Sedevacantists are protestant

Wew

This

If I follow Bergorlio's heresies I'm going against what other popes said. So you're protesting them.

Jesus would obviously want you to go to the church with the best aesthetics. That way he gets more glory.

Nothing in Vatican II changed anything from Vatican I. You continue to believe prot lies. That makes you the prot. Besides Pope Francis is not a heretic. He has not be found guilty of heresy. Maybe the next Pope can charge him if heresy, until than, you declaring this makes you the prot.
REPENT

Yes, all of them. Progress of doctrine is heresy. The Faith of the Apostles was complete.
Anything that isn't the obvious interpretation of what the Apostles said can't be dogma.

That almost sounds Protestant

Also what sets apart the pre-schism counsels from the post schism counsels? all* of us (Orthodox, Roman, and (most) Protestant) adhere to the the Nicene creed.

Although there is a sense of progress, I thought most ecumenical counsels were in reaction to various heretical movements, such as the Cathars (who again would be listed as heretics by all* Orthodox and Catholic, as well as most Protestants)

*I should note that I have met Catholics who do not fit this.

Why do Seda. refuse to just out themselves as protestants at this point? They aren't Catholics, they don't believe that the current Pope is in power, yet they call themselves Catholics?

Pope Francis literally put a statue of Martin Luther in the Vatican.

Oh no I guess I gotta become a KJV-onlyist Baptist because the Pope did something I didn't like.

Why do Francis followers refuse to just out themselves as Protestants at this point? They aren't Catholics, they are literally building statues of Protestant heroes, and yet they call themselves Catholics?

Except the actions of one Pope doesn't discredit all of Catholicism. We have had worse Pope before and we still survived. Repent, Prot! For protesting God's church will profit you nothing.

Can you tell me what your definition of "Protestant" is?

One Pope doesn't ruin the whole Church you Protestant.

To protest against.

It's in the name bud. Protest the church Jesus made for us makes you a protestant. FFS, even Jesus told Israel back then to listen to the Pharisees. Do as they say, not as they do. (Matthew 23:3)

Sedevacantists don't claim to protest the Catholic Church, so I guess they are not Protestants by your definition.

Similarly, protesting one Pope doesn't make you a Protestant.

Yeah was St. Vincent Ferrer a Protestant? Why do many Catholics love Eastern Orthodox, when majority of them deny far more dogma than sedevacantists, who actually haven't denied any dogma, since V2 did not proclaim any dogma. I'm not saying the sedevacantist position is right, but the absolute uncharity shown to them is actually concerning and sort of attractive, you really wonder why out of everyone they have the least amount of charity shown to them. We even have Pope Benedict 16 saying that Protestants are heretics, but Sedevacantists are worse than Satanists to most Catholics. I think it's because they actually do pose some challenging questions and most Catholics have no idea how to even answer them so they just feel more safe throwing insults than trying to find the answers to their questions. For the record I am not a sedevacantist, but I do not think they pose idiotic or trivial questions. And I do believe the vast majority of Catholics, including online Catholics who just deride them, really don't know how to tackle these questions.

Actually even Dr. Taylor Marshall said in one of his latest videos that he "understands" the sedevacantist position. He said before he didn't get it, but after seeing everything that has been going on, he says, he won't be on their case, like he realizes, okay that's a position.

Basically there are some massive issues and it's hard to reconcile everything in a very clean and easy package.

*We even have Pope Benedict 16 saying that Protestants are *not* heretics

You hit the nail on the head. It's just very weird how Catholics mindlessly hate and insult sedevacantists more than any other group.

Different times, there aren't any anti-popes.

Because they're off-brand Catholics who LARP and pretend to be in good faith but instead try to split the Church up even more.

You see, there you go again, just reflexively hurling insults. I have never seen any Catholic bring even a tenth of the vitriol against Islam or Judaism, even though they are leading millions more people to hell than any sedevacantist group. Just very, very weird.

theantivacante.wordpress.com/
Yet to see a Sede take apart his arguments.

You don't care about the Church. All you care about is Europe and Rome.

Um… the sede position is literally that Pope Francis is an Anti-Pope. Yikes, this is some really bad argumentation going on.

His first post regarding baptism is hilariously bad. Actually vaticancatholic has addressed all those points and he hasn't countered any of those points. Not just that but stuff on cathinfo etc.

