Sedevacantism

Attached: 3d6.jpg (500x500, 102.18K)

You know what, yeah, they are. It's a protest against what Christ and what Christ taught.

remember to pack lightly for the afterlife user, I hear it's gonna be toasty down there.

Do you deny that Peter is the foundation for which Christ church is built on yes or no.

oodegr.com/english/papismos/kleidia1.htm
oodegr.com/english/papismos/dogma/eksousia_petrou1.htm
oodegr.com/english/papismos/alathito1.htm
oodegr.com/english/papismos/dogma/petros_rwmi1.htm
golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm

Do you not realize how silly the Vatican I apostasy argument is?

Attached: ThouArtPeter.jpg (800x816, 157.89K)

Matthew 16:18
Now please tell me where any of the other apostle were mentioned?

what argument? I merely stated the decision of a historic event:
orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:articles&id=39:the-vatican-dogma

If you knew anything about the Orthodox, you'd know we consider you guys to have already gone off the deep end waay before that.

Congratulations, you've managed to reply to a post with multiple citations without even opening a single link. If only we could all be so pious.

Why should I bother reading what heretics think when I can show my argument in a clear and quick way?

Vatican I defined the scope of infallibility, and how to know when a declaration was infallible, but that doesn't mean it was engendered at that moment. There are many early quotes about the infallibility of the Roman See, about how the Roman See is the bulwark of the faith, etc. Many are by Eastern Saints. You willfully ignore the clear teaching of the Papacy by the Church Fathers and make it a dialectic between Papal supremacy, honor, and primacy. The fact is, all three mean the same thing.

oh sweetie.

then surely it would be no trouble at all to provide such conclusive early sources?

Please don't sweetie me.

Gets posted a lot here, but usually it's just met with "Erick Ybarra is a Catholic Jay Dyer"
erickybarra.org/2017/03/14/church-fathers-papal-infallibility/
erickybarra.org/2017/02/20/no-the-eastern-bishops-of-the-acacian-484-519-did-not-reject-the-papalism-of-the-formula-of-hormisdas/
erickybarra.org/2017/01/28/catholic-primacy-answering-some-objections-from-an-eastern-orthodox-researcher/
erickybarra.org/2017/01/29/answer-to-orthodox-objections-part-2/
erickybarra.org/2017/02/01/answers-to-eastern-orthodox-objections-part-2-code-of-justinian-petrine-primacy-conciliarism-papalism-and-pope-honorius-i/

Oh I'm sorry. Which of these would you rather go by?
markbeast.com/satan/names-of-satan.htm

None because I'm trying to tell you that the bible clearly states that Peter is the foundation.

Broken-record responses like these are part of the reason people like me leave the RCC in the first place. If you actually cared about spreading the gospel, you'd respond more like . At least that user is trying.

Anyways, y'all can go back to dealing with your internal schisms like what this thread is supposed to be about, while I go read the links that other user kindly provided.

this is such a spiritual relief, thank you Christanon

They don't deny the function of the Pope, they believe that function rests in a man who doesn't have the current position of "Pope" within the hierarchy of the Church. The position has been usurped by an anti-Pope. I think that it makes sense to some extent given the reforms of the Vatican II. A true Pope wouldn't allow such things to occur and many Popes in the past wrote against modernist heresies.

some things are simply not worth you're time trying to formally refute, it requires more effort to refute bullshit than to create it.

Where's the lie tho

Lie?

What do you do when the current "pope" denies the teachings of past popes?

Recognizing that someone is the pope doesn't mean that you have to agree with them. If pope Francis said that two and two make five Catholics are under no obligation to act as though that's true, but they are still obligated to obey him insofar as he is the pope.

Sedes don't even point to all his outrageous comments (that the Blessed Mother was angry with God the Father, his mockery of the TLM as an altarboy, that the miracle of feeding the multitude was just sharing, that John the Baptist doubted the Christ, there is no Catholic God, and so on), those are just furnishing. It's that he can't occupy an office if he doesn't have the faith. And he's a Novus Ordite through and through, his seminary life was post-Vatican II. He has *literally*never been traditionally catechized.

