Questions for Non-Sedevacantists

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

You are not born into Sedevacantism the same way you are born into Orthodoxy - to think so would be foolish. A person born and raised in a sede parish in Ohio, for example, has infinitely more chances to become acquainted with non-sede Catholicism than even a city dweller in Moscow.

Why would someone born into sedevacantism take the time to investigate something that they were taught was an antichurch?

If they had been catechized traditionally, they would have been taught not to expose oneself to false teachings.

Also your position is not logicial at all. If it is, please, state the logic.

The Orthodox do not deny "Vast swathes" of true doctrine...

Unam sanctam
Papal supremacy
The Immaculate Conception (but only because Rome defined it, not because they have a problem with it)
The indissolubility of marriage (marry three times, why not)
The intrinsic evil of contraception (never condemned - go ask your priest)
Most of the ecumenical councils

[Melkite]

It is not based in objective reality.  Sedes believe in the papacy and all Catholic doctrine.  They just believe that the papacy hasn't been occupied in 70 years.  Orthodox reject the papacy and a great number of doctrines.

Like I said, I wouldn't receive Holy Communion from a sede, but receiving from an Orthodox priest isn't justified by logic.  This idea is supported only by muh feels.

Sedes don't truly believe in the indefectibility of the Church, papal supremacy, or the necessity of being in communion with the pope in order to be part of the Church.  They may profess those beliefs with their mouths, but their actions betray a different truth.  Denying that the pope is really the pope is a convenient way of justifying disobedience to a pope one doesn't like and decrees one doesn't want to follow.  It's cafeteria Catholicism in a fiddleback.

I wouldn't receive from an Orthodox priest willy nilly.  I just mean that if I were on my deathbed, and, let's say, Christ revealed to me that I absolutely must confess and receive in order to be saved, and no Catholic priest in union with the pope were available, and my only options were a sede priest or an Orthodox priest, I'd go with the Orthodox priest and hope Christ will have mercy on me if I made the wrong choice.

[Melkite]

The Orthodox might have valid sacraments, but they deny vast swathes of true doctrine.

The sedes have valid sacraments and don't deny any doctrines.

Can one be saved without being in communion with the pope, even if they are 100% correct doctrinally?

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Sedes don't truly believe in the indefectibility of the Church, papal supremacy, or the necessity of being in communion with the pope in order to be part of the Church.

This is all just flat-out wrong.

Papal supremacy wouldn't enter into the equation if the see were vacant.

Indefectibility obviously doesn't mean what you think it means.  If there were an ecumenical council that had said, "The Holy See shall never be vacant for more than 193 weeks," then we would know that sedevacantism implies defection.  But no such statement exists.

And how would one be in communion with the Pope if there isn't one?

It's like you're not even trying to understand their point of view.

I wouldn't receive from an Orthodox priest willy nilly.  I just mean that if I were on my deathbed, and, let's say, Christ revealed to me that I absolutely must confess and receive in order to be saved, and no Catholic priest in union with the pope were available, and my only options were a sede priest or an Orthodox priest, I'd go with the Orthodox priest and hope Christ will have mercy on me if I made the wrong choice.

Objectively, the sacrament would be efficacious either way.  Subjectively, you probably wouldn't be culpable for your choice.  But you chose wrong.

Can one be saved without being in communion with the pope, even if they are 100% correct doctrinally?

Is everyone damned during an interregnum?

[Michael Wilson]

It is clear to me that sedes do not understand Church doctrine on infallibility, or, understanding it, they prefer to reject it.

In sede world, infallibility is not a negative charism with limits.  In sede world, infallibility is a supercharism that effectively guarantees that a human could never legitimately hold the office of Pope.

We understand it better than the R&R's who deny it altogether (see Max's post above).
No, we hold to the concept of "negative infallibility" of both the ordinary magisterium and of Church discipline; the latter of which would include the N.O.M. Rejected by almost all trads as being "harmful to the faith" (SSPX); and the former that the documents of Vatican II contain errors contrary to the faith and harmful to souls; both of which positions (given the fact that they recognize the Conciliar Popes as Popes, destroys the very concept of "negative infallibility". )

[Melkite]

But you're putting limits on what Christ might have intended and how we are to view a 65 year period without a Pope in view of the devastation caused by Vatican II and the Modernism that it embodies.

