Sedevacantism

Thank you Orthodox brother. We may be different, but at least we know how to submit to authority, even if our figures are different. May the Schism in your Church end soon.
t. Catholic who is actually in the Church

Come home catholic white man.

Attached: p12362214_b_v8_ab.jpg (960x1440, 489.04K)

Sedevacantism is not tenable.

But this is why it exists:

Vatican I says that the papacy or succession of Peter from the time of the apostles and early church had supreme power of teaching over the whole church, which is not true. It claims the ecumenical councils declared this, which is also not true. Rome certainly had a position of honor, but the idea of some megabishop dictatorially running the church was so foreign to those who attended the ecumenical councils - by the very fact they were attending a COUNCIL. Historically, primacy of Rome was established but it never entailed supremacy over the church as Vatican I claims. The Roman pope didn't have the final say. The papacy over time began to take on a bigger role than it had in the first millennium.

Vatican I claims this is not a developed doctrine but a continuous one throughout all church history.

Most Latins on here don't ever read Vatican I.

You can read the key parts of it right here:
scrollpublishing.com/store/Vatican-I.html

Attached: BIvmPGOCYAAznNd.jpg (593x326, 57.92K)

The Vatican created the problem of sedevecantism when it made dogma what had been anathmatized by previous popes. The Sedes and trads are just following what previous popes said. You cannot just put Vatican I and Vatican II on the shelf. You also cannot put previous popes on the shelf who anathematized what these councils said. The parents are drunk and the children are trying to figure out what to do. Sedevecantism is one answer they have found.

You cannot say the pope has supreme teaching authority but not when we don't like it.

You criticize the protestants for subjectively interpreting scripture in their own ways, but isn't that the same thing you do when you read papal encyclicals.

Personally, the idea of an infallible bishop sounds ludicrious. Do you know how many bishops became Arians, how close they were to destroying the church?

Sedevacantism is autistic and schismatic, some of those sects have elected their own popes and bishops since basically all hierarchs appointed before Vatican II are dead now.

Don't go down that road; our churches need us to for once in our f'ing history to stick together

papastronsay.com/resources/sedevacantism/index.php
This is a good overview, be sure to read them all. Written by a good traditional monastery

The SSPX isn’t in schism.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=pitQdPJIDLc
Stop mindlessly parroting what you read on Christianity subreddits.

Of course they are, I'd recommend reading some of the actual vatican documents.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1224
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-contribution-qa-with-the-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

They literally openly say they just don't say they are schismatic to be nice
pastebin.com/Ns2RgcQN
this also covers some interesting stuff

The dispute is in ignoring the sin of schism and focusing on the canonical state. The first document I linked says there is literally no doubt that the acts of the priests/clergy constitute sinful/formal adherence to that schism.

The problem is because it's a priestly society rather then a Church or something it's hypothetically possible to be a parishioner and not buy into sspx, so they don't say sspx are in schism because they don't want all those people to feel alienated (dumb reason but that's what they say).
Anyone who meets these two conditions

a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),

b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).

Is a schismatic and outside the Church, to be an ideal SSPX is to be in schism.

Ignore crappy youtube videos by priests openly doing mass after they had their faculties removed

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Then why does Francis put statues of heretics like Martin Luther in the Vatican, and why does he pray with Muslims, Jews, etc? Why do NOrmies only start talking about "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" when it comes to the SSPX and Sedes?

Here we go again…

Attached: papacy.jpg (720x1152, 91.13K)

I always talk about it, and it doesn't matter what statues you put up lol that doesn't change the teaching of the Church.
All priesthoods are through participation in the Papacy, all sacramental power flows down from the Pope. Even if he is a bad driver he is the driver of the ark of salvation and we trust Christ will protect us from anything too bad.

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim, each for himself, separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedrs would already be a schismatic and a sinner.
-St. Optatus

Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Matthew 16:18 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. Exodus 12:22 This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.
-St. Jerome

If you want a good traditional view of eccleisology I highly rec this book (especially as sedes are totally illiterate in ecclesiology past youtube cults)
archive.org/details/thechurchofthepa00pracuoft/page/n11

Did you not see where I said Rome had a position of honor?

