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
I
I am totally fine with this, but I really think something has to be done about the sedes on the Catholic board. I think it’s getting out of control, to the point where Catholics can’t have a normal conversation without someone telling them they’re part of the “schismatic sect of Vatican II”. Now there is a whole thread on the subject on the Catholic board.

I created the Sede Thread just for this reason. There was a desire on their part to counter mainline Catholic thought within a number of threads.

I think we can understand there are different faiths on the forum, all of which might deem each other this or that based on the theology of our respective Churches. I thought of putting the Sede Thread in "General Faith", but of course that wouldn't work for them. And ultimately the topic itself is uniquely Catholic.

My impression so far is that they are largely Newbies although some longer term members who in some cases have alot of knowledge of why they believe the Seat is Vacant but are pushing this into other threads rather than sharing the specific elements of their belief in their thread and sharing 'commonalities' in other threads.
 

lskdfjldsf

Pelican
Gold Member
Judging the tree strictly by its fruits, if Satan's goal was to sow discord, doubt, and disunity among Catholics, I would say Vatican II was a resounding success. The arguments in this thread are a microcosm of much larger divisions in the Church.
 

SilentCal

Robin
Judging the tree strictly by its fruits, if Satan's goal was to sow discord, doubt, and disunity among Catholics, I would say Vatican II was a resounding success. The arguments in this thread are a microcosm of much larger divisions in the Church.
Unfortunately there is some truth in what you say. The time during and directly after Vatican II seems to have been catastrophic, although I didn’t live through it.

But I see no way out but through - it’s still a Council, and we have to deal with it. I firmly believe that the documents can all be interpreted in continuity, and every time I’ve read them I’ve found this to be so. Still, Vatican II did not define any new dogma, and Pope Paul VI said so. I am sure much will be clarified in years to come.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
The creation of new threads should be done with prudence, especially with respect to newer members should practice humility. I am finding that what we have with some of the Sede Members are "one trick ponies".

I am fine with the thread itself, but how many will there be? We are at a pace of 3 new Sede threads per week. As an "intermediate" level member, I might create 1 thread per month, if that. This is why I created the Sede Thread. The best threads on here are the ones which explain various aspects of a single topic, rather than proliferation. Ultimately, these threads slip through the cracks.

Imagine someone sede Curious as above, well if he shows up in 3 months this thread and all the content will be buried. Keep it in the Sede Thread. Focus on Quality.

As a sede I completely agree with this.

I'm not prepared to ban people just because of their religious identity, but now that I understand the aggressive pattern of sedes, I will not be lenient with them when it comes to moderation.

In that regard, may I suggest adding "Sedevacantism issue" to the list of things (like race and politics) newcomers below a certain threshold in likes or posts are not allowed to post about.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
The time during and directly after Vatican II seems to have been catastrophic

You seem to imply that things have changed since the time during and directly after Vatican II, which I find surprising. All I see is continuity and more of the same from Paul VI to Francis.

I firmly believe that the documents can all be interpreted in continuity

This looks Catholic on the surface, but when you delve into it it's simply an upgrade of the good old Protestant "free judgement", "free interpretation" principle. You are basically saying that official texts have no meaning by themselves, that their intended meaning will perhaps magically appear 50 years or more after their publication. This is the basis of a weird, clown-world "unity" between revolutionaries and conservatives, where revolutionaries can read the most extreme things they want in the Vatican II texts and conservatives can "disagree but understand" while claiming to be in "obedience".

Needless to say, this was unknown and unthinkable before Vatican II. There is no pre-Vatican II Church official document whose meaning people are waiting to emerge (the only very minor exception being the short-lived, unsuccessful attempt of the Jansenists to argue that the Unigenitus bull did not apply to them). Many people follow the Council of Trent, many people spit on it, but nobody disagrees about its intended meaning.

I firmly believe that the documents can all be interpreted in continuity, and every time I’ve read them I’ve found this to be so.

Private judgement again, you make everything depend on your "impression of the moment" (and you seem to have to re-do your analysis regularly, as if each new analysis invalidated the preceding ones). This is not how Catholic obedience works.

I am sure much will be clarified in years to come.

People have been saying that for 50 years since the first day Vatican II was promulgated, so I'm not holding my breath.
 

SilentCal

Robin
You seem to imply that things have changed since the time during and directly after Vatican II, which I find surprising. All I see is continuity and more of the same from Paul VI to Francis.



