There is a LOT of accusations against Pope Benedict, most I cannot understand what it exactly is, but it sounds serious, it seems to imply that Ratzinger was never a bishop and that he has been guilty of avoiding traditional Church doctrine, is this just more anti-Catholic rubbish?
What? what does that mean? In english please.
THAT GUY POST LIKE THAT EVERYWHERE… DON’T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO IT…
I HAVEN’T READ ANYTHING LIKE THAT… IF IT IS NEWS-WORTHY THEN LOOK ON NEW ADVENT’S WEBSITE.
Please do not “yell” - it really is not necessary.
Sedevacantism is a Latin word that means “the chair is empty” and is ment to imply, by certain hardcore pre-Vatican II Catholics that with the acceptance of the pastoral reforms of Vatican II, the papacy nullified itself and the the Chair of Peter will remain vacant until a successor is chosen that revokes Vatican II. Its a preposerous and silly notion the puts the “true Catholic faith” into the hands of a few misguided, but zealous followers of the old Latin-only faith.
The want to go back to the Tridentine Mass, where all women had to wear head covers, the Mass was entirely in Latin, and communion was dispensed only on the tongue, in a kneeling position, at the rail around the altar.
Sounds exactly like our parish’s Novus Ordo Mass!!
Ok. Wait a minute. Someone remind me how a Pope is chosen. I’m not very familiar with the process. Only what I saw on the news.
At any rate. From what I understand, a group of men (Cardinals?) sequesters themselves in a room to make this decision, with God’s guidance of course. Can anyone honestly say that these men haven’t studied the men thought to be Pope-worthy? If there were any question that Ratzinger weren’t worthy, these men would have found it, no?
I’m having a hard time accepting Pope Benedict. John Paul was around for so long, that it’s hard to see anyone fill his shoes. BUT, I honestly don’t think Benedict would hold the office if he weren’t worthy.
Guess it’s time to go study up on the process…
I have a very good personal friend who is into sedevacantism.
He is very sincere, and believes that the sedevacantist position is correct and accurate.
Naturally, I disagree.
Sedevacantists believe that before they were chosen by the college of Cardinals, the last 4 or 5 (?) popes had spoken or written things that were unorthodox and that by Divine Law
an unorthodox man, i.e. a heretic, cannot become a valid pope.
It’s very sad, really.
What they do is they read something that Joseph Ratzinger wrote back in the 1960s and, without taking into account the entire “corpus” of Ratzinger’s writing as it existed in the 60s, assume that these sentences are a complete explanation of his theological views on a given subject. In other words, they gravely misunderstand what Ratzinger MEANT by what he wrote.
Pray for the sedevacantists that God will give them the light to see the error of their mistaken ways. My friend is a great guy (and very well known), but he and I avoid this subject when we talk, for obvious reasons.
Yep! LOVE GROTTO!!!
I grew up Protestant in Detroit, 2 miles from the Grotto and barely knew it existed. Two years ago, I went to Detroint for a family wedding and DH & I went to the Grotto (at the recommendation of someone on these Forums) for Sunday Mass. It was “only” the 9:30 Mass – no symphony orchestra – but it was GREAT. NO in Latin: da woiks! Loved, loved LOVED it!
Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.
That is being very polite!
No, it is not a joke. If it was a joke, it would be funny.
But it’s not true either.
They said these things about PJPII too.
Try reading “More Catholic than the Pope”. It’s a good book. It’ll put this stuff in perspective for you.
This is kinda innaccurate as many faithful Catholics choose to honor Christ by expressing belief in His presence in this way.
This does not distinguish Sedevacantists at all as there are millions of faithful Catholics who still honor Christ by practicing the faith with extra devotion and respect.
Just because someone fasts longer than the 1 hour recommended does not make them unfaithful, just because someone prefers to receive Christ kneeling does not make them unfaithful, just because someone prefers to only allow the Priest to handle the Blessed Sacrament does not make them unfaithful, this just shows an extra devotion, just like saying the rosary daily does not make one unfaithful. It is insulting to those Catholics who practice their faith courageously and more faithfully than people who casually practice it. This does not take away from those who receive in the hand, fast for exactly one hour, or women who do not cover their heads, we should focus on our own holiness, not on comparisons.
If I misunderstood you, please tell me and forgive me, as many faithful Catholics practice the faith as it seems you have described.
Now on the other hand Sedevacantistism is distinctive in that it claims that our Holy Father is not valid, an imposter. They would hold that either there is no Pope or another one existing, based upon theories of apostacy and validity of ordination. They have rejected the unity of Christ as evidenced by submission to Him and His Church. They have rejected the unity of Peter and replaced it with either a replacement or an empty spot which they fill with their own personal interpretation of the faith. The Mass is just a symptom they use not what distinguished them. We can all agree that there have been many scandelous Masses that people can use to attack the faith with.
Now the Pope can make mistakes and even behave in ways that are scandelous, that does not make him an imposter. Peter was rebuked by Paul, and was still infallible in his teaching. The Pope might make a mistake or improperly represent the truth, he is a man who has a huge responsibility. We should pray for our Holy Father as many times it is not his fault at all. There are some who misrepresent his actions, who plan ways to misrepresent his intentions and shake the faith of people.
So yes there are ways to pick apart a persons actions or words and show them in the worst possible light. Imagine if you were in the spotlight and people had access to countless images, videos and writings of yours (lets say you spent a lifetime publically communicating about the faith and it was recorded), would they be able to present them in a negative way to present you as denying the faith of Christ?
If you WANT to show your devotion to Christ in this manner, then my hat is off to you. I actually enjoy seeing women in head covers at church, I like it when someone kneels to receive the Eucharist. What I have a problem with is people who want to compell everyone else into worshipping in a way they believe to be valid.
Their idea is that anyone who doesn’t agree with their vision of the church can’t be legitimate.
It reminds me of a group of Texans who decided that Texas had not properly been admitted as a state and therefore was still aRepublic. They then declared themselves in charge. The problem is that is even if their original rationale was correct how does it follow that they are the rightful government? The sedavantist’s have the same problem. Even if the popes were illegitimate(which of course they’re not) how does it follow that they(the sedavantists) are legitimate?
I understand, and I agree, people are free to receive in the hand, etc…
Do you agree with me that that is not a distinctive of sedavantists but just a way of showing extra devotion to our Lord?
Just because they advocate it does not make it wrong… As many faithful Catholics practice their faith in this way.
What is wrong in what they advocate is that they condemn others for the current freedom they have to practice their faith in some other ways. As long as it is allowed we should not knock the people and that is wrong.
What is now schismatic about sedavantists is the rejection of the Pope and the attitude that everyone else is wrong. The evidence might be indeed abuses but that doesn’t mean everyone is wrong.
Just because a certain Cardinal makes a wacky Mass that doesn’t make everyone in his diocese or him not Catholic.
The validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not a sedevacanist proposal only. It has been brought up and discussed in other venues. Why would Vatican II promulgate changes in the sacraments? If you want a good conspiracy theory, it’s because those in power are of the Lavender Mafia and want to destroy the church. With all the controversy that came out of Vatican II and the mess we are in doesn’t it surprise anyone that another council was not called to correct things?