How To Respond To Sedevacantists?

[filius_angelorum]

Aloysius,
I think you are somewhat correct in describing what a sedevacantist's position would be. However, if all the Novus Ordo bishop's are heretics, presumably any "Council" which recognized a pope as being orthodox would be invalid as well. And who would restore to them, or to the pope, his standing in the Church? In other words, unless one goes the distance and falls into Conciliarism or somesuch, I don't really see how continually excommunicating the pope holds theological water.

On the other hand, the problem with their idea that a miracle would restore the Holy See is that such a miracle would always remain in the realm of private revelation, i.e., not sufficient evidence to support a de fide obligation to affirm this 'miraculous' restoration of the Holy See. We might as well all be Palmarians.

I think, however, that you are correct in showing that there are almost as many shades of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism as there are sedevacantists/sedeprivationists, which is perhaps the best argument against their position.

But I take comfort in the fact that I rarely have to meet with such crazies, even in my usual traditionalist circles. Their existence does make me wonder sometimes about the effect of traditional devotions on weak minds, but I think that the real cause of all their craziness can be more blamed on the persecution of traditional devotions than on the traditional devotions themselves.

Edited August 7, 2012 by filius_angelorum

[Aloysius]

basically I think they'd just expect the crisis to be over if a pope comes out and disavows all the teachings they consider to be heretical from the previous popes, that'd be enough evidence that someone who wasn't a heretic was finally elected as Pope.

of course I suppose there's a question of whether the "heretic" "anti-popes" had validly appointed those cardinals, and the answer there would depend on whether they were pure sedevacantist or some degree sedeprivationist, or of course maybe Cardinal Siri left a secret hierarchy in operation (the Siri thesis is extremely ridiculous for one very basic reason: what threat could possibly exist to keep someone from taking on the responsibility of telling the world the truth about who the real Roman Pontiff was... what they're going to kill your family and friends? the souls of the whole world are on the line, there is no conceivable way that Siri was Pope and just didn't come out with it no matter what kind of threat existed).

anyway, the last sentence of your post hits the nail on the head. it is the persecution of traditional practices, the hermeneutic of rupture that has permeated the Church for so long, which has fed and fueled these ideas among the misguided folks who fall down all the rabbit holes of sedevacantism. along with all the other motivations that make people prone to conspiracy theories (not that sedevacantism in and of itself as a theory is a conspiracy theory per se, though it acts similar to one and various conspiracy theories often surround it).

Edited August 7, 2012 by Aloysius

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1344284491' post='2463547']
I'm not so sure about that. Arianism continued to exist even after anathematized at the 325 council at Nicaea. The [i]homoosuion[/i] clause of that council's creed removed doubt as to what the official dogma of the Catholic Church was.
[/quote]

I was talking about before the council. If the conflict with Arianism didn't exist, there would have been no need for the Nicene Creed.

[quote]In the Greco-Roman world, the bishop in your local area wasn't always the only bishop around. Communication was pretty decent, and as Arianism became something of a political wedge issue, most educated people would have been familiar with the different positions, and which were espoused by whom.[/quote]

Sure, educated people would have been familiar. But who was educated to that level? Few people, compared to the general population. Most people would not be able to appreciate the differences, and would have gone along with what their priest said. Because it would not have been wise for a priest to be in conflict with his bishop, and most bishops were Arian before the council, most people would have been Arian.


[quote]As McGrath explains in [i]Heresy[/i], all heresies are attempts to explain Christianity better, but in reality heretical ideas end up undermining--and indeed distorting--the faith which they were originally intended to advance.[/quote]

...obviously. Which is why they end up in the heresy category. I've got lots of textbooks I can quote too.

[quote]We shouldn't sympathize with heretics, or try to rationalize their behavior. It doesn't matter whether they intended to bring down Christianity, because their doctrines ended up doing so (inasmuch as Christianity can be brought down). You know all that about the road to hell and good intentions.
[/quote]

I don't agree with McGrath on this point. I'm not rationalizing heretics. Understanding why heretics are heretics is incredibly important to understanding not only Christian history but the development of Christian theology. You can't just write off heretics as big bad evil people, which is what you end up doing with McGrath's position.

In my argument, the point of trying to acknowledge some good that came out of Arianism was to parallel something a Sedevacantist could do in regards to the liturgy. I was trying to give one reason to [i]not [/i]be a sedevacantist even if one had problems understanding why the current liturgy is "ordinary" and the Tridintine Mass is "extra-ordinary." I'm trying to get someone to see that good things can still come out of things that look bad, as a first step on the road back to full communion.

