/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Not even a Catholic, but it seems like you're just LARPing if your denom focuses so much on the primacy and infallibility of the Pope (and the Church) and then you just throw it out. How are you any different from Protestants?

>>602711

The real question is, from an orthodox Catholic perspective, how can AntiPope Francis be defended?

>>602712

Because he hasn't dogmatically defined any heresies as true.

>>602713

Can't you say that is just a way for the Vatican to play both sides? Do you really think poor uneducated Catholics understand the difference between the Pope speaking ex cathedra and not? Watch the video – Francis praying with Jews, Francis saying it's a virtue not to convert people to Catholicism at last, a Catholic doctrine Baptists can get behind!…

>>602709

If you are sedevacantist, then you didn't convert.

>>602719

Are sedevacantists not saved? Why not? Francis believes even Protestants can be saved after Purgatory, of course, so why aren't sedevacantists saved?

>>602724

No, it's not that, it's just that you can't be a Catholic and a sedevacantist.

>>602711

they maintain the hierarchy, they just think the seat is empty…thats the difference

>a protestant wants to join a protestant church

Did we need a thread about this?

>>602738

Yes.

Sedevacantism doesn't hold up. It posits that at some point down the line, a Pope was elected invalidly, which means that the previous valid Pope made an error in appointing his successor. Which, he obviously can't correct, since Pius XII, or whoever was the last valid Pope, is dead, and a new Pope will never be licitly appointed ever again. The line of Popes has been broken. Which can't happen.

Even after Vatican II, the Church has never condtradicted itself, and has maintained the same teachings. Individuals that try to claim it has rely on very shakey or outright false evidence, appeals to semantics, removal of context and other tactics to twist the truth to conform to their worldview. It takes a degree of doctrinal illiteracy to accept the positions they are pushing.

The one thing that seperates Catholicism from every other religion in history has been the Church heirarchy and the steadfast loyalty that it demands. Not a loyalty to a book, or a shakey set of ideals, or a feeling like other religions, but a loyalty to a living, breathing Church: Christ's body. Do not let your loyalty faulter.

>>602734

Wouldn't that mean that the gates of Hades rose against the Church, though?

>>602741

>The one thing that seperates Catholicism from every other religion in history has been the Church heirarchy and the steadfast loyalty that it demands.

Doesn't Mormonism demand this same loyalty to the LDS Church? After all, Mormons believe in continuous revelation, which can only happen if there's a current President and Quorum of the Seventy.

>>602742

>Are there any questions that we can answer for you, my friend?

How big of a sin is it to begome sedevacantist and be wrong?

>>602743

I want to know why Catholics don't believe in it.

>>602750

>What's your main issues with "mainstream" Catholicism?

I'm finding it extremely difficult to join an organization with a man like Pope Francis as its head. Ecumenism is clearly condemned in Scripture.

>>602766

whats that

The only papists I've seen who actually know what's what on the sodomite question

>>602768

Society of Saint Pius X.

>>602725

This

>>602766

Just careful not to slip into sins of pride. Let's hope the next pope is going to restore some order and remove the modernist trends.

>>602744

I don't really know how they solve it, but I guess the church still survives the gates of hell, it's just that…well…the seat is empty.

>>602735

"in denial" heh jokes on you, sir

>>602766

PRIDE AND DELUSION :: the post. Repent now, SSPX is not only schismatic, you're also heretic if you reject V2 and the ordinary form of the mass.

Hold up

>>602724

>Francis believes even Protestants can be saved after Purgatory, of course

Is this true? Is whether Christians outside of Roman Catholicism can be saved basically theologoumenon to you people? I thought if you were e.g. Orthodox you were committing the mortal sin of schism and thus could not be saved without begoming gadolig.

also sedes r dum

>>602888

Also aren't sedevacantist technically protestanr since they broke off of and are protesting the catholic church?

>>602890

They aren't just technically. They are, they just refuse to acknowledge, because then they had to admit that their actions and intentions are no better than that of the reformators in the 1400s and 1500s

>>602888

It's weird because Sedes are at the forefront of "V2, especially Nostra Aetate, is a corruption of dogma" when really it's not that bad.

Nostra Aetate merely states that other religions exist and aren't completely retarded. That's it. Changing the mass is more of a fuck up, imo, but seems more of an embarrassent than a corruption. I mean, it took until 2008 for Ratzinger to say TLM can now be performed wherever.

>>602741

>It posits that at some point down the line, a Pope was elected invalidly, which means that the previous valid Pope made an error in appointing his successor.