The church is not run by bishops but by Christ, anything else is a vulgar misrepresentation.

Yes, I couldn’t remember the name of that. Unum Sanctam, which is directly contradicted in Vatican II where separation of church and state is accepted.

Unum Sanctam Papacy: the pope has temporal authority over all princes and kings.

Vatican II Papacy: we were just kidding guys, time to update the church to be in line with state secularism.

Mathew 16:18 is not referring to today’s fallen Vatican, full of sin and scandal and worldliness. That is not the successor of Peter. You cannot have a de facto apostate who prays with heretics sitting in the chair of St. Peter and call that the rightful successor of Peter.

read a book lmao

Don't be a Pharisee, bud. Prayer has more power than you think.

Attached: download (1).jpg (206x245, 4.43K)

Why not? Didn't Christ himself hang out with the dregs of society to show them the light of God?
Why shouldn't the Pope be following in example with Christ?

When you pray with a Muslim or Jew or say that Allah or whatever the Jews worship is actually the true God as Chaos Frank has done, you are an apostate de facto, by the papacy's own standards.

So according to the current pope if I follow what previous popes said, I am a Sedevecantist and in schism. Guess I can't be a Roman Catholic anymore.

It’s nothing to do with being with sinners. He could greet the worst sinners and that would be fine. It’s about the act of communing with an idolater religion. It’s denying Christ. We can pray for heretics, but to pray with them is unacceptable because that means we commune with them, that means we are of one faith with them.

Allah is not God. Allah is an idol.

If I pray to Christ while a Muslim is praying next to me praying to some Idol that makes me a heretic because of promxity?
Are you pants on head retarded?

Do you go inside a Satanist temple and pray there?

I don't know, is there a passage in the bible that clearly states against praying anywhere outside of the home or Church to Our and Savior Jesus Christ?

When Chaos Frank prays with Jews and Muslims and when he throws the faithful to the dogs, truly the Roman church has become wicked indeed.

You aren't really making a strong case there…

Look into Cantate Domino. Peace with you.

...

To be precise, Allah was a moon god at the time of Mohammed. There is a case to be made in terms of Allah being a demonic entity

Citation needed

How about when he stabbed the Chinese bishops laypeople who stayed faithful to Rome in the back and threw his support behind the Communist Party bishops?

Pope never condemed the underground catholic church, he merely is giving respect to China's ruling party, as St. Peter tells people to do.

Besides, would you rather the communists completely ban and persecute Christianity, killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in the process? Thus preventing anyone from practicing Christianity in China for decades to come? What a great galaxy brained idea you got there. Surely nothing could go wrong.

Attached: 1-Peter-217-Fear-God.jpg (266x400, 24.47K)

Attached: D99DEADB-73D0-4092-9E7A-CD7628B12107.jpeg (141x2048, 24.63K)

Allah is a word which means god in Arabic. Arab Christians will use the word in referring to God. Mohammed wanted to usurp all authority for himself, denied the divinity of Christ, and was basically the biggest heretic in history. The moon deity thing seems to be a conspiracy theory, the etymology of the word coming from some corrupted contraction of "al" -the and "el", which is cognate with the Hebrew.

Man, if you can even find a way to rationalize Bergoglio’s betrayal of Chinese Catholics, there is no hope for you. Your beloved Jorge could shove a crucifix up his ass and you would say he was just trying to invite Christ to dwell inside of him.

Nope. It's a name. Zeus isn't a greek allah, Ganesh isn't a Hindu allah, it's not arabic for god, it's a name.

Technically, in the christian arabic bible, Allah is God the Father.

Weird the topic doesn't come up more, but more research needs to be done on conclavism, it seems like sedevacantism's future. There were a few elections that had little support, however if the sedevacantists believe they have no pope, where else will they get a pope? There will have to be an election and they'll have to come to acceptance together on some pope. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclavism

You dont need to fit yourself in some label as "sedevacantist". You need to be catholic and only that. And you can perfectly be catholic while claiming that the man posing as Pope is not a real Pope, if that is the case.