What sounds ridiculous to you might be wise in God's eyes. 

Christ has given us all we need to discern what's going through the warnings contained in  2Thess2.  65 years without a Pope should leave us in no doubt that we are witnessing the warnings by St Paul come true.

Bergoglio is the 6th pope of the Revolt.  Is it a coincidence that while Bergoglio blessed, in the Vatican, the demon goddess Pachamama who demanded child sacrifice, the child mutilating trans ideologues were coming out in force?

This is no mere interregnum.   

Where do you draw the line?  Can I say there has been no pope since 1054? How about since the death of St. Peter?  How long can the see remain vacant before one has to acknowledge that communion with Rome and the Pope must not actually be necessary for membership in the Church?

Modernism is somewhat subjective.  Could I use the examples of the Pope restricting reception of communion to one species, placing confirmation after first communion, separating the sacraments of initiation, etc., as modernism that excuses one from communion with the Pope?  These are all additions to Latin tradition that were novel at the time they were introduced, and their permanence entirely unnecessary.

God is sovereign, right?  And the establishment of the papacy is of divine institution?  And one must be in communion with the "true" pope in order to be saved?  Then the only thing one can surmise is that, if the see is vacant, then Christ has sovereignly decided to withhold the means of salvation from all of humanity since the last true pope.  He's effectively made salvation utterly impossible for 70 years now, and it is only because he has willed it to be so (as he could have prevented modernism, prevented an empty see, if he really wanted to).  I'd argue that makes one a Calvinist, not a Catholic.

[Michael Wilson]

Melkite,

Where do you draw the line?  Can I say there has been no pope since 1054? How about since the death of St. Peter?  How long can the see remain vacant before one has to acknowledge that communion with Rome and the Pope must not actually be necessary for membership in the Church?

To be "in communion" with the Pope, means that he is one's "proximate rule of faith" i.e. The standard by which one holds to the teachings of the Church and their correct interpretation. For example, Pope Francis just changed the teaching of the Church on the death penalty, holding it to be always immoral.
Whereas before up until recently, the Catholic Church held it to be in itself to be moral. For a Catholic that truly held Francis to be their P.R.O.F. One would embrace Pope Francis's teaching; because the Holy Ghost would be protecting him from teaching error that was dangerous to faith or morals i.e. "Negative Infallibility". But for a Catholic to accept the present teaching of the Pope is to reject the past teaching of the previous Popes; he would be placed in an impossible situation.  The same could be said for the Conciliar teachings. Catholics who still hold to their faith rightly reject these novelties as contrary to the faith and morals. The problem is, how to justify this rejection without denying Catholic teaching?
That is where the theory of sedism arrises. It is not an "excuse" or a "cop-out" we seds truly hold that it is the only explanation that both allows one to adhere to the traditional teaching of the Church on the Papacy and ecclesiology, and at the same time reject the Council and the Conciliar Popes. 

Modernism is somewhat subjective.  Could I use the examples of the Pope restricting reception of communion to one species, placing confirmation after first communion, separating the sacraments of initiation, etc., as modernism that excuses one from communion with the Pope?  These are all additions to Latin tradition that were novel at the time they were introduced, and their permanence entirely unnecessary.

None of the above involve doctrine only discipline, which the Church has the authority to modify when she sees the need to & for the good of souls.

God is sovereign, right?  And the establishment of the papacy is of divine institution?  And one must be in communion with the "true" pope in order to be saved?  Then the only thing one can surmise is that, if the see is vacant, then Christ has sovereignly decided to withhold the means of salvation from all of humanity since the last true pope.

