Author Topic: Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?  (Read 1365 times)

2Vermont

So, even at the First Vatican Council, it was believed that, although it has never happened before, a pope can become a heretic.  There was no concern that this would mean the Church would have defected.

In fact, isn't this quote exactly what sedevacantists have been asserting all along?
I can see why some would think sedevacantism posits a defection. The thesis basically says that not just the Pope, but pretty much the entire hierarchy of the Church fell into heresy and ceased to be the Church and that later on a few laymen realized it and got irregular orders first from Old Catholics and then from Thuc and Lefebvre and claimed to be the saviors of the Church. It is not just a heretical anti-pope. But the entire hierarchy followed the heretical anti-pope into heresy to the point that now there is not a single Bishop ruling a diocese that does not follow the heretical anti-pope or rejects Vatican II and all the heresies with it and subsequent to it (some sedes say there must be a hidden orthodox Bishop in the woods but nobody knows who he is). Nobody can point to a single non-heretical Bishop with OJ sent by a true Pope. None of the traditional Bishops were sent by a true Pope so how can they have authority from a true Pope so it seems to me they cannot be the hierarchy any more than I would be if I got myself ordained and consecrated by an old Catholic bishop like Francis Shuckardt. The situation talked about in your quote is not a defection because the Church realizes the heresy of the anti-pope and rejects it and him instead of following him into heresy. And if anyone wants to talk about the secrets of La Salette predicting this, I believe the popular secrets of La Salette promoted by traditionalists were condemned by the Church before Vatican II and placed on the index of forbidden books and it was commanded that Catholics not discuss those secrets and I do not think this condemnation was ever lifted by a true Pope so wouldn't it be wrong to read those condemned prophecies and promote them publicly?

Meanwhile the R&R posits an indefectible Church? No, it promotes a "Catholic" church that taught and continues to teach heresy to the entire "Catholic" Church.   
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

Matto

Meanwhile the R&R posits an indefectible Church? No, it promotes a "Catholic" church that taught and continues to teach heresy to the entire "Catholic" Church.
I am not saying the R&R position is the true one. I honestly don't know what the truth is unlike some internet posters who seem to know all. But I was just trying to make clear a reason why I think many people are not sedevacantists. I do not think it is ill will for the most part.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 01:55:45 PM by Matto »
 

2Vermont

Meanwhile the R&R posits an indefectible Church? No, it promotes a "Catholic" church that taught and continues to teach heresy to the entire "Catholic" Church.
I am not saying the R&R position is the true one. I honestly don't know what the truth is unlike some internet posters who seem to know all. But I was just trying to make clear a reason why I think many people are not sedevacantists. I do not think it is ill will for the most part.

And I was making it clear that to choose R&R over sedevacantism makes no sense at all if their issue is that they believe that sedevacantism somehow leads to defection.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 02:25:54 PM by 2Vermont »
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

Matto

And I was making it clear that to choose R&R over sedevacantism makes no sense at all if their issue is that somehow sedevacantism leads to defection.
Then I would say that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. But I do not post with the signature of "ANYTHING but Recognize and Resist!" Nor do I say things like 99.99 percent of Catholics are SSPX supporters. (That one wasn't you).
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 02:33:18 PM by Matto »
 

2Vermont

And I was making it clear that to choose R&R over sedevacantism makes no sense at all if their issue is that somehow sedevacantism leads to defection.
Then I would say that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. But I do not post with the signature of "ANYTHING but Recognize and Resist!"

What is your problem?
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

Matto

What is your problem?
I only disagree with your position and your mocking of non-sedevacantists. I do not consider that a problem.
 
The following users thanked this post: Callixtus

2Vermont

And I was making it clear that to choose R&R over sedevacantism makes no sense at all if their issue is that somehow sedevacantism leads to defection.
Then I would say that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. But I do not post with the signature of "ANYTHING but Recognize and Resist!" Nor do I say things like 99.99 percent of Catholics are SSPX supporters.

Ah, edited that I see.  Wouldn't want to come off anti-sede and knock yourself off that fence of yours, now would you?
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

2Vermont

What is your problem?
I only disagree with your position and your mocking of non-sedevacantists. I do not consider that a problem.

My signature is not mocking of non-sedes; it is my opinion of anti-sedes.  I have made that very clear here.  I don't have issues with NON-sedes.

Now if you would kindly stop  :wagfinger: while you sit on your high fence, I would appreciate it.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

Matto

I see no point in further conversation about this 2Vermont. So I will leave it at that and will bow out now.
 
The following users thanked this post: Callixtus

2Vermont

I see no point in further conversation about this 2Vermont. So I will leave it at that and will bow out now.

No point?  You mean it's totally fine for you to make a false accusation about me and then leave?

Good riddance.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)