What makes the SSPV and CMRI appealing is the fact that they offer (obviously, without a real hierarchy or Pope) the pre-1960s Catholic faith, the way the Catholic faith was before the Modernist/Boomer invasion, before wolves in sheep's clothing, like Paul VI (sorry…), were able to erode it. As someone in my early 20s, I really can't imagine how grand it must have been when _every_ Mass was Tridentine, and the laity actually knew the eternal truths of the Faith. Sometimes I find myself agreeing with "radtrads" - they've (almost) created a new religion since VII.

Without the Pope, you are a Prot.

So every time a pope dies (or retires) every Catholic becomes a prot until the next pope gets chosen? The seat is empty every time, sometimes for months, and there have been dozens of anti-popes.
Sedevacantists are Catholic, they recognise the office, it's just currently empty.

Except it's not currently empty. Pope Francis is the pope. If you are protesting his papacy you are, by definition, a protestant.

protism is defined by rejection of authority, not the Pope in particular, you don't call Orthodox bros prots

Sounds like you're having some problems with the church. Why don't you write them a complaint? Or even better, how about 95 complaints. And you should nail it to a door for everyone to see.

Don't blame us for your mess, Latins. The Reformation was out of Catholic Germany.

I hate to say it, but it is the truth.

And communism spread from "Orthodox" Russia and continues to destory the world to this day.

It's not. It's false. Sedevacantism rests ultimately on lay interpretations and picking and choosing certain criteria for heresy from canon law. Vid related goes into more detail.

Considering the scope of destruction, murder and persecution the churches in the East suffered under Communism, I would ask you to reconsider. This isn't a threat, but reading your post made my genuinely angry due to how the Orthodox suffered, particularly in the gulags—go read about how the Eucharist was desecrated by the Communists. You can't blame Christians for such things.

This.
And we are talking about both catholic and orthodox churches.

Communism was developed in Germany, and implemented by Jews. You're just grasping at straws.

It may have been born in Germany, but it found it's home in Russia. Where it spread throughout the rest of the world thanks to the Russian people. Deny reality all you want, it won't change anything.

...

Almost all of the chief revolutionaries in 1918 were atheist Jews either in full or part. But even were we to ignore this, to blame the entire Russian race for the horrors of Marxism is as absurd as blaming all Germans for the atrocities committed under the Third Reich. It is completely illogical.

It's also ignoring the fact that the Russians were embroiled in a brutal civil war before the communists got full control of Russia. Almost as if many Russians didn't want anything to do with communism.

Take the papist blinders off. Latins just love to invent wherever you go.

Attached: ton-103118_thumb2.jpg (596x800, 157.28K)

Cope

Says the guy embarrassing himself. Where do you think the Chinese got communism from?
Spoiler alert from Russia

Hilarious
catholicworldreport.com/2018/10/13/three-common-myths-about-archbishop-oscar-romero/

The JEWS, idiot.

Not Orthodox Christians as you are claiming. Orthodox Christians in the USSR were sent to the gulags.

Romero literally told government soldiers to disobey orders and stop fighting the communists. Why didn't he tell the communists that? Because he was on their side.

So all of Russia is jews now? Got it.
Not all of them. But I guess pic related doesn't count because he is also a jew, no?

Attached: pic_863b26d7797db8afb1cdf881f132384b.jpg (420x280, 53.93K)

Source? Because I don't believe you.

What was made dogma what had been anathematized by previous popes?

I didn't blame all Jews, only those Jewish intellectuals who spread and propagated Marxism in Russia. Trying to tie "Russia" to "Communism" is the same as trying to tie "Germany" to "National Socialism" or "Italy" to "Fascism." It's a ludicrous conflation because you've totally decontextualised the actual history and events.

This is just an old CIA canard used to fool gullible Catholics into supporting Americanism. Romero was supporting leftist revolutionaries sponsored by Cuba and the USSR. While Russian Orthodox were being persecuted for their faith in the USSR, this scumbag was trying to create another communist nightmare in El Salvador.
And now Rome puts it’s official stamp on communism. I pray for you Novus Ordo, I seriously do.
The real Orthodox Church was underground and any Russian Orthodox people alive before the 1980s will tell you that.

I’m going to give you the source, and you’re going to say that it’s muh right wing propaganda or it’s not going to be in English so you’re just going to disappear because you can’t read it. Anything in English written about this subject is unreliable.