Pope Honorius was anathematized, that doesn't mean that he wasn't the pope.

The same thing Christians did in the past when there were antipopes. Submit to the office inasmuch as it doesn't conflict with your faith.

The pope is still the pope until such time as he preaches formal heresy. 2,019 years of unbroken succession, that has never happened. That level of consistency given how winnie the poohy humans are requires supernatural assistance.

Also, there is a line in the sand that has to be crossed. A pope can BE a heretic (one who believes heretical things) without TEACHING heresy.

We have had heretic popes in the past. They were still popes. Because they didn't cross that line.

There was a pope 33 years before the crucifixion?

How do we decide where the line is? How do we decide whether it has been crossed?

And the only reason he was made anathema is because he didn't seem sympathetic to discussing the Monophysite issue. He caved under pressure. That's not the same as what Bergoglio is doing.
fathercekada.com/2019/04/24/does-the-pope-honorius-affair-refute-sedevacantism/

Here is the Sede argument:
Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.
Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. In 1559 Pope Paul IV decreed that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid, and that the man elected would lack all authority.
Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.

Choose one and only one.

Attached: dd7e4c480da37e95779d89a0b079452e869354e20b8454fa27cd8274e15c0a7c.jpg (625x941, 79.05K)

Uh, Honorius? One at the very least.

I would say that the Pope having a non-dogmatic "pastoral council" run by modernist heretics and then telling you you're not allowed to celebrate the true mass anymore (set down as the true, unabrogatable mass of all time dogmatically by the Council of Trent, mind you) requires disobedience.

Anathematized, but not a heretic. He also never spoke ex cathedra.

But Latin Mass is still being celebrated by some Catholic Churches. Not no mention the Eastern Catholic Churches.

No, he was explicitly called a heretic in his anathematization. Monothelitism is, after all, a heresy. He was still the legitimate Pope and never broke the succession, of course.

Whoops, I must have read over that bit - you're right. I think the line in the sand is that he never spoke ex cathedra or tried to change central tenets of the church.

Eastern catholics celebrate Latin masses? doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being "eastern"?

Yes, but then we're confronted by the next problem - is more schism the answer? I just can't believe that - even if we need to somehow reinfiltrate the Church & force the damn clergy at metaphorical gunpoint to hold a Vatican 3.

What we really need I suspect is a modern scholar on the level of St. Aquinas or St. Augustine, who can restore the Tradition of the Church, but with full understanding of the current political & metaphysical landscape the same way they understood theirs.

Right now I think part of the issue is still the Church floundering with how to reconcile the modern world, with every competing religion known to humanity acting to pull people in a thousand directions (plus new ones like Transhumanism) acting as competition, as well as the obvious challenges from simple Atheism. They seem to be gradually pushing the quasi-pantheistic "Process Theology" & Universalism of people like De Chardin & Illia Delio- which is of course all tied into the quasi-New Age spirituality of Post Modernism.

I'd move in the opposite direction to that of course - it's just the old Gnostic heresies again after all. But it needs to be formulated correctly & really understand the "competition", as well as how to debunk it. So all we need (I think) is a Theological genius familiar with everything from Alfred North Whitehead to the Rig Veda, and able to reinvent the Catholic Dogma in light of all that plus the implications of modern science (without it being pop science tripe). No small task!

Sedes are materially in schism because they deny the Pope but still have the faith, like during the Western Schism.
Okay, so you'll force the modernist Bishops to hold a council? Do you not realize how absurd it is to think that's a solution? They'll just end up with something worse than before. Same absurdity that expects a Cardinal like Kasper to condemn Francis.

But I also must add that I don't agree with the Sede thesis, nor do I condone their constant attacking everyone but themselves as non-Catholic.

They're traditional in their Mass, if it's tradition you want.