>hoever was the last valid Pope, is dead, and a new Pope will never be licitly appointed ever again.

I thought the next Pope was elected, not chosen by the previous one. There are interregnums between Popes where an enclave is convened, or whatever it's called, are there not? Is there a law or ruling on how long it can take before hell prevailed? Or is it merely up to your interpretation as I suspect it is.

I'm just saying I can see how this too is unfalsifiable.

>Why aren't you going to a sedevacantist parish?

Because I am nethier faggot nor heretic.

http://www.christkinglaw.com/uploads/9/5/6/8/9568822/feature_-_the_errors_of_sedevacantism.pdf

>>602939

>unlike the Pope, who has no judge, the Cardinals do have a judge – and it is the Pope alone. Therefore, the Pope alone determines if a “Cardinal…prior to his elevation as Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy

So if a previous Pope already said that a certain thing is heresy, this declaration only has effect, excluding from the Church the person that commited it, when an actual Pope declares the comndenation? Nonsense.

Papal infability means that the Pope can't possibly be wrong when teaching faith and morals. Bergoglio teached things that are the complete opposite of what the Cathecism teaches.

Also, its not "Sedevacantism", its Catholicism. There were times where the sede was vacant before, and people that understood it didnt cease to be catholic. Do you really think that there were never an antipope before in history?

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be. (Pope Leo XIII)

“[Satan] will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the [Catholic] Church. . . . It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content.” (Fulton Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West 1948)

“The Papacy will be attacked by all the powers of hell. In consequence the Church will suffer great trials and afflictions in securing a successor upon the throne of Peter…. It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come.” (Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, The Apocalypse of St. John (1921), pp. 121, 124)

“…diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death.”(Pope Clement XIII, Encyclical In Dominico Agro, n. 2, 1761)

"“The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.” (St. Nicholas of Flue, in Catholic Prophecy, edited by Yves Dupont, p. 30)

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. (Mt 24:21)

“The Son of Man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?” (Lk 18-8)

I understand the cognitive dissonance of Sedes, but I don't think its a legitimate position at all. Either you're gonna be full catholic or full protestant, you can't mix and match and declare the pope invalid or w/e….you dont have that authority

>>602766

>I'm SSPX

Unless you're actually a priest in that society you shouldn't say that. You're a supporter of them.

>>602885

>Repent now, SSPX is not only schismatic, you're also heretic if you reject V2 and the ordinary form of the mass.

The SSPX is not schismatic and V2 is not dogma so rejecting it wouldn't make you a heretic.

>>602899

>when really it's not that bad.

It implies Judaism is good and that Jews are doing God's will.

>>602886

The phrase "no salvation outside the Church" has been debated over since it came about. Even the Church fathers didn't see it simply as saying that all non-Catholiccs go to hell. The Church has a very nuinced view of salvation that has always been and always will be constantly debated.

>>602908

The Pope is elected by the college of cardinals. And all living cardinals today were appointed the last 3 popes. If those popes were invalid, their cardinals are invalid, and there is no way for a valid pope to ever be elected again, short of some private revelation from God himself, as some Sede sects have claimed.

I would say that if it is impossible for a new successor of Peter to ever be elected, that would be a case for the gates of hades.

At least the so called "sedeprivationists" have a better case.

>>603123

>Nonsense.

Or maybe your grapse on Canon law is as exciting as your faith, sedememer

>Papal infability means that the Pope can't possibly be wrong when teaching faith and morals

So not only canon law but also dogma. Vatican I: "we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA"

Session 4, chapter 4, 9

>Also, its not "Sedevacantism", its Catholicism. There were times where the sede was vacant before, and people that understood it didnt cease to be catholic. Do you really think that there were never an antipope before in history?

Do you think that sede was permanently vacant before? With no possibility of another Pope? Or do you seriously think that when there were antipopes there were no popes or papal election in motion?

>(Pope Leo XIII)

It's prayer to St. Michael to help the Church. If you would continue you would read:

Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious power of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church.

>Fulton Sheen

Who was faithful priest after vatican II and who said:

Pope John Paul II keeps a small desk or writing pad near him whenever he is in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament; and I have done this all my life — I am sure for the same reason he does, because a lover always works better when the beloved is with him.

>Fr. E. Sylvester Berry

Who crushes Sedevecatnism:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantistwatch-profession-of-truth.html

>Pope Clement XIII

Speaks about you here.

>St. Nicholas of Flue

Do you read what you post?