At least he hasn't refuted any points they make regarding it. He also contradicts St. Thomas Aquinas saying that you don't have to believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation to be saved. St. Alphonsus also stated that All Jews and Mohammedans are lost, all of them. They have to convert someway to be saved. The most lenient traditional position was that God would send them a missionary or an Angel for someone who was invincibly ignorant. Even as late as the 1800s it was the position that God would not allow for his elect to perish without the ability to hold what was necessary for salvation.

This antisede guy already said that you can be a Muslim and die a Muslim not believing in the Trinity or the incarnation and be saved. This guy is trash honestly. Also his interpretation about "or desire" from Trent is so stupid because he misses it clearly is to interpret (unless they are reborn of water AND the holy spirit). And in Latin it is far more clear. "I cannot play without bat nor ball".

There is no such thing as water baptism without desire, it's not an this or that. All these arguments have been put forward many times, (for decades) and he addresses none of them. I'd have more respect for him if he addressed these at least and came up with some sort of refutation, yet he doesn't.

Furthermore, Church Militant has publicly come out prominently and supported the St. Benedict's Center. Michael Voris is definitely well known in the Catholic community. Unless you consider Michael Voris to be a heretic too now, since he has openly stated that the St. Benedict Center is not preaching heresy at all. And Church Militant has a pretty big following and they all support him.

Anyways apart from that, this blog is very sloppy to anyone who has even the most basic of understanding of sede arguments. I mean he doesn't even address most of their points. I honestly am not a sede because I just find the position a bit too scary for me, like having to deny what, all confession, all mass etc? But they have some good arguments, I am not convinced they are right, but these people don't even address their arguments or give the stupidest of answers.

These blogs only serve to reassure insecure Catholics who are like "BOO yeah dumb sedes.. It's like SOOO obvious you guys are just wrooong".

At least that's my take on it, I really mean no ill will, sorry if I'm coming across a bit harsh here. That's just the impression I get. You have to have some sympathy for sedevacantists, who are they to even ask about answering these questions. I've asked quite a few priests about some basic questions and they have literally no idea. They don't even know what Trent defined or not. So where is someone to go, with so many difficult questions posed today? You can only go to the internet.

It's uncharitable, in my opinion, to brush off the sedevacantist questions as idiotic or pointless etc. I think that drives more people towards the position personally anyways.

Then where is there Pope then?

You said that there is no anti-pope, but that's what sedevacantists literally claim, that there is an anti pope.

So we have already established there can be anti popes. What is the time limit that seat can be vacant? It happens everytime a true pope dies. What is the exact time limit. Well there is no answer, because nobody really knows. The perpetuity claim from Vatican I clearly means that the seat of peter was passed on, and not ended with him, as some people say (Protestants say this too sometimes that only the apostles could forgive sins but they couldn't pass it on). Clearly it doesn't mean that there will always be a Pope at every moment, because when the Pope dies there is no Pope. That would make that statement a lie then. Again what is the time limit? And can you prove this time limit from magisterial teaching? That's the question.

To claim that someone is an Anti-Pope doesn't make you a Protestant, since St. Vincent Ferrer would be a Protestant. To claim that the seat is empty doesn't make you a Protestant, since all Catholics acknowledge the seat is empty when a Pope dies. Just saying you reject a person who claims to be Pope does't make you a Protestant, and let's be real, that is just a slur. Why don't people keep calling Eastern Orthodoxes as Prots? You should keep calling them Prots. They deny far more than Sedevacantists. Majority of EOs on this board deny original sin, the immaculate conception, Papal Infallibility, the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, Purgatory (Nestle Toll House) and so on. They even deny that one mortal sin sends you Hell and have some weird, if you're more or less in a direction of towards God you are okay or something weird like that. These positions all make you a heretic in the Catholic faith. If sedes are prots then EOs are super prots. They are like baptists compared to sedes. Yet I never here people try to refer to EOs like that. Why?

Again I believe that the arguments are hard for the average Catholic to answer and so they just resort to cheap insults. I'm not even saying the sedes are right. But researching their arguments have actually made me a lot more knowledgable in the faith. It's sort of the equivalent of Mohammedans going elelellel 3 gods and never even bothering to try and understand anything. They're severely hampered from being raised and accepting a satanic religion, but I would expect better from Catholics who have a true religion.

