Comments on: Sedevacantism and Schism http://catholicism.org/sedevacantism-and-schism.html An online journal edited by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Richmond N.H. Thu, 24 May 2012 19:55:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joseph http://catholicism.org/sedevacantism-and-schism.html#comment-5378 Joseph Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:49:15 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13797#comment-5378 Thanks for the helpful and well written article Brother! Thanks for the helpful and well written article Brother!

]]> By: phrontitos http://catholicism.org/sedevacantism-and-schism.html#comment-2403 phrontitos Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:03:55 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13797#comment-2403 Donatism was condemned as a heresy and anathematized a long, long time ago. The sedes who reason best often have genuine concerns or complaints; still, they do not have the right to be Donatists. Donatism was condemned as a heresy and anathematized a long, long time ago. The sedes who reason best often have genuine concerns or complaints; still, they do not have the right to be Donatists.

]]> By: Brother André Marie http://catholicism.org/sedevacantism-and-schism.html#comment-2102 Brother André Marie Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:15:00 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13797#comment-2102 I allowed the comment from GasconyKid even though it technically violates the conditions for posting on our site. The reason for this is that it shows the contradiction some <em>sedes</em> have in their thinking. GK is something of a papal agnostic. "He might be the pope, but he may as well not be." Besides effacing the visibility of the Church, this approach has its own oxymoron, viz.: "I don't have the authority to judge the pope, but I've judged he's probably not the pope and I act as if that judgment is a sound one by refusing to pray for him as the Holy Father." This is the protestant, radically democratic principle of the lower judging the higher — not the Catholic principle of authority coming down from above. Regarding the papal magisterium of the last several decades: There is no pope who has said, "There is salvation outside the Church." (Please see: http://catholicism.org/living-magisterium.html .) Regarding the Great Western Schism, it is wrong to say that there was no legitimate pope. There was one, which is why the scenario the <em>sedes</em> hold out for the Church is utterly without precedent. I recommend consulting the following: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm and http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a060201.html I allowed the comment from GasconyKid even though it technically violates the conditions for posting on our site. The reason for this is that it shows the contradiction some sedes have in their thinking. GK is something of a papal agnostic. “He might be the pope, but he may as well not be.” Besides effacing the visibility of the Church, this approach has its own oxymoron, viz.: “I don’t have the authority to judge the pope, but I’ve judged he’s probably not the pope and I act as if that judgment is a sound one by refusing to pray for him as the Holy Father.” This is the protestant, radically democratic principle of the lower judging the higher — not the Catholic principle of authority coming down from above.

Regarding the papal magisterium of the last several decades: There is no pope who has said, “There is salvation outside the Church.” (Please see: http://catholicism.org/living-magisterium.html .)

Regarding the Great Western Schism, it is wrong to say that there was no legitimate pope. There was one, which is why the scenario the sedes hold out for the Church is utterly without precedent.

I recommend consulting the following:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm

and

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a060201.html

]]> By: GasconyKid http://catholicism.org/sedevacantism-and-schism.html#comment-2097 GasconyKid Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:03:14 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13797#comment-2097 All very well and good, but terribly misleading and grossly hypocritical. You claim that "Outside the Church, there is no salvation", and this is true, in the context of Tradition. However, you follow a "pope" who not only personally believes, but has publicly stated on numerous occasions, that "Outside the Church, there IS salvation"; as witnessed by his and his predecessor's cavorting with heretics and pagans, all on an equal basis as Catholics. Of course, he's not the only "pope" who has stated this; his three predecessors did as well. Additionally, you accept (or you claim to accept) the teaching of the invalid "Vatican II" Robber Council, and the validity of its Novus Ordo "Mess", although apparently you don't celebrate that abomination in your society. While not commenting on the validity of Benedict XVI or his immediate three predecessors, since neither you nor I have the competence or authority to do so, it's quite possible that a future pope or general council might indeed declare them invalid, as well as illegitimate, which may appear to be the case. There is certainly precedence for this; witness the early 15th century, when three popes claimed the Throne of St. Peter, and none were legitimate. In any event, I don't require the "blessing" or the approval of the Vatican II Sect in order to practice my Catholic Faith; that's been settled once-and-for-all by remaining faithful to the Tradition handed down to us by 261 valid popes and 20 general councils of the Church. Viva Cristo Rey! All very well and good, but terribly misleading and grossly hypocritical. You claim that “Outside the Church, there is no salvation”, and this is true, in the context of Tradition. However, you follow a “pope” who not only personally believes, but has publicly stated on numerous occasions, that “Outside the Church, there IS salvation”; as witnessed by his and his predecessor’s cavorting with heretics and pagans, all on an equal basis as Catholics. Of course, he’s not the only “pope” who has stated this; his three predecessors did as well. Additionally, you accept (or you claim to accept) the teaching of the invalid “Vatican II” Robber Council, and the validity of its Novus Ordo “Mess”, although apparently you don’t celebrate that abomination in your society. While not commenting on the validity of Benedict XVI or his immediate three predecessors, since neither you nor I have the competence or authority to do so, it’s quite possible that a future pope or general council might indeed declare them invalid, as well as illegitimate, which may appear to be the case. There is certainly precedence for this; witness the early 15th century, when three popes claimed the Throne of St. Peter, and none were legitimate. In any event, I don’t require the “blessing” or the approval of the Vatican II Sect in order to practice my Catholic Faith; that’s been settled once-and-for-all by remaining faithful to the Tradition handed down to us by 261 valid popes and 20 general councils of the Church.

Viva Cristo Rey!

]]> By: jay http://catholicism.org/sedevacantism-and-schism.html#comment-2043 jay Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:20:18 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13797#comment-2043 Lewis showed us that the Dimond(brother) was conflating his own sedevacantist opinions with Catholic teaching. Not to mention the bad will which is typical of these sedevacntists. Lewis showed us that the Dimond(brother) was conflating his own sedevacantist opinions with Catholic teaching. Not to mention the bad will which is typical of these sedevacntists.

]]> By: Rasha Lampa http://catholicism.org/sedevacantism-and-schism.html#comment-2040 Rasha Lampa Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:40:50 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13797#comment-2040 Nice article. I do hope a more in depth refutation of the Dimond brothers will be forthcoming. Vin Lewis did not do so well. Nice article. I do hope a more in depth refutation of the Dimond brothers will be forthcoming. Vin Lewis did not do so well.

]]>