I have evolved, don't think or believe as I did years ago RE Christianity, etc..

discombobulated1 · May 8, 2024

RileyG said:
Stay with Rome. Find a faithful traditional Latin Mass, receive confession and the Eucharist regularly.

Christ will never abandon his Church.

what are your thoughts on SSPX?

I had a great confession there once... NOT so great in NO Churches for the last several years!

RileyG · May 8, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
what are your thoughts on SSPX?

I had a great confession there once... NOT so great in NO Churches for the last several years!

It’s valid but irregular.

discombobulated1 · May 8, 2024

RileyG said:
It’s valid but irregular.

I say the NO is quite irregular

Like i say elsewhere: just because Jesus has not abandoned the NO entirely, does not mean He is "happy" with it

RileyG · May 8, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I say the NO is quite irregular

Like i say elsewhere: just because Jesus has not abandoned the NO entirely, does not mean He is "happy" with it

I agree to a certain extent.

discombobulated1 · May 9, 2024

RileyG said:
I agree to a certain extent.

I hear ya. These days, the situation in the Church causes so much confusion, all we can say sometimes are things like "to a certain extent."

I hate the division. Jesus does also, presumably.

Jesus hates a lot of the dumb things humans do but my guess is He's particularly grieved by all the division caused by V2.

JSRG · May 9, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
(I just now noticed that reference to a follow up article. Thanks again.)

I have read through maybe 1/4 of that info you gave me. I must have been very tired and/or distracted the first time I tried to read it because I was getting lost.. LONG sentences, etc, but today I was getting it fairly well. It (strangely) doesn't help that it is somewhat repetitious, but in any case, I am getting the answers I have been looking for. (I used to call those answers "pieces of the puzzle that are missing.")

The thing is, though, I am not so sure I am dissuaded (yet) from Derksen's position. but I am not done reading.

I found out in the material that some Sedes go back to the middle ages to find the last true pope! I always thought it was Pope Pius XII and that Sedes agreed on that. Still, I don't think most Sedes go back that far. I'm wondering if you have ever been Sede?

Previously I did mention to you how although the idea that Pius XII was the last pope was the most common position among sedevacantists, it was hardly the only one, with some claiming he, too, was an invalid pope, and thus you end up with some going back further, in some cases MUCH further (the farthest I ever saw anyone assert it was that the seat fell vacant in the 10th century). And then you have some who are willing to accept some of the popes after him as being valid popes. There's a lack of agreement, which ends up showing how arbitrary it is.

To answer your question, though, I've never been sede.

discombobulated1 said:
So other than that, I am still putting the found puzzle-pieces into the puzzle board so I get the whole picture (if possible). I'm wondering where you are at in all this?

My opinion on sedevacantism is that it's just Protestantism except without the intellectual honesty of Protestantism. It preaches that anyone can just decide on their own opinion that the pope is a heretic and therefore not pope. This is a position that makes perfect sense in Protestantism, where everyone exercising their private judgment on what's valid doctrine is a feature rather than a flaw--heck, Protestantism developed because of people concluding the pope was (in their view) a heretic and that popes had been heretical for so long that they should leave the church--but is incoherent from a Catholic perspective.

discombobulated1 · May 9, 2024

JSRG said:
Previously I did mention to you how although the idea that Pius XII was the last pope was the most common position among sedevacantists, it was hardly the only one, with some claiming he, too, was an invalid pope, and thus you end up with some going back further, in some cases MUCH further (the farthest I ever saw anyone assert it was that the seat fell vacant in the 10th century). And then you have some who are willing to accept some of the popes after him as being valid popes. There's a lack of agreement, which ends up showing how arbitrary it is.

To answer your question, though, I've never been sede.

My opinion on sedevacantism is that it's just Protestantism except without the intellectual honesty of Protestantism. It preaches that anyone can just decide on their own opinion that the pope is a heretic and therefore not pope. This is a position that makes perfect sense in Protestantism, where everyone exercising their private judgment on what's valid doctrine is a feature rather than a flaw--heck, Protestantism developed because of people concluding the pope was (in their view) a heretic and that popes had been heretical for so long that they should leave the church--but is incoherent from a Catholic perspective.

OK, thanks for this.. very interesting.

BTW I referred to you in the Kitchen Sink section under "I want to vent.." I felt you may have ditched me because you hadn't responded. But I didn't give your handle name or anything LOL

Anyway, the thing is that there are different kinds of heretics, as you know bc you presumably read that info you gave me?