This looks Catholic on the surface, but when you delve into it it's simply an upgrade of the good old Protestant "free judgement", "free interpretation" principle. You are basically saying that official texts have no meaning by themselves, that their intended meaning will perhaps magically appear 50 years or more after their publication. This is the basis of a weird, clown-world "unity" between revolutionaries and conservatives, where revolutionaries can read the most extreme things they want in the Vatican II texts and conservatives can "disagree but understand" while claiming to be in "obedience".

Needless to say, this was unknown and unthinkable before Vatican II. There is no pre-Vatican II Church official document whose meaning people are waiting to emerge (the only very minor exception being the short-lived, unsuccessful attempt of the Jansenists to argue that the Unigenitus bull did not apply to them). Many people follow the Council of Trent, many people spit on it, but nobody disagrees about its intended meaning.



Private judgement again, you make everything depend on your "impression of the moment" (and you seem to have to re-do your analysis regularly, as if each new analysis invalidated the preceding ones). This is not how Catholic obedience works.



People have been saying that for 50 years since the first day Vatican II was promulgated, so I'm not holding my breath.
If I were following my private judgment, I would have rejected Vatican II. I know this because I almost did it. I changed my mind out of obedience to the Magisterium.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
Interesting Take, passed on to me from a friend.

I generally agree, the Church will go hard against Sedes, hard against TLM but is totally ecumenical today with respect to Protestants, Jews, Muslims and more.

The question to me is "what is the traditional catholic take", a large portion of the posters here, myself included are going to SSPX, FSSP, or a diocesan Latin Mass, Perhaps a Novus Ordo with a solid priest. To me the liturgy is critical to restoring the faith.

But I respect the Sedes for speaking plainly about things which Trad Caths kind of dance around. The Pope is a heretic, I can say that, and I can also say that I am not really going to listen to him. The mentality is to turn away totally from the vatican and to focus on your parish while Rome burns in it's corruption and recent heresy - which perhaps isn't "Ex Cathedra".


Sede.jpg
 
Interesting Take, passed on to me from a friend.

I generally agree, the Church will go hard against Sedes, hard against TLM but is totally ecumenical today with respect to Protestants, Jews, Muslims and more.

The question to me is "what is the traditional catholic take", a large portion of the posters here, myself included are going to SSPX, FSSP, or a diocesan Latin Mass, Perhaps a Novus Ordo with a solid priest. To me the liturgy is critical to restoring the faith.

But I respect the Sedes for speaking plainly about things which Trad Caths kind of dance around. The Pope is a heretic, I can say that, and I can also say that I am not really going to listen to him. The mentality is to turn away totally from the vatican and to focus on your parish while Rome burns in it's corruption and recent heresy - which perhaps isn't "Ex Cathedra".


View attachment 31195
For the record, i am not the guy who liked this ;)
This is a pretty inconsistent argument, because nome of us has the authority to proclaim that the Council is invalid. Additionally, there is no proof that there is no Pope. I also find claims made against the Council to be untrue or at least incomplete when I actually read it. Many Sedes get their information from secondary sources. The most egregious part of this argument is that it states that if you are against a schism, you think that everyone will be saved. Proof? Believe me, bro. So, all in all this is a really stupid post :D
 
Last edited:

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
I generally agree, the Church will go hard against Sedes, hard against TLM but is totally ecumenical today with respect to Protestants, Jews, Muslims and more.

In other words, any religion is more than welcome and loved in today's official "Catholic" Church except the Catholic one - it is tolerated at best.
A lot of things are like that today : journalism's role is to prevent or at least delay the spreading of relevant news, the role of schooling is to prevent the kids from learning anything relevant, the role of government is to wage war on its own citizens, etc.

This also shows that "Catholic" ecumenists do not really believe in their ecumenism and do not pretend very well. If they were consistent, they would bestow an equal share of appreciation to all religions. But no, it's always "Catholicism sucks and every other religion is wonderful".

To me, the real, sincere ecumenists of today are the so-called perennialists.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
For the record, i am not the guy who liked this ;)
This is a pretty inconsistent argument, because nome of us has the authority to proclaim that the Council is invalid. Additionally, there is no proof that there is no Pope. I also find claims made against the Council to be untrue or at least incomplete when I actually read it. Many Sedes get their information from secondary sources. The most egregious part of this argument is that it states that if you are against a schism, you think that everyone will be saved. Proof? Believe me, bro. So, all in all this is a really stupid post :D

I'm not the guy who liked it either actually. Not on twitter anymore.