Whatever St. Romero's personal sins were—which include his political errors—he died a martyr before the table of Our Lord. The same can be said for many Orthodox brethren who died after aiding the Communists one way or another.

Orthodox Christians did not back leftist revolutionaries. I say this as objective fact. The revolution originated from the Masonic city of Petersburg, not from peasants in the countryside which were Orthodox supporters of the Tsar.

To be a martyr implies you die for your faith, which Romero did not. He was murdered because he entangled himself in politics in support of communism. Murder is wrong but getting murdered does not make you a martyr or a saint. Maybe he was a martyr for communism, but not for Christianity.

Stalin set up a puppet church which was pretty much empty. The underground church had millions of followers by comparison.

There certainly were people who aided the Communists at one point but were betrayed. Such people, naive as they were, can't all be labelled damned traitors.

To put this to rest: Romero has been declared, as per the usual requirements, saint. I am bound as a Catholic to believe the teaching of the Magesterium, guided as it is by God Himself. As a matter of Faith you cannot convince me otherwise.

To clarify my previous statement, there may have been a few Orthodox people (who didn’t take their Orthodoxy seriously clearly) who supported the Revolution. Russia is a big country. But 99.99999 percent of Orthodox people did not. The Bolsheviks were explicitly militant atheist. It’s like saying Roman Catholics created Freemasonry because France historically was a Roman Catholic country (when most French Catholics who took their Roman Catholicism seriously were for the ancien regime, not the revolutionaries).

Every single time I have an argument against Latins you just fall back on muh magisterium. Well that’s a circular argument. How do you know it’s the real magisterium? There have been pretender popes, anti-popes. There is no evidence Romero was killed for his faith. That means there’s no standard for calling him a martyr except the magic institution said so. That means there’s no grounds for sainthood except the magic institution said so. So the magic institution could make any Catholic a saint now even the and there’s no grounds for disagreement.

I seriously pray for you Novus Ordo, friend.

*even the worst murderer

Pretty sad.

Attached: RLOSR.jpg (410x513, 35.1K)

There is no way to know how many people the military killed since just because someone is called a civilian by Western media, that doesn’t mean they weren’t an combatant. Just because it was a woman or adolescent doesn’t mean he or she wasn’t a combatant. The Vietcong did the same thing where they’d use fighters without uniforms. This is against the Geneva convention and any group who refuses to use uniforms cannot then complain when civilians get hurt. In fact it’s their fault then primarily.
The communists would also use the same trick Bolsheviks did by dressing up as government soldiers and committing atrocities.
Also what do you mean by the vague nebulous category “the people”. “The people” did not support communism and many people supported the junta.
You still haven’t answered this: how was he killed for his faith? Killing is always sad but it’s not martyrdom if it’s not for faith. When you speak out on the side of communist terrorists, that’s political.

The sources are not in English otherwise I would give you one. If you expect Western boomer academia to consider the other side fairly you are mistaken.

I already told you, he was literally murdered while he was officating mass. He got plenty of death threats before. Instead of cowering in fear and asking to be transferred somewhere else. He stayed anyway. If that isn't a witness for his faith I don't know what is.

Christ didn't encourage the harlots to continue their whoring, he didn't permit the merchants to indulge in their exploitation, and he did not say to the Pharisees "your point of view is just as valid as mine".

sedevacantism is self-refuting catholicism, do not trick yourself

And neither did the Church. Read actual vatican documents and not memes, friend.

I condemn his murder but that does not make him a martyr for Christian. Maybe communism. It doesn’t even matter as you have a pope that lights the menorah with the Jews.

Oh Em Gee, a pope hanging out with jews? Thats terrible! Thats just as bad as Jesus hanging out with harlots and tax collectors, fellow Pharisee!

Get over yourself. St. Oscar Romero is a martyr of the faith wether you like it or not. Once agian, you have no proof he is and ever was a communist. Just because someone wants to help the poor (like Jesus taught us) doesn't make him a communist.

