Sede or Non Sede

[Antonius]

This post is not meant to antagonise anyone. It is genuinely posted out of ignorance on my part, and wanting to learn, and understand the Sede position.
 I am trying to clarify, for my own understanding. If the Sede position starts, with the end of a specific Pope. Also, I am aware of the rejection of V2, with whole, or at least, part of.
 As I mentioned at the beginning of the post. I am not trying to antagonise anyone. It is posted for me to understand the position more clearly. So my intention is not to argue the point, just to learn and understand.

[Melkite]

This post is not meant to antagonise anyone. It is genuinely posted out of ignorance on my part, and wanting to learn, and understand the Sede position.
 I am trying to clarify, for my own understanding. If the Sede position starts, with the end of a specific Pope. Also, I am aware of the rejection of V2, with whole, or at least, part of.
 As I mentioned at the beginning of the post. I am not trying to antagonise anyone. It is posted for me to understand the position more clearly. So my intention is not to argue the point, just to learn and understand.

I'm a non.  I don't fully understand the position either.  My main reason for not accepting a sede position is that an indefinite sede vacanate will ultimately negate the necessity of Roman supremacy.  That then begs the question, "At what point in duration does a sede vacante invalidate the premise of supremacy?"  But I think even having to ask the question shows the absurdity of the SV premise.  Either it is necessary for there to be a Roman pontiff, with whom one must be in union in order to be part of the Church, and thus a true pontiff exists now, and always will.  Or, it is not necessary, and if the sede can be vacant for an indeterminate amount of time, then the supremacy was never necessary to begin with.

[Stubborn]

You should find the video below to be very educational. It starts out a little hard on the ears. It is an interview given by non-sede Michael Dimond (now sede) to non-sede Fr. Wathen. Enjoy!

[Antonius]

I am a non like Melkite. Although I do have concerns with the present 'Pontiff' with regards to his negative words and actions towards the TLM and Traditions of the Church. The video from Stubborn all adds to my learning and understanding.

[KreKre]

I've concluded that I am not qualified to judge that, and decided not to worry about it. As I've said in another post, it is extremely unlikely that a lowly layman like me will ever be in a position where I will have to directly disobey the pope.

My priest, whom I fully trust, is of the SSPX, and the SSPX is, of course, sedeplenist. So this is the position I take, trying my best to follow my shepherd. But I would lie if I said I wasn't sympathetic to the sedevacantist position, as well. While I refuse to say with certainty that Bergoglio is not the pope, I will not condemn those who think so. There are good arguments for both positions, as well as logical problems with both. So I see both options as possible. For me, this is an academic question, not one that has practical consequences on how I live my life. And there are other questions (theoretical and practical) that I find far more interesting and worthy of my time.

What I am a bit more concerned is when I see, otherwise faithful, traditionalist Catholics speak crudely about people, including the man whom most people today recognize as the pope. Such behavior is unbecoming of Catholics. We must be paragons of civility, politeness, and good manners. We must avoid all mockery and degradation of anyone, even those who deserve it, just like we must avoid gossip and detraction (and, God forbid, calumny). Now, I understand with full compassion when someone uses harsh and disparaging language towards the hierarchy of the conciliar Church. They certainly give any faithful Catholic plenty of things to disapprove of. A lot of it is downright scandalous, I don't need to tell you that. Sometimes, I also catch myself thinking or saying awful things about Bergoglio or about some bishop. But we must recognize that this is a sin, and a very ugly character trait, so when we find ourselves doing it, we should correct our behavior. Being resentful and rude distances us from God and makes us susceptible to demonic influence.

We should pray for them, not curse them. And we should look after our souls and of our neighbors, keep the faith alive, and love God.

[Bonaventure]

Better question is Catholic or non Catholic.

The status of Bergoglio el Peronista does not matter as much.

Live your Catholic life.

Deny yourself, pick up your cross, follow Him.

Find your spiritual, sacramental foxhole. Fulfill your duties of state.

[Melkite]

I've concluded that I am not qualified to judge that, and decided not to worry about it. As I've said in another post, it is extremely unlikely that a lowly layman like me will ever be in a position where I will have to directly disobey the pope.

My priest, whom I fully trust, is of the SSPX, and the SSPX is, of course, sedeplenist. So this is the position I take, trying my best to follow my shepherd. But I would lie if I said I wasn't sympathetic to the sedevacantist position, as well. While I refuse to say with certainty that Bergoglio is not the pope, I will not condemn those who think so. There are good arguments for both positions, as well as logical problems with both. So I see both options as possible. For me, this is an academic question, not one that has practical consequences on how I live my life. And there are other questions (theoretical and practical) that I find far more interesting and worthy of my time.