This is not the meaning of this doctrine; the meaning is that one must subject oneself to the Pope as one's supreme religious authority and obey him in his disciplinary measures. If one were to lose contact with Rome and the Pope for an extended period of time, such as happened to many people behind the Iron curtain, one would not imperil one's salvation; because one would not be deliberately disobeying the Pope.

He's effectively made salvation utterly impossible for 70 years now, and it is only because he has willed it to be so (as he could have prevented modernism, prevented an empty see, if he really wanted to).  I'd argue that makes one a Calvinist, not a Catholic.

No, this is not a sound argument. What makes it not hold together is that you assume that there has to be a Pope sitting in the Chair of Peter at all times, in order for people to be saved. It is enough for a Catholic or even a non-Catholic who never heard of the doctrine of the Papacy, to be in the state of grace and to be ready to do whatever he was aware was God's will.
Where sin comes in, is the deliberate rejection of the Papal authority in either his teachings or his commands or discipline.

[Melkite]

Ok.  I guess I just reject as untenable the idea that the papacy could be lost if it is a necessary component of the Church.

[dellery]

Conversations like this are gay. Much better would be how to push Catholicism into the popular culture. That being said, dunno if one has to be a Sedevacantist per se to acknowledge it's highly unlikely Francis is a real Pope.

At any rate, sorry to interrupt.

[Michael Wilson]

Ok.  I guess I just reject as untenable the idea that the papacy could be lost if it is a necessary component of the Church.

That is just the point, the papacy cannot be lost; but neither can it be turned into an instrument for the introduction of errors and sin into the Church; at least not with a true Pope. But if a false pope were to take the role of a Pope, then the damage done would be and has been incalculable. 

[dellery]

It really does seem like the Sedevacantist position is the most consistent, however, requires a greater moral authority than an individual possesses to pronounce.
It also raises the question of where is the line drawn between a bad Pope, a horrible Pope, and a false-Pope. —-something else that is above the individual Catholic's —-Lay, Cleric, or Hierarch—- ability to pronounce. It all comes down, at this point it seems, to an individual's discernment.
Kind of like prophecy and apparition. You may believe Francis and the post-Vatican II Popes are legitimate, or not given the recent history of the Church, but what is absolutely not permissible is to ascent to deviations from the Faith even if they are supported by legitimate, or illegitimate, Popes and the Hierarchy. Even if legitimate Popes promulgated the Modernist errors we face today, their pure novelty, or difficulty, should justify faithful Catholic's hesitancy, or objection, to accept them.

Really, at the heart of the matter, seems to be a hidden contradiction in need of correction. This small contradiction is probably what is binding everything up into a state of total arrest.

[Baylee]

It is not based in objective reality.  Sedes believe in the papacy and all Catholic doctrine.  They just believe that the papacy hasn't been occupied in 70 years.  Orthodox reject the papacy and a great number of doctrines.

Like I said, I wouldn't receive Holy Communion from a sede, but receiving from an Orthodox priest isn't justified by logic.  This idea is supported only by muh feels.

I wouldn't receive from an Orthodox priest willy nilly.  I just mean that if I were on my deathbed, and, let's say, Christ revealed to me that I absolutely must confess and receive in order to be saved, and no Catholic priest in union with the pope were available, and my only options were a sede priest or an Orthodox priest, I'd go with the Orthodox priest and hope Christ will have mercy on me if I made the wrong choice.

Nowhere has the Church taught that sedevacantists are in schism (only individuals like yourself), but it has taught that the Orthodox are in schism.  Knowing that fact, it seems to me that if a sedevacantist (Catholic) priest was available to you and you chose to go to the Orthodox priest instead, your choice would be the riskier path.

Also, regarding your concern about the length of a vacancy mentioned somewhere in your posts, here is a late 1800's Catholic theologian on that matter:

https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/fr-edmund-james-oreilly-s-j-on-the-idea-of-a-long-term-vacancy-of-the-holy-see/

[awkward customer]

...... where is the line drawn between a bad Pope, a horrible Pope, and a false-Pope. —-something else that is above the individual Catholic's —-Lay, Cleric, or Hierarch—- ability to pronounce. It all comes down, at this point it seems, to an individual's discernment.