"she will at last seem to be extinguished" BUT "she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters"

>Mt 24:21

35 Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

>Lk 18-8

And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.

>>603141

How is V2 not binding dogma? It's purely pastoral?

>>603148

>The Pope is elected by the college of cardinals.

That's true for now, perhaps. In past times it was chosen by the Roman Emperor or some other method than the elective process that is now used. When the Roman Emperor was no longer able to do this and they switched methods for choosing, was that a case for the gates of hades? The "selection process" seemingly changed before, so it could be interpreted as changing again. For example maybe some satanic miracle will convince the majority of catholics and even sedes of a new Pope being miraculously chosen by some method other than election for instance.

I don't think there is ever a clear situation where you can say it's impossible for a new Pope to ever be chosen again and accepted by the Caths. The more acceptance he gets, the more Caths will gravitate toward accepting the prevailing claims of a certain Pope, even if the selection method changed. They will always go with whatever seems like the most acceptable choice for a Pope, preserving the particular selection process would be appear to most as a trivial concern considering it has changed before in the past. I don't really see any scenario that would convince the vast majority of Papists that it is now impossible for a new Pope to be chosen.

>>603163

This explains why it isn't dogmatic.

http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_1_11-30_2012.htm

>>602710

Est. 1054 AD

>>602912

SSPX aren't sedememers though.

>>603164

>That's true for now, perhaps. In past times it was chosen by the Roman Emperor or some other method than the elective process that is now used. When the Roman Emperor was no longer able to do this and they switched methods for choosing, was that a case for the gates of hades? The "selection process" seemingly changed before, so it could be interpreted as changing again. For example maybe some satanic miracle will convince the majority of catholics and even sedes of a new Pope being miraculously chosen by some method other than election for instance.

Mode of papal election can be chosen only by Pope. Peter and few of his immediate successors chosen next pope personally. Around 100 AD proto-college was made and so on and so on. So according to Sedememers last pope to decided it was Pius XII. And he did it. And gusses who was chosen according to this method…. Last change was during JPII papacy but t was basiclly "Now college can choose Pope outside of Vatican if circumastances are drastical"

>>603535

They are. Not sedevacantist but some kind of sedeperversionsim or whatever i.e. sede is not vacant but perversed in some way.

>>603549

>They are. Not sedevacantist but some kind of sedeperversionsim or whatever i.e. sede is not vacant but perversed in some way.

They aren't and they constantly stress this.

>>603549

I think you mean sedeprivationist (i.e. the occupant of the See has the potential to become Pope if only he would revoke the changes of CVII and Paul VI, but since none have they haven't been legitimate popes (so far)), but they aren't that either.

I will grant that they do attract a lot of people who are sedes, but the Society itself isn't.

Their issue is that the simply refuse to see the changes made by CVII and Paul VI as being legitimate. That's pretty much it. If they were sedes they wouldn't even think of negotiating with the Vatican, and especially not a pope as "liberal" as Francis.

>>603141

"ecumenical council". You're a heretic, sir

>>603589

>They aren't and they constantly stress this.

If they say that something is wrong with sede (and they do) then they are sedememers. And Lefebvre was rightly excommunicated.

>>603620

>I think you mean sedeprivationist

I do not.

>>603631

No, he is right. It's not dogmatic.

It's still magisterial though, so the SSPX are still sinning by refusal to accept it, not to mention the immense scandal this causes.

>>603158

>Or maybe your grapse on Canon law is as exciting as your faith, sedememer

And maybe you should teach your brother in the thing you think he is ignorant, instead of doubting his good faith, dont you think?

>we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA"

To "speak EX CATHEDRA" the Pope has to say "I am saying this ex cathedra"?

Can the Pope teach wrong things in the matter of faith and morals?

>do you think that sede was permanently vacant before?

No

>or do you seriously think that when there were antipopes there were no popes or papal election in motion?

>For then shall be great tribulation, such as WAS NOT SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD to this time, no, nor ever shall be

We are talking about a tribulation never seen before. This doesnt mean that i believe that there never will be another Pope again, before you assume that this is my position.

>Arise then, O invincible Prince

Isnt Our Lord Jesus Invincible? And yet he suffered an aparent death, to return later with alot of glory. Wouldnt it make sense that His Church, the invincible Church, follows the same path as Him?

>Who was faithful priest after vatican II and who said:

He saying other things doenst make the statement I posted invalid.

>Who crushes Sedevecatnism

I dont know what "sedevacantism" is, but I am happy when fathers crushes things that harm the Chruch.

