Schismatics

[lilac_angel]

Hi. I've been recently doing a lot of reading about the Church, and I came across a *lot* of material on the 'net about people who call themselves "traditional Catholics" and don't believe that our current Pope is really pope at all!

They believe the Holy See has been vacant for 40 years, or something. They also believe that Vatican II, because of this fact, was invalid (and even terribly dangerous for the Church).

The hallmark of a real Catholic, they believe, is that he will not attend the Novus Ordo Mass (the "new order" mass, as they call it, which most Catholics attend).

Does anyone know more about this belief that the papal seat has really been vacant? Can anyone point me to sources that disprove it? It's quite scary stuff to someone who wants to be a good Catholic.

Edited July 15, 2003 by lilac_angel

[Cure of Ars]

The proper name for them is “Protestants with smells and bells”. They rely on their personally judgment like Protestants instead of relying on the higher authority of the Magisterium.

Here is a good envoy article,

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.....6/lefebvre.htm

Here is also a lot of good info on the subject,

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ389.HTM

Edited July 15, 2003 by Cure of Ars

[mark4IHM]

Not to disagree with Cure, but their proper name is "sedevacantists", which means "vacant chair," as in the chair of Peter being vacant. The term was first used for those periods, sometimes long, where the papacy was vacant between the death of one pope and the election of another.

Now it is used to explain the new teachings of Vatican II. It gets more confusing, unfortunately, because there is disagreement between the sedevacantists themselves as to when and under what circumstances the papacy became vacant.

The sedevacantist position is criticized by virtually everyone, most traditionalists included. I've read some of their literature. Some of it you want to stay away from, IMHO, because...well, just because. I note however, that some sedevacantists have reasoned arguments for their position, based on the teachings of Popes like Paul IV, and other saints and theologians.

For myself, such a position raises more questions than it answers.

[Brother Adam]

It seems that the Church is divided over this issue?

[dUSt]

It seems that the Church is divided over this issue?

No, the Church is not divided over this issue. The Church is clear on this issue. Anyone who believes that "the chair is vacant" has divided themselves from the Church--just like the reformers did 500 years ago, and just like groups will continue to do in the future.

The Church remains one unified body under the authority of the pope.

[Cure of Ars]

I agree dUSt. Some have made a style of worship into a god. They would rather leave the church that Christ established than submit to a style of Mass that they do not like. Personally I like the Mass in Latin better but I am not going to leave the Pope because of it.

[Jonle]

Cure if you enjoy the Latin Mass there are parishes loyal to Rome that provide it.

[Cure of Ars]

I know but in Utah they are not done very often. Well at least I do not know of any. My local priest tried to get permission from the Bishop to say a Latin Mass every Sunday. For some reason he did not get to. It is too bad. I think he is able to say a Latin Mass on the anniversary of him becoming a priest. But I could be wrong. It would have been cool though. God bless

[mulls]

would everyone be able to understand a mass in Latin? would it matter? from my experience, i've attended enough masses to where I can recite everything the priest says right along with him, and I'm sure everyone else here can do the same...so maybe it wouldn't make that much of a difference. Just wondering.

[cmotherofpirl]

Not to disagree with Cure, but their proper name is "sedevacantists", which means "vacant chair," as in the chair of Peter being vacant. The term was first used for those periods, sometimes long, where the papacy was vacant between the death of one pope and the election of another.

Now it is used to explain the new teachings of Vatican II. It gets more confusing, unfortunately, because there is disagreement between the sedevacantists themselves as to when and under what circumstances the papacy became vacant.

The sedevacantist position is criticized by virtually everyone, most traditionalists included. I've read some of their literature. Some of it you want to stay away from, IMHO, because...well, just because. I note however, that some sedevacantists have reasoned arguments for their position, based on the teachings of Popes like Paul IV, and other saints and theologians.

For myself, such a position raises more questions than it answers.

Sedes and Trads differ only in degree. They are on the edge or outside of the Church.

Anybody who puts their opinion above the teachings of the Magisterium, (including the last 40 years) is a Catholic in name only.

St Augustine said the highest for of love is obedience.

As a Catholic I don't have to understand each and every dogma, doctrine or tradition of the Church. I don't even have to like everything about it. Its not an entrance requirement. I have to be an obedient tractable child of God. That is all.

Remember, even the devil has reasonable arguments.

[jasJis]

Personally, I try to apply what Hyper posted on another thread.

"Hyper: "...If we know the teachings of the Church and are not even trying to conform to them we are damning ourselves. If we know and try to obey, but sometimes fail then that is why God made the Confessional.

If you have knowledge of what the Church teaches and you haven't been granted the gift of believing that it is true ask God to give you the gift submission, of obedience, to what you can't understand and don't want to accept."

If I'm confused, or it's conflicting, I err on the side of obedience to my parish priest, my Bishop in order to live obedience. I've already lived through the catastrophe of believing I "know" better.