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

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
"Pope" Francis abrogated the tolerance towards the Tridentine (latin) mass today, severely restricted it, and probably plans to restrict it even more in the future. If any of you were still unsure now is a good time to consider if this man is truly who he claims to be.

Sede Evangelization will grow become of this.

I have always agreed that there is a level of schism between TLM Catholics and Novus Ordo Catholics.

This will put things to the test for many, go to a Novus Ordo liturgy, or go to an SSPX, Sede V Liturgy. Also, a similar question for priests, say the new mass, retire to teach somewhere, become a monk, or go to Sede V.

Alot of this might be noise. We will have to see how the rollout goes, but it looks pretty draconian.

Someone told me a little theory that recently that Pope Francis was waiting for B16 to die, but since he had that surgery recently, he is going to push hard ahead now anyway. Time is of the essence for him.
 
When Francis first began to utter blasphemies and heresies, I didn't bother looking into Sedevacantism because I had the Latin Mass.

When Francis allowed adultery and declared all religions to be willed by God, I was upset but I didn't look into Sedevacantism because I had the Latin Mass.

When Francis allowed Pachamama worship in the Vatican, I was outraged but didn't bother with Sedevacantism because I had the Latin Mass.

Then Francis took away the Latin Mass…
 
Someone told me a little theory that recently that Pope Francis was waiting for B16 to die, but since he had that surgery recently, he is going to push hard ahead now anyway. Time is of the essence for him.
An unpopular but important reminder regarding Benedict XVI:
Although many wish they could return to the time of “Pope” Benedict XVI, he actually agrees with Bergoglio on the question of how to deal with traditionalists. In the early 1980s, as “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, he denounced traditionalists as proponents of “a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity”, adding that “[w]e cannot resist them too firmly” (Principles of Catholic Theology [San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987], pp. 389-90). And though it may appear that as Benedict XVI he showed great kindness to them by issuing his letter Summorum Pontificum to “free” the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, as we have shown, that was simply a clever ploy to placate traditionalists so as to keep them attached to the Vatican II Sect and its false Popes. It worked, didn’t it?
Fr. Cekada’s prophetic sermon on “the ‘Motu Mass’ Trap”:
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
Discussion and Reading of a letter from a Priest who was recently excommunicated for declaring himself Sede Vacantist.

The letter is quite balanced and acknowledges the confusion of Catholics who are very authority driven, however this must be balanced with "keeping the faith".

The podcaster is not Sede V, but matches what I would describe as my own balance towards them and the position.

 

OrthoLeaf

Sparrow
Orthodox
Was the recent forum change a green light for Orthodox converts to come in and finger-wag in every one of the Catholic threads?
Oh c'mon man, it was a joke. I've only ever been kind to all my Christian brethren on this forum, but that doesn't mean we cant have some friendly banter.
 

Providence76

Pigeon
Orthodox
I am dumb and I will confess to not reading all 14 pages of this thread, but I'm curious how one justifies rejecting Vatican II, but has no problem with Vatican I. The reason I bring this up is because, as I understand it, Vatican I basically says that the Pope IS tradition. That whatever the Pope says is tradition, is tradition. Period. So how does one accept that, yet choose to reject Vatican II, if Vatican II has been declared to be dogmatic by the Pope? This just feels like a "it's turtles all the way down" kind of situation.
 
I am dumb and I will confess to not reading all 14 pages of this thread, but I'm curious how one justifies rejecting Vatican II, but has no problem with Vatican I. The reason I bring this up is because, as I understand it, Vatican I basically says that the Pope IS tradition. That whatever the Pope says is tradition, is tradition. Period. So how does one accept that, yet choose to reject Vatican II, if Vatican II has been declared to be dogmatic by the Pope? This just feels like a "it's turtles all the way down" kind of situation.

In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation:

(1) The first line of thought is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “conservative Catholic”, “orthodox Catholic”, “Novus Ordo”, “conservative Novus Ordo”, or “indult”—

Despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect.

Prominent organizations and individuals which can be said to promote or be associated with this position would include Catholic Answers, EWTN, Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, Franciscan University of Steubenville, National Catholic Register, The Wanderer, Latin Mass magazine, Church Militant, Vericast, Fr. Kenneth Baker, Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Michael Voris, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Steve Kellmeyer, Dave Armstrong, Mark Shea, and many others.

(2) The second line of thought is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “traditionalist”, “traditional”, “resistance”, “recognize-and-resist” (“R&R”), or “SSPX”—

We must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points.

Proponents of this position include the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Fatima Network, Tradition In Action, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, TradCatKnight, Bp. Bernard Fellay, Bp. Richard Williamson, Rev. Paul Kramer, Rev. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Steve Skojec, Taylor Marshall, John Salza, Robert Siscoe, Eric Gajewski, and many more.

(3) The third line of thought is the theological position known as “Sedevacantism”, from the Latin sede vacante, “the chair being empty”, referring to the Chair of St. Peter that is occupied by the Pope — when there is a legitimate Pope reigning. Sedevacantism is by far the least popular position, the “black sheep” no one wants to be “tainted” with—

It impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers.