Attached: jesus_eats_with_publicans_and_sinners_bida.jpg (525x388, 214.47K)

A heretic is by that fact alone outside the Church and incapable of holding office within the Church. This is taught by numerous theologians, and formally defined by Pope Pius IV in his apostolic constitution C um Ex Apostolatus Officio. This document not only covers the fundamental ineligibility of heretics from holding office, but is also explicit that no declaration is necessary for the loss of office, and dismisses as irrelevant the unanimous agreement of cardinals.

One common objection used to defend Vatican II is by saying it must be interpreted "in light of Tradition"; without admitting this is practical (it involves some serious mental contortion), this kind of private re-interpretation is contrary to fundamental Catholic principles, which require us to understand documents in the interpretation given by their author(s) - or in this case, by the men purporting to promulgate them. This authoritative interpretation of the post-V2 hierarchy is often dismissed by supporters as being merely "the spirit of Vatican II", while they supplant their own reinterpretation. Additionally, note that the [legit/pre-V2] popes have long condemned the Modernists (the group which took over Vatican City during and following Pope Pius XII's reign) for their intentional use of ambiguous language like this - it isn't something new. (On that note, I highly recommend reading the Church's formal condemnations of Modernism too, especially Pope Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis.)

St. Vincent Ferrer wasn't a "Protestant". Protestants believe there is no such thing as a papacy. EO also believe that the Pope isn't supreme. Sedevacantists believe in the papacy (therefore not Protestants) and believe the Pope is supreme. They merely believe that Pope Francis is an anti-pope (of which there have been many in the past).

documentcloud.org/documents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html
Note they accuse him of heresy but think he still holds office, even while they think heresy disqualifies him and that bishops should take action to remove him. Sedevacantism is about harsh reality, not fence sitting.

The thing is, every time there was an anti-pope, there was always a legitimate pope they were in opposition of.

So if Francis is an anti-pope, who is the "legitimate" pope? Wait, whats that? There is no "legitimate" pope? So than, I guess the guy that was elected by the Cardianls and the Holy Spirit is the legitimate pope and you are merely protesting him because you don't agree with him politically.

You mean the guy that supported an anti-pope for 5 years and than came back to the church after realizing his mistake? He didn't die a prot, and thank God he didn't.

Attached: 220px-Ferrer.jpg (220x275, 21.63K)

When Jesus hung out with those people it was to preach the gospel to them. Is Bergoglio preaching the gospel to the Jews? Stop being a lying, disingenous sack of shit.

It's not. The Pope not doing what you think he ought or doing what you think he ought not is no valid reason to dispute his authority. The fleas come with the Papal dog. Sedes need to rethink Ultramontanism and kiss Constantinople's ring or suck it up and soldier on whenever Borgoglio eventually performs a gay "marriage".

I can't wait to see your reaction when Constantinople comes home to Rome to make Christianity great again.

Pope Michael

Attached: pope-michael.jpg (300x400, 17.67K)

Huh that's odd. Last I checked the Catholic lay people elected me, Pope Benedict Sylvester, as the rightful Pope.
Who is this Pretender?

Attached: 51Mr0f62 XL._UX385_.jpg (385x385, 8.84K)

Oh fugg, now I'm having flashbacks to my /eris/ days where every man a Pope, but no one wears a big hat.

Attached: 61933-004-86825529.jpg (215x300, 5.61K)

Attached: 5B9D00C3-C21D-4848-8E0A-665F1940B6D4.png (666x328, 23.56K)

That just reeks of Roman centric thinking in itself. You're projecting. Constantinople isn't even important except to the most needlessly nostalgic Orthodox. We're not singled minded or see Constantinople as some beacon everyone must follow.

I'll point out what I've said in the Orthodox thread about this:

Erdogan has built 9000 mosques within the last 10 years alone.

hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-builds-nearly-9000-mosques-in-10-years--103950

Not one church is built, existing ones in disrepair, and no one is allowed to even preach the gospel in the city. Meanwhile, Patriarch Bartholomew has written multiple books on Global Warming. Talk about a man with priorities.

I wish I was making up what a comedy this whole affair is. Does this sound the like the leader of a church to you? They could join Rome right now and I don't think many would follow.

Peter III is who you're thinking of. I want Palmarian aesthetics in the Vatican

Attached: Palmarian4.png (1920x1080 3.25 MB, 4.01M)

...

Just saw this. Can any Sedes give their thoughts?