What I am a bit more concerned is when I see, otherwise faithful, traditionalist Catholics speak crudely about people, including the man whom most people today recognize as the pope. Such behavior is unbecoming of Catholics. We must be paragons of civility, politeness, and good manners. We must avoid all mockery and degradation of anyone, even those who deserve it, just like we must avoid gossip and detraction (and, God forbid, calumny). Now, I understand with full compassion when someone uses harsh and disparaging language towards the hierarchy of the conciliar Church. They certainly give any faithful Catholic plenty of things to disapprove of. A lot of it is downright scandalous, I don't need to tell you that. Sometimes, I also catch myself thinking or saying awful things about Bergoglio or about some bishop. But we must recognize that this is a sin, and a very ugly character trait, so when we find ourselves doing it, we should correct our behavior. Being resentful and rude distances us from God and makes us susceptible to demonic influence.

We should pray for them, not curse them. And we should look after our souls and of our neighbors, keep the faith alive, and love God.

Well said!

[Antonius]

These responses have definitely given me plenty to think, for which I am grateful for. I very much appreciate all the responses, on what can be a difficult subject matter.

[Michael Wilson]

Sede vacantism (in a nutshell) begins with the premise that Vatican II and the post Council "Popes" have taught errors that are dangerous to the faith even heresies, and have enacted discipline that is harmful to souls and leads even to sin and perdition.
But the Church is the Immaculate bride of Christ, she is holy, because her doctrine is holy and leads to sanctification and salvation; also her disciplinary laws are holy and leads to sanctification and salvation.
So either the organization and men identifying themselves are the true Church of Christ or they are not; if they are, men are obliged to submit to their teaching and obey their commands under pain of damnation.
If they are not, then why not? If the apparent Popes and bishops subject to them are not what they seem to be, then Catholics are free to disregard what they teach and the commands that they give.
What is not acceptable under the traditional teaching of the Church is for Catholics to disregard the teachings of the Pope and the bishops in union with him and to disobey and even disregard their orders or reject their disciplinary laws, such as the New Mass etc.
What the R&R (recognize and resist) theory cannot justify is this continuing disobedience without themselves attacking and denying the tradition Ecclesiology of the Church.
 

[Michael Wilson]

On the subject of the prolonged vacancy of the Holy See; yes it is a serious problem, but it is a problem that can be solved at any time, by the election of a Catholic to the Apostolic See; what cannot ever be solved is for the Church of Christ to teach serious errors even heresies against the faith and to lead souls to sin and perdition.
The R&R's 'strain on a gnat (vacancy of the See), and swallow the proverbial camel (the "Church leading people to Hell)".

[Miriam_M]

Better question is Catholic or non Catholic.

The status of Bergoglio el Peronista does not matter as much.

Live your Catholic life.

Deny yourself, pick up your cross, follow Him.

Find your spiritual, sacramental foxhole. Fulfill your duties of state.

My position is sort of a cross between KreKre's and this post:

#1:  I have zero insight into another man's mind, heart, and soul.  I only know what a man says and what he does -- which, according to some trad priests -- is not evidence of heresy, since heresy is both the external and the internal -- persistence of will, along with everything else.  So it's a waste of my time to speculate. More importantly, perhaps, I am also not curious.  In fact, if PF has apostasized in his interior life, I kind of don't want to know about it because the thought is depressing as H.

#2:  As a layperson, I possess zero authority either to make a declaration about #1 or to "take action" about it.  That's another reason that it's a complete waste of time to speculate -- in my view.  It's not one of my duties of state -- let alone one of my privileges -- to make such decisions.  I will be judged on my own duties of state, not PF's duties of state (thankfully).

#3: I will admit animosity to this degree:  The idea of personally praying for PF I find distasteful and have never been able to bring myself to do it.  But that just may be a personality thing, as I genuinely dislike the man's personality and style of speaking, etc.  I cannot relate to most of what he says because so little of it seems to relate to the Catholicism I was taught to treasure. Usually, after PF is quoted somewhere, I ask myself, "What is he talking about?"

By the way, I also don't pray for Protestants, although I have a lot less animosity toward them. That may be because Protestants don't behave in a hostile manner toward me/ my faith.

