else here to do the same.
 
Last edited:
And yet you still cling to a "pope" that states openly that is a sin not to take the vaxx...


YOu need to understand that the Pope or the buildings or the hierarchy and its bureaucracy are not the Church, at least not all of it.
Not being a heretic and schismatic lunatic is not the same as liking Pope Francis. That seems to go totally over your heads. Try again.
 
+Ad majorem Dei gloriam

@Bismark_Geist1571
Don’t bother with SilentCal! He is not worth your or anyone’s time. As far as I can see his sole objective on this forum is to troll, harass, and heckle True Catholics, to derail threads and to degrade the overall discourse with cheap drive-by taunts and jeers. Seriously, just browse through his post history…That’s ALL he does. Bad juju all around.

Here’s how another forum member so accurately put it:
“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.” Touché!

Mindful of Our Lord’s wise counsel in Matthew 7:6, I for one have concluded that, where SilentCal is concerned, silence is golden indeed. So, I’m making use of this forum’s convenient “Ignore” feature. I encourage anyone else here to do the same.
Ah, yes, the classic Sede objection. Why don‘t you Sedes embrace a bit of silence and humility. The only ones that have brought vitriol to this forum are Sedes that have absolutely nuked the Catholicism forum by accusing everyone who does not believe in their incoherent statements as being „Novus Ordo Catholics“, „heretics“ and other vile things. Funnily enough, these accounts are mostly Chickens and come to this forum and act like immature children.
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
Ah, yes, the classic Sede objection. Why don‘t you Sedes embrace a bit of silence and humility. The only ones that have brought vitriol to this forum are Sedes that have absolutely nuked the Catholicism forum by accusing everyone who does not believe in their incoherent statements as being „Novus Ordo Catholics“, „heretics“ and other vile things. Funnily enough, these accounts are mostly Chickens and come to this forum and act like immature children.

Man, I am LOVING this “Ignore” feature! Why did I not discover it sooner???
D769BF5E-C2DF-41FC-AF37-FE81DCB08214.jpeg
 

Sinabelus

Sparrow
Ah, yes, the classic Sede objection. Why don‘t you Sedes embrace a bit of silence and humility. The only ones that have brought vitriol to this forum are Sedes that have absolutely nuked the Catholicism forum by accusing everyone who does not believe in their incoherent statements as being „Novus Ordo Catholics“, „heretics“ and other vile things. Funnily enough, these accounts are mostly Chickens and come to this forum and act like immature children.
This is a claim I've read often around here, and I am surprised as it is incoherent with my real life experiences, where it's NO catholics who act passive-agressive against sedes and get angry in arguments. A V2 priest once said I was "sowing the seeds of discord, of Satan" and "a pharisee" merely by quoting side-by-side V2 documents with previous encyclicals (namely on religious freedom, but on other things as well). Fair enough I guess from his viewpoint, but I would never have called him a cuck, a sucker for muslims and jews, or a modernist in his face.

So maybe some sedes are indeed problematic on this forum? Roosh agreed with the claim actually (against sedes) but all I've seen is the opposite so far, like SilentCal harassing Fenaroli because he created a thread only for sedes, among other things. I've been in online communities when I had doubts and those were usually heavily moderated because NO catholics had a habit of derailing otherwise factual argumentations. I had an experience whereby merely questioning V2 led me to receive 2-3 MPs a day to tell me how I shouldn't question it, how that and that video by some incredible mental hoops meant that V2 could be interpreted in continuity, etc. I'm genuinely curious, I can absolutely understand that sedevacantism, being a position you mostly come to from online sources, would draw at least some argumentative guys. But it has simply not been my experience.
 
This is a claim I've read often around here, and I am surprised as it is incoherent with my real life experiences, where it's NO catholics who act passive-agressive against sedes and get angry in arguments. A V2 priest once said I was "sowing the seeds of discord, of Satan" and "a pharisee" merely by quoting side-by-side V2 documents with previous encyclicals (namely on religious freedom, but on other things as well). Fair enough I guess from his viewpoint, but I would never have called him a cuck, a sucker for muslims and jews, or a modernist in his face.

So maybe some sedes are indeed problematic on this forum? Roosh agreed with the claim actually (against sedes) but all I've seen is the opposite so far, like SilentCal harassing Fenaroli because he created a thread only for sedes, among other things. I've been in online communities when I had doubts and those were usually heavily moderated because NO catholics had a habit of derailing otherwise factual argumentations. I had an experience whereby merely questioning V2 led me to receive 2-3 MPs a day to tell me how I shouldn't question it, how that and that video by some incredible mental hoops meant that V2 could be interpreted in continuity, etc. I'm genuinely curious, I can absolutely understand that sedevacantism, being a position you mostly come to from online sources, would draw at least some argumentative guys. But it has simply not been my experience.
Well, the fact being that you are yourself a Sede, it does not surprise me that you do not find Sedes to be mostly problematic. Not only Roosh, but various others only here on this forum can attest to this. Just look in this thread. Or even the mildly autistic posts by Pioneer. Also, calling everyone that does not agree with your weird opinions, Novus Order heretics and the like, is not exactly helping your cause, is it now?
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
This is a claim I've read often around here, and I am surprised as it is incoherent with my real life experiences, where it's NO catholics who act passive-agressive against sedes and get angry in arguments. A V2 priest once said I was "sowing the seeds of discord, of Satan" and "a pharisee" merely by quoting side-by-side V2 documents with previous encyclicals (namely on religious freedom, but on other things as well). Fair enough I guess from his viewpoint, but I would never have called him a cuck, a sucker for muslims and jews, or a modernist in his face.

So maybe some sedes are indeed problematic on this forum? Roosh agreed with the claim actually (against sedes) but all I've seen is the opposite so far, like SilentCal harassing Fenaroli because he created a thread only for sedes, among other things. I've been in online communities when I had doubts and those were usually heavily moderated because NO catholics had a habit of derailing otherwise factual argumentations. I had an experience whereby merely questioning V2 led me to receive 2-3 MPs a day to tell me how I shouldn't question it, how that and that video by some incredible mental hoops meant that V2 could be interpreted in continuity, etc. I'm genuinely curious, I can absolutely understand that sedevacantism, being a position you mostly come to from online sources, would draw at least some argumentative guys. But it has simply not been my experience.
Yes I saw that too. The blatant gas-lighting and projection going on in that thread was chilling to behold. What’s up with that? And what happened to @Fenaroli ??? He was one of the best posters on here, and was nothing but articulate, patient, and charitable—far more charitable than I could have been. His behavior on the forum was never anything less than exemplary. And if you look at their profiles, you’ll notice @Fenaroli was a member of the forum for quite a while before @SilentCal or @FiatVoluntasTua were. His post count was lower than either of them but that’s because he didn’t just post worthless drivel… all of his posts were actually of high quality. He was downright gentlemanly. I do wish he’d come back, but I don’t blame him if he decided to shake the dust off his feet and say “good riddance” to this forum, after all the bullying he got and then being blamed for others’ nasty behavior. Shameful.
 
Last edited:

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
This is a claim I've read often around here, and I am surprised as it is incoherent with my real life experiences, where it's NO catholics who act passive-agressive against sedes and get angry in arguments.

Indeed. Did you also notice how many Novus Ordo Catholics here get offended by the term "Novus Ordo", which wasn't invented by sedes, and contains no value judgement at all ? It seems to sound like the worst kind of insult to them. The only explanation I can find to that is that they have a troubled conscience in regard to this matter.
 
Top