Besides Novus Ordo Watch, other groups or individuals who promote or share this position include True Restoration, the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), Istituto Mater Boni Consilii, Sodalitium, Daily Catholic, The Four Marksnewspaper, Bp. Geert Stuyver, Bp. Donald Sanborn, Bp. Mark Pivarunas, Bp. Clarence Kelly, Fr. Anthony Cekada, Fr. Michael Oswalt, Fr. William Jenkins, John Daly, Thomas Droleskey, Stephen Heiner, John Lane, Michael Cain, Mario Derksen, Griff Ruby, Steve Speray, and others.
 
Last edited:

Providence76

Pigeon
Orthodox
In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation:

(1) The first line of thought is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “conservative Catholic”, “orthodox Catholic”, “Novus Ordo”, “conservative Novus Ordo”, or “indult”—

Despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect.

Prominent organizations and individuals which can be said to promote or be associated with this position would include Catholic Answers, EWTN, Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, Franciscan University of Steubenville, National Catholic Register, The Wanderer, Latin Mass magazine, Church Militant, Vericast, Fr. Kenneth Baker, Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Michael Voris, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Steve Kellmeyer, Dave Armstrong, Mark Shea, and many others.

(2) The second line of thought is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “traditionalist”, “traditional”, “resistance”, “recognize-and-resist” (“R&R”), or “SSPX”—

We must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points.

Proponents of this position include the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Fatima Network, Tradition In Action, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, TradCatKnight, Bp. Bernard Fellay, Bp. Richard Williamson, Rev. Paul Kramer, Rev. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Steve Skojec, Taylor Marshall, John Salza, Robert Siscoe, Eric Gajewski, and many more.

(3) The third line of thought is the theological position known as “Sedevacantism”, from the Latin sede vacante, “the chair being empty”, referring to the Chair of St. Peter that is occupied by the Pope — when there is a legitimate Pope reigning. Sedevacantism is by far the least popular position, the “black sheep” no one wants to be “tainted” with—

It impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers.

Besides Novus Ordo Watch, other groups or individuals who promote or share this position include True Restoration, the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), Istituto Mater Boni Consilii, Sodalitium, Daily Catholic, The Four Marksnewspaper, Bp. Geert Stuyver, Bp. Donald Sanborn, Bp. Mark Pivarunas, Bp. Clarence Kelly, Fr. Anthony Cekada, Fr. Michael Oswalt, Fr. William Jenkins, John Daly, Thomas Droleskey, Stephen Heiner, John Lane, Michael Cain, Mario Derksen, Griff Ruby, Steve Speray, and others.
I appreciate the time and effort you took into making this post, but it didn't address my question. If Vatican I is accepted, there is no room for disagreement or resistance or anything else. Vatican II is almost a distraction from the much more problematic Vatican I, because Vatican I makes the Pope indeposable and anything the Pope says is tradition IS tradition.
 

Fenaroli

Robin
Wow, the poll is now pulling ahead in favor of Sedes. Quite a change.

It makes me wonder about those brave Sedes who chose this position in the 90s or 00s, when it wasn't as fashionable as it was now. Imagine being a sede during the era of the faux-trad Mr. Joseph "Hell doesn't exist" Ratzinger or the Quran kisser Mr. Wojtyla.

My priest told me that Bergoglio has created way more sede converts for him because of his antics, so in a bizarre way, he's helping people return to traditional Catholicism.
 

Roosh

Cardinal
Orthodox
I have followed many pages of this thread, and have seen the explanations, but I still can't wrap my head around how you can refuse the authority of the Pope and still consider yourself "Catholic" and not schismatic. To put it more bluntly, who are you to say that the Pope is not the Pope?
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Kingfisher
Orthodox
I have followed many pages of this thread, and have seen the explanations, but I still can't wrap my head around how you can refuse the authority of the Pope and still consider yourself "Catholic" and not schismatic. To put it more bluntly, who are you to say that the Pope is not the Pope?
The most convincing argument in favour of sedevacantism is the Western schism, during which there was no clear Pope, and therefore the Papacy was effectively vacant.

However, this then begs the question, who has the authority to declare the Holy See vacant?
 

Fenaroli

Robin
That's like asking me after witnessing a car crash, "who are you to judge that there was an accident?"

It appears to me that sedes are the only ones who believe that the Catholic faith has been unchanging for 2,000 years and despite being given the gift of reason (of which faith rests on), one cannot discern when an apostate is telling you to violate the decalogue. Is a Catholic supposed to just "take it" if a false Pope tells them to something immoral? Of course not, Leo XIII wrote about that.

I suppose for non-Catholics, they think that every new council brings about a new "firmware update" to the faith. But for Catholics, these councils aren't changing anything to the actual faith itself. When a Dogma is established, it doesn't mean, "Oh now we believe THIS from now on." i.e. Mary's immaculate conception.

The Vatican II council IS a substantial core change to the faith, look at my sig for a small list of them and the reasons. Looking at the history of Vatican II, one uncovers the numerous sinister forces at play in the coup d'etat. Nobody likes reading copy-pasted materials so I would say if you want someone explaining it better: Bp Donald Sanborn, Fr. Anthony Cekada, Novus Ordo Watch and that circle.
 
Top