A bad Pope or a horrible Pope would still be Catholic.  A bad Catholic or a horrible Catholic, but Catholic nevertheless.

A false Pope - assuming you mean a public, formal heretic - would not be Pope because a public, formal heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be her head.

None of this is above any individual Catholic's ability to discern.  If individual Catholics can't recognise a public, formal heretic when they see one, then something has gone terribly wrong.

[dellery]

...... where is the line drawn between a bad Pope, a horrible Pope, and a false-Pope. —-something else that is above the individual Catholic's —-Lay, Cleric, or Hierarch—- ability to pronounce. It all comes down, at this point it seems, to an individual's discernment.

A bad Pope or a horrible Pope would still be Catholic.  A bad Catholic or a horrible Catholic, but Catholic nevertheless.

A false Pope - assuming you mean a public, formal heretic - would not be Pope because a public, formal heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be her head.

None of this is above any individual Catholic's ability to discern.  If individual Catholics can't recognise a public, formal heretic when they see one, then something has gone terribly wrong.

I know all that, but just because you can discern it doesn't mean you have any power to pronounce it in any meaningful way, it's just your private opinion and can go no further than that. The Church Militant doesn't respond to the private judgments of individuals, nor should we.

Where Sedevacantists really come across as foolish is making it seem like it's some lightly made opinion that the man occupying the Seat of Peter is not really the Pope. For most of the Faithful this is an extreme and terrifying conclusion to arrive at, and not easily made because then it also concerns the indefectability  of the Church and appears contradictory.

It seems, like I alluded to above, that trying to force people to the Sedevacantist conclusion is like a layman trying to force other Faithful into accepting an apparition or prophecy. You can believe it, and might very well be correct, but have no power whatsoever to compel others to join you. Which then brings us back to the fact that this isn't how the Church works. An individual's private opinions never hold water in Catholicism, no matter how correct, or orthodox they may be.

[awkward customer]

...... where is the line drawn between a bad Pope, a horrible Pope, and a false-Pope. —-something else that is above the individual Catholic's —-Lay, Cleric, or Hierarch—- ability to pronounce. It all comes down, at this point it seems, to an individual's discernment.

A bad Pope or a horrible Pope would still be Catholic.  A bad Catholic or a horrible Catholic, but Catholic nevertheless.

A false Pope - assuming you mean a public, formal heretic - would not be Pope because a public, formal heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be her head.

None of this is above any individual Catholic's ability to discern.  If individual Catholics can't recognise a public, formal heretic when they see one, then something has gone terribly wrong.

I know all that, but just because you can discern it doesn't mean you have any power to pronounce it in any meaningful way, it's just your private opinion and can go no further than that. The Church Militant doesn't respond to the private judgments of individuals, nor should we.

No Sede I have ever known claims to have "power to pronounce" anything.  They are simply stating a private opinion and have never claimed anything else.

Private opinions are permissible, as far as I know.

Where Sedevacantists really come across as foolish is making it seem like it's some lightly made opinion that the man occupying the Seat of Peter is not really the Pope. For most of the Faithful this is an extreme and terrifying conclusion to arrive at, and not easily made because then it also concerns the indefectability  of the Church and appears contradictory.

Now we're getting to the crux of the matter, and something I have long suspected.

Sedevacantism frightens people.

It seems, like I alluded to above, that trying to force people to the Sedevacantist conclusion is like a layman trying to force other Faithful into accepting an apparition or prophecy. You can believe it, and might very well be correct, but have no power whatsoever to compel others to join you. Which then brings us back to the fact that this isn't how the Church works. An individual's private opinions never hold water in Catholicism, no matter how correct, or orthodox they may be.

Again, no-one is trying to force you to believe anything.

Now lets talk about what it is about the Sede position that frightens you, and others, so much.

Because this is what I think lies beneath so much anti-Sedism - fear.

When people say -"You have no right to say that the Conciliar 'popes' aren't Popes" - I suspect what they really mean is - "You have no right to scare me" .