I have a very different view when it comes to my responsibility to pray for others, Catholic or not, than KreKre and some others do.  When anyone has a position of great authority and privilege, yet acts ambivalent about his duties and his inferiors, I quickly lose sympathy for him and even good will toward him. Even lowly clerics are in a position to benefit from extra graces due to their state in life, let alone the Pope. All they need do is be receptive to that grace. I more readily pray for certain prison inmates -- and have -- than for PF. I'm pretty sure insincere prayer goes nowhere with God.

I can genuinely pray for people who seem just pathetically lost and without assistance or resources, but I would not put PF in such a category, as much is available to help him out even if he is "pathetically lost."  I think he has a responsibility to save his own soul. It's my opinion that others have fewer people to pray for them, and hence deserve my time more.

[james03]

I'm sede.

To confuse matters for you I've coined the term paleo-sede and neo-sede.  They are terms of convenience only.

Paleo:  No pope for some time, usually starting around Vee Poo.

Neo:  Bergoglio is an anti-Pope.

I'm a sede because Bergoglio has been rebuked countless times for heresy and has not recanted.  I don't judge him.  Instead I have to decide if the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, and theologians who rebuked him are correct or in error.  From what they have accused Bergoglio of, and his lack of recanting, I've decided they are correct.

[Melkite]

I'm sede.

To confuse matters for you I've coined the term paleo-sede and neo-sede.  They are terms of convenience only.

Paleo:  No pope for some time, usually starting around Vee Poo.

Neo:  Bergoglio is an anti-Pope.

I'm a sede because Bergoglio has been rebuked countless times for heresy and has not recanted.  I don't judge him.  Instead I have to decide if the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, and theologians who rebuked him are correct or in error.  From what they have accused Bergoglio of, and his lack of recanting, I've decided they are correct.

Would you consider yourself a neo-sede?

I think the way you describe it, the neo-sede position is much more tenable than the paleo position.

[Michael Wilson]

Here is some Q's and A's from the Catechism of St. Pius X, for the benefit of those that hold that the Church can teach error and lead people into sin and perdition:

17 Q. Why is the true Church called Holy?
A. The true church is called Holy because holy is her Invisible Head, Jesus Christ; holy are many of her members; holy are her faith, her laws, her Sacraments; and outside of her there is not and cannot be true holiness.

For those who hold that one can just "ignore the Pope" or not "pay any attention to what he says or does"

31 Q. Are we obliged to believe all the truths the Church teaches us?
A. Yes, we are obliged to believe all the truths the Church teaches us, and Jesus Christ declares that he who does not believe is already condemned.

32 Q. Are we also obliged to do all that the Church commands?
A. Yes, we are obliged to do all that the Church commands, for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of the Church: "He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me."
43 Q. Of whom is the Teaching Church composed?
A. The Teaching Church is composed of all the Bishops, with the Roman Pontiff at their head, be they dispersed throughout the world or assembled together in Council.
45 Q. Who, then, are they who possess the teaching power in the Church?
A. The teaching power in the Church is possessed by the Pope and the Bishops, and, dependent on them, by the other sacred ministers.

46 Q. Are we obliged to hear the Teaching Church?
A. Yes, without doubt we are obliged under pain of eternal damnation to hear the Teaching Church; for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of His Church, in the persons of the Apostles: "He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me."

47 Q. Besides her teaching power has the Church any other power?
A. Yes, besides her teaching power the Church has in particular the power of administering sacred things, of making laws and of exacting the observance of them.

So everyone here who thinks that they are free to ignore the "Popes" of Vatican II and to disregard their laws and commands is holding and acting against the very teaching of the Church that they claim to be a member of, and Church authorities that they claim to "recognize" and be subject to.
The above is why "R&R-ism" is not a tenable position for a Catholic to hold.

[Greg]

I support the Latin Masses with the shortest sermons and the best tea room.

I am currently making high quality coffees in Chislehurst and bringing chocolate eclairs and Cadburys celebrations every other week.

There's usually a birthday cake because there are so many kids, like hordes of them.  Like locusts around your feet.  I want to bring a bowling ball and knock them over.

I don't have a solid Latin name for this theological crevice I have carved out for myself.

Crustalamism is the best I can come up with. Since I have recently introduced the Pork Pie this fits for now, but my theological credibility will need to adjust to the culinary delights my budget can stretch to.   I also have used the more accomodating acronym R&D.

Recognise and digest.