You are right that it doesn't say "you will be saved", but it does indeed say that non catholic religions promulgate good in society. How can that be?

Well the Council seems to be intentionally vague, but it does in some places overstep. The religious liberty in Dignatus Humanae that I was reading last night along with some quotes and comments from prior Popes even as recent as Pope Pius XII are clearly contradictory. The idea that all religion serves the public good somehow through organization of society? How does this include Islam? Or Hinduism? This makes actually no sense that GOOD (order) can come from EVIL. On a side note, after Vatican 2 the Vatican essentially Ordered Colombia to not be a confessional state. In reading through the document last night, it seems the bending of the knee to constitutions and democracy OVER the Catholic Confessional State, which should be what is being promulgated.

A couple other V2 notes:
- Modernism constantly warned against prior to Vatican 2, including the oath against modernism, now absolute silence

On the topic of a heretic, I believe anyone who is confirmed can assess if someone is a heretic. I'd have to follow up on that but perhaps someone else can weigh in. I know there is the canon legal declaration of a heretic, but isn't that akin to the lawyers and courts declaring someone a murderer formally through process. It doesn't stop someone from saying "he murdered that guy, I saw it", "he said such and such", these are testimonies.
 

roger808

Pigeon
But I respect the Sedes for speaking plainly about things which Trad Caths kind of dance around. The Pope is a heretic, I can say that, and I can also say that I am not really going to listen to him. The mentality is to turn away totally from the vatican and to focus on your parish while Rome burns in it's corruption and recent heresy - which perhaps isn't "Ex Cathedra".
This is where I am. I go to a diocesan Latin mass in a very liberal city which was miraculously blessed with an archbishop friendly to the Latin mass. I appreciate the sede arguments and learn a lot from reading them. I find their arguments very convincing.

For the moment, though I will remain with the church and it comes down to this. I find Catholics weakest when they are countering the sedevacantists arguments about Vatican II and the papacy. The idea that, while the implementation was bad, V2 documents are good holds no water anymore for me (and it wasn't sedevacantists that pushed me over the edge, it was more SSPX podcasts). NoMoreTO brings up good examples above. But for all the handwaving catholics do to defend V2 and validity (if not goodness) of Francis, Sedes wave their hands too much about how things work with no head. I totally get the impulse to shove off when everything is on fire, and I've almost done it, but for now, I'll stay, and pray for the church, and pray for my own priest and Archibishop that has to navigate this nightmare.
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
Plenty invoke the "bad popes in the past" argument with Bergoglio, but the personal heresies of Jorge are not in question but rather what is your position on Vatican II—was it Catholic or not? Logic will take you forward from your answer to that question:
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
The semi-trads want a Pope without the annoying consequences attached...

To recognize a Pope is to embrace his teachings, submit to his government and obey his precepts.

To resist a heretic is to reject his false teachings, denounce his illegitimate government & ignore his precepts.

#Catholic#Sedevacantist

Don't fall into the Lefebvre/Viganò trap.
 
Why does the Society acknowledge the authority of the present Church leaders, despite the damage they are doing, or allowing to be done, to the Catholic Church?
This damage is of course the reason why the so-called sedevacantists cannot accept that the recent Popes (since, say, Paul VI) have really been Popes. How could Christ’s own Vicars so betray Christ’s own Church? Answer, they cannot really be Vicars! The argument is simple, and notice that it rests on truths of the Faith. If the sedevacantists did not believe in Christ, in his Vicars and in his Church, the present betrayal would be no problem. The sedevacantists believe in Our Lord and in His Church. In this respect they differ from the Liberals and are far superior to them. However, their arguments are too simple. Let us have a look at them.
Sedes say that faced with this crisis of the Church we can take one of three positions, that of “Ecclesia Dei”, or that of the “Lefebvrists” (i.e., the SSPX/SSPX resistance), or that of the sedevacantists. The Ecclesia Dei position is at least consistent, say the sedes, but it means submitting to and siding with the liberals. The “Lefebvrist” position refuses to submit to the liberals, but it is riddled with contradictions. The only non-liberal and non-contradictory position is that of the sedevacantists. As for the futility of the Ecclesia Dei compromise with the official Church, the Society and the sedevacantists are agreed. No chicken with its head still on walks into the fox’s den for protection! But how do the sedes argue that the Society is mired in contradiction? By a triple-barreled argument, or by three parallel arguments based on the Church, on the Faith and on the Papacy.

Firstly, the Catholic Church as instituted by Our Lord must be visible and indefectible. But the presently visible Church, i.e., the official Church, has gravely defected, by liberalism. Therefore either liberalism is acceptable - absurd - or the official Church is not the real Church. But the Society insists on partly treating it as the true Church, partly not treating it as the true Church, so the Society is in contradiction.

Secondly, the Catholic Faith is either integral (i.e., complete in all its elements) or it is not at all. Now the Novus Ordo system of doctrines, moral teachings, worship and discipline pertains to the Catholic Faith. Therefore it is either integrally Catholic and to be accepted entirely, or it is not Catholic at all and it is to be entirely rejected. But the Society insists that for instance the Mass of the Novus Ordo is not automatically invalid, and yet it refuses to let people attend it, so the Society is again in contradiction.

Thirdly, true Catholic Popes even outside of their solemn or extraordinary Magisterium can prescribe nothing harmful to souls in discipline or worship (Denzinger 1578). But the liberal Novus Ordo system was prescribed with the full authority of the recent Popes. Therefore either the Novus Ordo system is not harmful to souls - absurd - or these seeming Popes are not real Popes. But the Society insists on recognising their authority while refusing their authority! And so once more the Society is caught in impossible contradiction.
Moreover, an extra difficulty for the Society is that since it is caught in contradictions, somebody has to decide what it will accept and what it will refuse. But Archbishop Lefebvre alone had the prestige within the Society to do this work of sifting, so now that he is gone, the Society must disintegrate.

Leaving aside for a moment the last argument, it will be noticed that each of the three main arguments consists in an either-or. Since the “either” always results in liberalism while the “or” results in sedevacantism, both rejected by the Society, then obviously the Society believes there is a third possibility which is in each case being excluded by the sedes. Let us take each argument in turn.

Firstly, the Catholic Church considered in her pure state as Bride of Christ is indeed indefectible. But she is embodied, by Christ’s will, in human beings, churchmen, who are, as human beings, defectible. By the sedevacantist argument, no churchmen should ever defect! But see how the Apostles ran away in the Garden of Gethsemane! What the Church’s indefectibility requires is that at no one time should all churchmen defect, which has not happened, even today. Hence the Society, believing in the Church, sifts the churchmen, as Our Lord told us to do - “beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing”.

Secondly, the Catholic Faith must indeed be professed integrally in all its parts, and any system defective in any of those parts will not be Catholic, either as a whole or in its defective parts, as a Catholic part, is not Catholic. For instance in the third century the Church judged, after a bitter dispute, that baptism administered by the Donatist heretics was valid. This baptism was culpably incorporated in a non-Catholic whole, but that did not invalidate it as a Catholic part. Thus the Society rejects the Novus Ordo Mass both as a whole and in all its non-Catholic parts, but it no more says that the hereticising whole necessarily invalidates all the parts; including for instance the Consecration correctly said, than that the Donatist heresy invalidated the Donatist baptism. Hence the need to sift.

Thirdly, it is true that if the Pope uses the full weight of his Apostolic authority to impose upon souls some measure of discipline or worship, that measure cannot be harmful, but from the very beginning of, for instance, the Novus Ordo Mass, a handful of wholly competent canon lawyers pointed out that Paul VI never, while instituting the New Mass, at the same time strictly abrogated or prohibited the continuation of the Old Mass. Therefore, strictly, the Novus Ordo was an option rather than an obligation. So neither the Society nor anyone else was, or is, obliged to declare Paul VI was only a seeming Pope. Providence in a sense kept him liberal even when he enforced his favourite laws! But neither the Society nor anyone else is obliged to accept those anti-Catholic laws, even if Paul VI was a true Pope. Hence again the need to sift.

Nor is the Society nor any other Catholic essentially dependant on Archbishop Lefebvre to do the sifting of what to accept and what to refuse amongst the parts of the Novus Ordo religion, always refusing it as a whole. The yardstick is Tradition, which is independent of us all. True Archbishop Lefebvre proved himself to be an outstanding yardstick of Tradition while he lived, and all true Catholics miss him today, but he would have been the first to say that the documents and monuments of Tradition are as accessible to us now as they ever were to him.

However, the interesting thing with the Sedes is to attempt to discern the common pattern or mistake behind its three main arguments. Surely there is a common mistake of sedevacantists, and surely it is this: they fail in general to distinguish the abstract and the concrete, between abstract principles and concrete people, between abstract errors and the people erring.

St Augustine said, “Slay errors but love those who are erring,” (which is still neater in Latin: Interficite errores, diligite errantes). Contrawise, liberals love the errors together with those erring, while sedevacantists slay the erring together with the errors. The Liberals softness on people extends to softness on principles; the sedevacantists’ hardness on principles makes them go hard on people. Only the Catholic in St Augustine’s footsteps keeps his balance by being firm on principles while going easy (not soft) on people.

Thus it is true that the Catholic Church, Catholic belief and the Catholic Papcy are in their abstract state free of all taint, but to save us concrete sinners, Our Lord willed that Church, belief and Papacy be embodied respectively in churchmen, believers and Popes, in which human condition all three are bound to be mixed more or less with human failings and non-Catholic elements. For, underneath the moon, what is more contradictory and mixed up than human beings?

But sedevacantists do not understand the mixture. For them everything is either-or. Thus sedes cannot understand how the “Conciliar Church” and the Catholic Church can overlap, and indeed as abstract systems concilliarism and Catholicism absolutely exclude one another. But in the concrete, or in real life, what is easier than for conciliar folk still to have some Catholic in them, or for Catholics still to have slack things or something conciliar, about them? To many conciliar folk surely applies Our Lord’s own rule: “The bruised reed he shall not break, and the smoking flax he shall not extinguish” (Is. 42:3; Mt. 12:20), meaning that so long as there is a glimmer of Catholicism in them, Catholics should make every reasonable effort to restore that glimmer to a bright flame, which is of course why the Society has long reached out to the erring conciliarists, believers and Popes. On the other hand, to all Catholics surely applies Hamlet’s saying, “Use each man according to his deserts and who should escape whipping?”

Let Sedevacantists go back over the words and deeds of the Archbishop and Society. Sedes are entitled to judge that either of them here or there went astray in the delicate task of discerning between the error and the erring, but Sedes cannot make the accusation stick that the policy of slaying the error while loving the erring is contradictory. It is the Sacred Heart’s own policy, fortunately for us all!
 
Last edited:

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
By the sedevacantist argument, no churchmen should ever defect!

Total non-sequitur. The Church is made of sinners, but is more than just the aggregate of the sinners it contains. Your fallacy relies on a confusion between the Church and its members.

But see how the Apostles ran away in the Garden of Gethsemane!

That was before Our Lord gave them the Holy Spirit (who they were the "twelve Apostles" as we know them yet). The same fallacy has been applied by Protestants and others to the denial of Peter before he became Pope.

What the Church’s indefectibility requires is that at no one time should all churchmen defect, which has not happened, even today.

1) That's an extreme "minimization" of the indefectibility claim, which is very similar if not identical to the SSPX position, and very close also the Protestant "invisible Church" idea.
2) Are you arguing that indefectibility applied to Vatican II just means that the proportion of clergy who went along with the heretical changes at Vatican II was only 99% instead of 100% ? This is making a mockery of it.
3) Even then, in the 1% like Mgr Lefebvre who were not wholly in agreement, there is no clear-cut opposition, more of a shifting compromise. Yet another extreme weakening of indefectibility from this point of view.
 
That was before Our Lord gave them the Holy Spirit (who they were the "twelve Apostles" as we know them yet). The same fallacy has been applied by Protestants and others to the denial of Peter before he
They were still churchmen were they not? They were ordained at the Last Supper.


Are you arguing that indefectibility applied to Vatican II just means that the proportion of clergy who went along with the heretical changes at Vatican II was only 99% instead of 100% ? This is making a mockery of it.

The same could be said of the Arian crisis when the bulk of the Church was in heresy, this does not mean that the Church defected.
 

Papist

Robin
The Vatican's Audience Hall is an interesting building:

20210530_103658.jpg

Why would it be designed to look like the head of a snake, with the stage being the mouth? As though The Pope would be speaking on behalf of the serpent?

At least one saint and one Pope have said the Church would be commandeered by Satan, during the End Times.
 
Top