I didn't know that even Notorious heretic has to be defined! I'm still reading through this stuff, but it really is like finding the missing pieces of an interesting puzzle you're trying to put together.

I guess the author (who is?) is saying that Sedes believe GOD himself can depose a heretical pope and if that happens (and you have to agree, this makes sense?) it is then ok to judge him since his heresy has pitched him outside the Church (my words) LOL. No heretic can be pope, which I guess Bellarmine taught. the only problem is that How do we know God has declared the pope a heretic?

The pope cannot be judged by anyone, according to Catholic doctrine, and yet God judges all... so this Sede argument makes sense.. (But again, I am still reading through all this.. )

JSRG · May 10, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
OK, thanks for this.. very interesting.

BTW I referred to you in the Kitchen Sink section under "I want to vent.." I felt you may have ditched me because you hadn't responded. But I didn't give your handle name or anything LOL

Well, your initial post had you mention you were midway through reading it, so I thought it would make some sense to wait a day or two and see what kind of conclusions you might have drawn after finishing it, as some of what you were saying were things I felt it addressed later on.

discombobulated1 · May 11, 2024

JSRG said:
Well, your initial post had you mention you were midway through reading it, so I thought it would make some sense to wait a day or two and see what kind of conclusions you might have drawn after finishing it, as some of what you were saying were things I felt it addressed later on.

I have a fairly high IQ and got a 3.6 avg in college which I tell you because that information you gave me is VERY hard to follow and even when I do follow it (I've learned quite a bit), I still don't ... let's say again: still don't get all the necessary pieces to this weird puzzle of knowing exactly how the Catholic Church deals with a notorious heretic. I also still don't know who even wrote that material.

It is not the best-written material I have ever read, to say the least, certainly not written for lay Catholics IMO. I have to read some sentences 2 or 3 times. Maybe that is one good thing about V2, btw, which Council some claim made things more understandable for the little person (not so clergy-focused).

Anyway, I am mucking my way through it, have almost finished, but had to skip over parts I did not really "get," hoping to go back later but geez...

I wish people would write for EVERYONE and not just 4 professional Catholic theologians/clergy

JSRG · May 11, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I have a fairly high IQ and got a 3.6 avg in college which I tell you because that information you gave me is VERY hard to follow and even when I do follow it (I've learned quite a bit), I still don't ... let's say again: still don't get all the necessary pieces to this weird puzzle of knowing exactly how the Catholic Church deals with a notorious heretic. I also still don't know who even wrote that material.

The authors are listed at the very start of the article.

discombobulated1 · May 11, 2024

JSRG said:
The authors are listed at the very start of the article.

I guess I forgot to copy that part.

OK, but what about other things I have said?

JSRG · May 11, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I guess I forgot to copy that part.

OK, but what about other things I have said?

Most of the things you've said seem to have been your reactions to things in it, but not really asking a question. Is there any specific thing from it you'd want a comment on?

discombobulated1 · May 13, 2024

JSRG said:
Most of the things you've said seem to have been your reactions to things in it, but not really asking a question. Is there any specific thing from it you'd want a comment on?

My comment is this:

That stuff you gave me is so convoluted and written for professional theologians that I still don't know what to think... except that apparently, there is nothing the Church can do about even a notorious heretic, unless said heretic just walks away from the papacy. Ha ha... what a joke. Show me in history where anyone walked away from a position of power (over millions...)

I think of St Francis who walked away from wealth and worldly things, and also family connections to follow the Lord.

But that doesn't count, I reckon, since he was just a saintly type.. Who cares about them? He chose to be homeless! Yuck, homelessness!

(that last sentence is society's attitude in general)

JSRG · May 13, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
My comment is this:

That stuff you gave me is so convoluted and written for professional theologians that I still don't know what to think... except that apparently, there is nothing the Church can do about even a notorious heretic, unless said heretic just walks away from the papacy.

Actually, the article says that for a pope to be deposed, they either need to separate themselves from the church ("walks away" as you say), or the church itself has to judge them as a heretic. Their whole point is that, contrary to the claim of sedevacantism, individual Catholics don't get to just say "well, he sure seems like a heretic to me, so he's no pope!" Robert Bellarmine's statements regarding whether a heretical pope can be deposed, and how to do such a thing, have been used by sedevacantists focusing in on the fact he indicates he believes such a pope would be deposed by God rather than the church, and thus they claim that means the heretical pope loses office without any action needed by the church, which is required for the whole idea that individual Catholics can simply judge the matter for themselves to work.