However this is not saying that sedevacantists are charitable either, they are a bunch of kooky people in general and get very uncharitable too.

Take something simple - an earlier pope says the death penalty is OK. The latest pope says it's not OK. They can't both be right. You either have to engage in doublethink and agree with both contradictory statements, or you can say one of them isn't a pope. If you agree with the latest claimant you're denying the earlier popes. How is that not protestant by your standards?
Sedes recognise the earlier popes and say the chair is currently empty. If you recognise Bergoglio's heresies you're denying centuries of other popes and councils - does that make you a protestant?

The death penalty question is tricky because he propagated that through the ordinary magisterium, and has repeatedly said that it is nothing to do with technology, but that there is a new understanding of morality, that it is always immoral now. Nothing to do with technology. Similiarly VII teaches:

"Buddhism teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination"

Buddhism is a false religion and does not teach a way by which people can reach supreme illumination. People will say "oh it's trying to say that it merely claims that it teaches this, but the way does not actually do this". But that's not what the text says. It says that it teaches a way men may be able to achieve supreme illumination. The way which Buddhism teaches does not let you do this.

Can I just insert it "claims"? Oh well then I can insert that everywhere else and solve a lot of problems. Who decides this? Some people say that Nostra Atatate definitely claims that Muslims worship the same God as catholics, but if I can just insert "claims" then we can say the same thing. Who determines what the interpretation is? This is another reason why I see a big issue, like we need an interpretation for the interpretation, for the interpretation, it's like an infinite series. Aren't we supposed to get clear infallible interpretations to settle it.

We have Popes who have openly blasphemed (John Paul II openly prayed for St. John Baptist to protect ISLAM, not Muslims, but ISLAM - in every language this prayer was written). The prayer is still up on the vatican website and there have been two other popes and this statement has never been condemned. (This statement is pure blasphemy). In addition, this prayer was made over a year after he kissed the Quran, after he experienced all that backlash. So who do we even listen to to find out the interpretation of these documents? Clearly we have Bishops who are preaching heresy, Popes who are openly blaspheming and so on. Cardinal Burke openly said Nostra Atatae was "non dogmatic" and said Mohammedans do not worship the same God as Catholics. He's never been condemned for this view. Does the church have the authority to even say what other religions believe? What constitutes to a Mohammedan to them? Are Ahmadiyya Muslims Muslims too? All Sunnis and Shias say they are non Muslims. Who decides what a Muslim?

I mean it seems pretty clear a lot of these statements are just pure garbage and stuff the church has never done before. We are left in utter confusion as to the interpretation of this. If nothing we all have to accept that this has caused utter confusion in the church. And we are receiving no clarification on the matter, the Popes refuse to clarify anything and insist on pushing more and more ambiguous statements. In reality, they are only ambiguous because we are trying to interpret them very charitably. Read regularly they are a lot worse. Religious liberty has been explicitly condemned and now it's a Human right? You have to do some pretty nice gymnastics to reconcile it, including adding loads of words and connotations clearly not in the documents. Is this really what is supposed to be done? The fruits of this new church is clear too, it has been nothing but evil really.

Personally I see the sedevacantist position as hard to accept, but it's not like the current position is easy to accept either. Who on earth is there to give us the actual answers to these questions (and there are soo many more). The church remains silent, the Priests don't have a clue to any of this at all. It's just people on the internet trying to figure things out.

These issues are complicated and require a lot of knowledge. It's a lot harder to refute in my opinion than Prot objections or EO objections, which is why I think people just resort to name calling instead of actually trying to address the arguments.

If I said that you could accuse the Pope of Heresy, people here would just laugh and say "lol dumb prot" or something of the like. But that just happened, with a very prominent theologian, probably one of the biggest English speakers, and then you have mainstream people like Dr. Taylor Marshall saying they overall quite like the letter etc.

We have very public and prominent people like Michael Voris and Church Militant, a group with lots of support from various Priests, publicly supporting the St. Benedicts Center. And so on - people on this board and online in general tend to make it seem like these issues are very simple and easy, just because Protestant objections are easy to refute, they also want these objections to be easy to refute. But they aren't