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1344284491' post='2463547']
[b]We shouldn't sympathize with heretics,[/b] or try to rationalize their behavior. It doesn't matter whether they intended to bring down Christianity, because their doctrines ended up doing so (inasmuch as Christianity can be brought down). You know all that about the road to hell and good intentions.
[/quote]
I don't know, man. I can see the obvious fear of being 'converted' to some heretical doctrine, but I think that true knowledge and advancement in the faith can only be achieved when people are willing to understand each other. This doesn't mean that we approve of the way in which a person does something, but we should make an effort to understand their reasoning.

So often, we can tell someone what they said or did is wrong, but if we don't take the time to understand [i]why[/i] they did it, we're just spinning our wheels. We need to be able to show [i]why[/i] a certain action is right or wrong from that person's perspective. Simply put, we need to be able to relate to people.

[Nola Seminarian]

[quote name='ToJesusMyHeart' timestamp='1344212443' post='2463178']
I put this in the Q&A phorum first, but was advised to see if others can help out.

I had a sedevacantist say this to me and I wanted to know how to respond (with charity):

"If you feel that a "Mass" created by Protestant ministers and Freemasons (absolute fact--go check it out for yourself) is "Catholic", nothing anyone here can say will help you. There is NO 'holiness' in Vatican 2. The pope himself (Paul 6) said, very clearly, that "the smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary", and he ought to know, because he let it in! He also said that he was DELIBERATELY creating a Mass that was in line with the Protestant service--a move directly FORBIDDEN by all previous popes and councils! Beware of where you place your loyalty. Just because YOU behave correctly during Mass does not make the church you attend a valid one. We are NOT saying these things to anger you, but to instruct, and try to correct erroneous beliefs, because we care."
[/quote]

I'd probably just say "you're an idiot" but then again I have a lot to work on befor I reach holiness

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1344213565' post='2463195']
I'd probably say something like...

It's my faith in Christ and his Church that I believe that the "gates of hell will never prevail" against the Church. This includes the "keys to the Kingdom" with which the pope is instruction. And it's through the "keys," founded on the "never prevail", that I trust in the Petrine Authority of the pope, the current pope. One of the things about being Catholic is accepting with faithful obedience the teachings of our bishops, particularly the Bishop of Rome. Our obedience brings even more joy to Christ when we obey even though teachings are hard to understand or don't make sense at all. There are, however, proper channels to go through in the Church to deal with disagreements over these teachings, and many saints have used them to enact true changes. St. Francis had to wait for permission to form his order. Those who struggle with accepting the legitimacy of our liturgy and respond by denying the legitimacy of the pope are not using the proper channels to deal with their struggle. Instead of embracing the Church, they reject Her.

I don't like to engage with people who boast wildly inflammatory, arrogant and untrue claims, especially when they don't back anything up with actual documents or tell you to go verify their claims yourself. There's nothing to be gained by answering their arguments on their own terms (if, however, they decide to have a civil conversation using historically documented facts and solid sources, that can be worth engaging...sometimes). In your case, I'd do your best to explain why you believe that the current ordinary form is right, and just leave it be. Oh, and pray. Arguments like the one the sedevacantist posted aren't worth the effort. Prayer's pretty much the only thing that will get them to see reason.
[/quote]



And what does the promise "the gates of hell will not prevail" mean?


Moreover, Benedict XVI explicitly denies the dogma of the papacy on many levels. The whole Novus Ordo establishment and Benedict XVI himself say that you can be in "the Church of Christ" without even accepting the dogma of the papacy, without even holding the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled. THEY HAVE EVEN TuRNED AWAY PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO CONVERT TO "CATHOLICISM"!


Your "popes" hold the Catholic faith to be meaningless because they say you're perfectly fine to be a Jew, or a pagan, or an Anglican or an "orthodox" schismatic or a protestant.


The Novus Ordo sect is drunk with the blood of the martyrs and makes all their sacrifices and death MEANINGLESS by praising and "profoundly esteeming" all the other false religions and by saying that the old testament was "never revoked by God" (#121 of your new "catechism of the catholic church") and that "Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain".

So if you want to outrageously condemn sedevacantists as "pope deniers", you condemn yourself out of your own mouth for your very own antipope says that you don't even have to accept the papacy or the Catholic faith.