The argument of the article is that this is a misunderstanding of what Bellarmine was saying, and that Bellarmine affirms that no pope loses office for heresy until the pope formally and explicitly quits the church or church deposes them for it via a council of bishops (it notes that "deposing" is perhaps not an entirely accurate term, as it is rather the church declaring what had already happened--but in terms of practicality, it means the pope continues to exercise his office until the declaration is made).

Some portions of it are a bit complicated, but that's because it's going through the intricacies of the theory of Bellarmine (and others) regarding how the process works on a theological level, i.e. how a pope gets deposed if a council supposedly can't judge them, and things do get complicated there. But its bottom line is that Bellarmine (and various others) that sedevacantists claim affirm that a pope just automatically loses his office even without a judgment of the church is not teaching that.

That said, I pointed to that article because while it was complex, it seemed to be specifically addressing the arguments of some people you had referred to. If you want something by the same author that makes the same general points in a simpler manner (without addressing anyone specifically), this one also works even if it is a little out of date:

BELLARMINE AND SUAREZ ON THE QUESTION OF A HERETICAL POPE

A site about a new book responding to the arguments of sedevacantists as well as a course on ecclesiology.

www.trueorfalsepope.com

discombobulated1 · May 14, 2024

JSRG said:
Actually, the article says that for a pope to be deposed, they either need to separate themselves from the church ("walks away" as you say), or the church itself has to judge them as a heretic. Their whole point is that, contrary to the claim of sedevacantism, individual Catholics don't get to just say "well, he sure seems like a heretic to me, so he's no pope!" Robert Bellarmine's statements regarding whether a heretical pope can be deposed, and how to do such a thing, have been used by sedevacantists focusing in on the fact he indicates he believes such a pope would be deposed by God rather than the church, and thus they claim that means the heretical pope loses office without any action needed by the church, which is required for the whole idea that individual Catholics can simply judge the matter for themselves to work.

The argument of the article is that this is a misunderstanding of what Bellarmine was saying, and that Bellarmine affirms that no pope loses office for heresy until the pope formally and explicitly quits the church or church deposes them for it via a council of bishops (it notes that "deposing" is perhaps not an entirely accurate term, as it is rather the church declaring what had already happened--but in terms of practicality, it means the pope continues to exercise his office until the declaration is made).

Some portions of it are a bit complicated, but that's because it's going through the intricacies of the theory of Bellarmine (and others) regarding how the process works on a theological level, i.e. how a pope gets deposed if a council supposedly can't judge them, and things do get complicated there. But its bottom line is that Bellarmine (and various others) that sedevacantists claim affirm that a pope just automatically loses his office even without a judgment of the church is not teaching that.

That said, I pointed to that article because while it was complex, it seemed to be specifically addressing the arguments of some people you had referred to. If you want something by the same author that makes the same general points in a simpler manner (without addressing anyone specifically), this one also works even if it is a little out of date:

BELLARMINE AND SUAREZ ON THE QUESTION OF A HERETICAL POPE

A site about a new book responding to the arguments of sedevacantists as well as a course on ecclesiology.

www.trueorfalsepope.com

Ok, thanks for this, even though I already knew (or have read anyhow) something like 90% of it.

I DO now understand more fully (after reading this post) the Sede position, which you put in far more clear terms than the author of that material did.

What I can't figure out (one thing) is: If "the First See is judged by no one," isn't it "judging" the first See to say that the pope occupying it is a heretic? THAT is what I fail to understand from going over this material more than a couple times. Again, these people need to learn how to put things in layman's terms. Or maybe they don't want laypersons understanding it all? I have had THAT thought more times than I can count..

There was something else I didn't get, but it seems until I get the answer to the above (bolded), well... it's not going to work. I mean, the article you gave me seems to talk in circles a lot and the "in other words" are worse than the original words.. at least in one place..

I'll try to think of the other thing I need clarity on...

JSRG · May 17, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
Ok, thanks for this, even though I already knew (or have read anyhow) something like 90% of it.

I DO now understand more fully (after reading this post) the Sede position, which you put in far more clear terms than the author of that material did.