>Speaks about you here.

>small diabolical error trying to mimic the truth while being artfully colored

I am saying the opposite of this. I am saying that the man that claim to be the Pope cant possibly be the Pope, This is a big statement, not some small change artfully colored to misguide poeple.

You are accusing me of trying to diabolically misguide people. You will have to respond for this accusation.

>Do you read what you post?

>"she will at last seem to be extinguished" BUT "she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters"

Yes, and I am saying that we are were the Chruch is NOW seeming to be extinguished, and LATER will be victoriously exalted"

>Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass

I did not and never will claim that His words has passed.

> nd unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.

Yes, the days of the current Tribulation will be shortened for the sake of the elect.

12 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth

>>603662

>Vatican I, Session 4

>he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation

>So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

In this link (www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXEblpc3beM) he says that it doesnt matter if a child receive teaching from a heretic or a jew. The catechism says that, besides the parents, we should ABSOLUTELY EXLUDE from the charge of teaching kids: heretics, jews and infidels.

Can the man with the supreme power of jurisdiction in morals and discipline be wrong about morals and discipline?

>>603677

"Wherefore, besides the natural parents, who, to mark the great difference that exists between this spiritual and the carnal bringing up of youth, are not permitted to undertake this charge, heretics, Jews and infidels are on no account to be admitted to this office, since their thoughts and efforts are continually employed in darkening by falsehood the true faith and in subverting all Christian piety. "

>>603635

>It's still magisterial though, so the SSPX are still sinning by refusal to accept it, not to mention the immense scandal this causes.

No they aren't. V2's teaching on religious liberty was condemned earlier by other popes. It's impossible to believe in both teachings.

>>603633

>And Lefebvre was rightly excommunicated.

He wasn't though. You can't be excommunicated for consecrating bishops without the popes permission when you believe there is a grave necessity.

>>602710

unironic fpbp

>>603330

Explain to me in your own words why V2 isn't dogmatic.

>>603784

Why? I'm not a theologian. This article explains why it isn't and that's good enough for me.

>>603752

The grave necessity exception doesn't apply to intrinsically evil acts, which includes IGNORING THE POPE TELLING YOU NOT TO DO SOMETHING YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO AND HAVE SAID YOU'RE DOING ANYWAY

>>604258

Disobedience to the Pope is not intrinsically evil. Paul resisted Peter. St Athanasius was also excommunicated. The church was and is in a grave crisis. Look at most bishops today, they are modernists. Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops because there was a grave reason to;the church is in need of bishops who will adhere to it's Traditions.

>>604362

>resisted

>same as doing a thing that's already forbidden despite the pope warning you specifically not to do it

>>604394

The excommunications on the four bishops has been lifted by pope Benedict.

Why should you seek the seperate yourself from the Body of Christ?

It seems to me a weakness on your part if you leave because a weakness in the system. Peter denied Christ and yet was given the keys to the kingdom.

>>603148

Why can´t the people of Rome choose their bishop, like they did in the early Church era?

>>605291

Because kingdom of God is by definition not democracy and so is bride of Christ. First few popes were chosen by Peter himself, then around AD first college of priest was made. Read Eusebius.

>>605295

But that is objectively wrong, anon.

>Eusebius relates a legend of the election of Fabian in 236: a dove landed on Fabian's head and "thereupon the people, all as if impelled by one divine spirit, with one united and eager voice cried out that he was worthy, and immediately they set him on the episcopal seat". This anecdote makes clear that the choice of bishop was the public concern for the entire Christian community of Rome. Fabian can reliably be regarded as a victim of the persecution of Emperor Decius, after which there was no election for fourteen months. Both the clergy and the laity continued to participate in the selection, along with local and imperial politics. Other trends can be observed, as well, such as father-to-son succession between Pope Anastasius I and Pope Innocent I. Emperor Honorius stepped in to resolve the schism between Eulalius and Pope Boniface I (both elected), siding with Eulalius first and then Boniface I. Honorius decreed that any future schisms should be decided by unanimous selection; although this decree has never been employed in resolving a disputed papal election, it indicates the increasing degree of imperial interest in the question of papal succession.

>Elections of the same manner continued largely undisputed until Pope Simplicius, who was terminally ill for enough of his papacy to devote time to succession issues, who decreed that the minister of Germanic general Odoacer, a Roman nobleman, would have the power of approval over his successor (there was no longer a western Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus having been deposed in 476): the result was Pope Felix III, the first patrician pope.

>>602710

pretty much