Go to [mod]link edited[/mod] for all the hard data and evidence.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Lil Red
links to sedevacantist websites not allowed

[Lil Red]

moving to debate.

[Basilisa Marie]

Hi there, Prosologion.

Referencing "the gates of hell will not prevail" generally means that the Holy Spirit will never abandon the Church, no matter how sinful her people might be or how hard the devil tries to attack her.

What do [i]you[/i] mean by the dogma of the papacy? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, as I understand that Pope Benedict XVI would affirm this dogma. Could you clarify what you're talking specifically about for me?

Actually, if you read through [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html"]Dignitatis Humanae[/url] and [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html"]Nostra Aetate[/url], you can see that what is actually said is that religious freedom is a good thing, and that other faiths can be good in so much as they share something in common with Catholicism. Like, it's better to be a Lutheran than an atheist, because a Lutheran believes in God and that Jesus is the Son of God and our savior, while an atheist does not. It's not as good as being Catholic, because the Catholic Church contains the fullest deposit of faith, but it can be a start on a person's spiritual journey.

I can see why this is an issue that touches a nerve. Like I said before, I generally don't like to engage in angry ad-hominem theology wars. But if you want to have a civil discussion, based on mutual understanding, by all means you've come to the right forum.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[Nihil Obstat]

Just out of curiosity, what site was this dude linking to? Traditio? Something even more obscure?

[Papist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347993042' post='2483796']
Just out of curiosity, what site was this dude linking to? Traditio? Something even more obscure?
[/quote]
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of removing the link?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1347993310' post='2483798']
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of removing the link?
[/quote]

Depends on the motivation for removing it. Everyone knows such sites exist, and how to find them. My perception of editing out links is simply because we do not want to provide that direct path to specific 'information' that attacks orthodox Catholicism. It is the directness that is the issue, and the specificity.
At least that is how I have always seen it.

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1347981717' post='2483740']
Hi there, Prosologion.

Referencing "the gates of hell will not prevail" generally means that the Holy Spirit will never abandon the Church, no matter how sinful her people might be or how hard the devil tries to attack her.

What do [i]you[/i] mean by the dogma of the papacy? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, as I understand that Pope Benedict XVI would affirm this dogma. Could you clarify what you're talking specifically about for me?

Actually, if you read through [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html"]Dignitatis Humanae[/url] and [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html"]Nostra Aetate[/url], you can see that what is actually said is that religious freedom is a good thing, and that other faiths can be good in so much as they share something in common with Catholicism. Like, it's better to be a Lutheran than an atheist, because a Lutheran believes in God and that Jesus is the Son of God and our savior, while an atheist does not. It's not as good as being Catholic, because the Catholic Church contains the fullest deposit of faith, but it can be a start on a person's spiritual journey.

I can see why this is an issue that touches a nerve. Like I said before, I generally don't like to engage in angry ad-hominem theology wars. But if you want to have a civil discussion, based on mutual understanding, by all means you've come to the right forum.
[/quote]

If they edited my post and removed the website I linked to, I don't see how that's fair or how we would engage in any conversation because all the info is there in one website.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Prosologion' timestamp='1347993682' post='2483802']
If they edited my post and removed the website I linked to, I don't see how that's fair or how we would engage in any conversation because all the info is there in one website.
[/quote]

If your position is reasonable enough, you should be able to state it more or less without relying on too many links.

[Prosologion]

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 197-198: “Against this background
we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism. The maximum
demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.
[u][b]On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the
primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870[/b][/u] and in so
doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.
On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870
doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as
has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the
Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. [u][b]As regards Protestantism, the
maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological
ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to
Catholicism[/b][/u]; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the
Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant
ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and
thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which
would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their
acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the
Church. [u][b]While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously
rejected by Christian consciousness[/b][/u], the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as
it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the
problem. This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a
Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this
pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action. That no real union would result from
this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should
convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring
Church unity but only a final renunciation of it. As a result, [u][b]none of the maximum
solutions offers any real hope of unity[/b][/u].”

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Prosologion' timestamp='1347993682' post='2483802']
If they edited my post and removed the website I linked to, I don't see how that's fair or how we would engage in any conversation because all the info is there in one website.
[/quote]

the only part of your post that was edited was the link. We do not allow those kind of websites to be linked to on this phorum.
and, as Nihil stated, if you believe your position is correct, and are actually interested in dialogue[b] instead of docu-dumping[/b], then you should be able to state your position without those links.