What I can't figure out (one thing) is: If "the First See is judged by no one," isn't it "judging" the first See to say that the pope occupying it is a heretic? THAT is what I fail to understand from going over this material more than a couple times. Again, these people need to learn how to put things in layman's terms. Or maybe they don't want laypersons understanding it all? I have had THAT thought more times than I can count..

There was something else I didn't get, but it seems until I get the answer to the above (bolded), well... it's not going to work. I mean, the article you gave me seems to talk in circles a lot and the "in other words" are worse than the original words.. at least in one place..

I'll try to think of the other thing I need clarity on...

The article is a bit complicated, but that's because the underlying philosophy is complicated. If one wants to cut to the short of it, the practical conclusion is that a pope isn't deposed until such time as the church renders a judgment, even under the paradigm that the pope loses his office automatically upon becoming a heretic. The basic point of the article is to note how even the theologians who indicated they believed a heretical pope automatically lost his office (which sedevacantists often point to) still believed that a church declaration was required, and thus they do not provide support for the sedevacantist position that Catholics can without such a judgment decide for themselves the pope isn't the real pope anymore. However, the thought process underlying that position is complicated, which is why it gets confusing. But the practical conclusion is simply that, even if you don't quite understand the thought process of the theologians in question, they still affirmed the requirement of actual formal church action, which doesn't work with sedevacantism.

I would also say that what even if the bolded is a problem, it's one sedevacantism doesn't solve at all; the fact the judging is being transferred from the actual church authorities to the laity doesn't obviate the problem and in fact would rather seem to exacerbate it.

computer000 · Sep 4, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I feel very alone and misunderstood a lot of the time. It seems that priests in the NO don't want to talk about V2 (and why would they? it doesn't make them look good). I liked a SSPX priest I confessed to years ago.. very good in confession, acted interested in what I was saying. A Sede priest I went to for confession was OK but didn't seem half as interested. Maybe I shouldn't have expected him to be like the SSPX priest, and I do realize that... OK, never mind. I was going to go into some other things but I'll leave things @ that for now.

Ive been trying to understand all of this too and came across orthodox apologists and their views on it all, NO vs SSPX vs Sedes:

Roman Catholicism (Both Traditional & Novus Ordo) Proves Eastern Orthodoxy - JaysAnalysis.com

By: Jay Dyer The recent debate has, in my mind, solidified the completely unworkable and impossible scheme known as Roman Catholicism – whether it’s the traditional forms found in sedevacantism, the SSPX or FSSP or the Novus Ordo. The essence of the refutation of all these flavors of the Roman...

jaysanalysis.com

let me know what any of you think.
This is my first post on here so i might not be replying right but ill figure it out

Stephen3141 · Nov 6, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I have changed a lot in the last several years, which is not a shocker, I know. Most people do, but I have changed somewhat radically.

I once got deep into studying my Catholic faith.. not a bad idea at all. I recommend all Catholics do this. But the problem is, you have to be careful what your sources are. I happened to serendipitously run into a book written by the late archbishop Lefebvre, who whole heartedly disagreed with the changes of Vatican II and wrote books on this. Then from there I studied Sedevacantism, which I have no problem with, to speak of. However, it seems to me that most professional Sedes are more into mocking "new church" and Francis than they are into.. well, works of charity or what have you. I know I shouldn't even say this because I do not know these people well. I just know that I went to this site once that was run by Sedevacantists and all they ever seemed to post were articles or videos on how awful new church is. The thing is, though.. It really IS awful.

So what am I trying to say here? I don't know... I mean, I am just disturbed, is all. I feel confused because the Catholic Church is divided into 3 parts: novus ordo, SSPX and Sedevantists. I can't say I whole-heartedly endorse the NO (new) church, but on the other hand, I just don't believe that Jesus would allow His Church to utterly fail, as they seem to think, just because anti-Christs took over the buildings (1958). He said that He would never leave us (Mt 28:20) He said his Church would not fail (Mt 16:18).

I feel very alone and misunderstood a lot of the time. It seems that priests in the NO don't want to talk about V2 (and why would they? it doesn't make them look good). I liked a SSPX priest I confessed to years ago.. very good in confession, acted interested in what I was saying. A Sede priest I went to for confession was OK but didn't seem half as interested. Maybe I shouldn't have expected him to be like the SSPX priest, and I do realize that... OK, never mind. I was going to go into some other things but I'll leave things @ that for now.

I think that Lefabrve is something of a radical.

You need to find a different source of sound theology.

I have evolved, don't think or believe as I did years ago RE Christianity, etc..

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads