Sunday, May 18, 2014

Sedevacantism - Seducing From The One True Church

My blogging colleague The Eponymous Flower put forth a piece earlier touching upon the serious problems caused by Pope Francis' imprudent actions and remarks.  She makes two excellent points that we must all bear in mind as we try to deal with the seemingly nonstop barrage of nonsense emanating from the Vatican these days.
  1. Faced with the incongruous proceeds from the Pope lately, many Catholics have become deluded by sedevacantism.  I said the following in a previous post but will repeat it again.  If such Catholics see flaws in the Holy Catholic Church and are distressed because they know it to be the One True Church, by what convolution of logic do they abandon that same One True Church?  Under no circumstance whatsoever can this sin of apostasy be justified.  These Catholics place their immortal souls in grave danger.  Still, another question must be answered.  For all the snarky comments I've received alleging that I don't appreciate that the Pope is a Pope of the world and not just the United States, I must wonder if the Pope realizes that he is the Pope of these traditionally-oriented Catholics who feel deep hurt at being dismissed as "rosary counters" and the such.  Do those commenters care about that question?  I will not hold my breath waiting for a reply.
  2. Further down the article we see that the Pope is definitely infallible when four criteria of the Extraordinary Magisterium are met.  Otherwise, his teachings are solemnly binding only insofar as they conform to Tradition already set forth by the Magisterium.  The four criteria are below:
    1. He solemnly teaches as Pope.
    2. He teaches on faith or morals.
    3. He teaches definitively.
    4. He teaches so as to bind all Catholics.
I'll now touch upon a piece put out by Mundabor a few days ago called "The Bloggers, The Orks and The Uruk-Hai".  Not being much of a movie-watcher, I don't understand the references to "orks" and "uruk-hai" (whatever the heck they are).  I absolutely agree that we must shine the light and cry out when things contrary to the Faith issue forth from the Vatican (or even the Pope's pen or mouth).  We may no longer demure from that task.  However, I do think Mundabor crosses an unacceptable line when he speaks of "mocking him, ridiculing him, making him a laughing stock".  Ladies and gentlemen, it's one thing to shine the light on erroneous doings and sayings from the Pope; it's quite another thing to belittle him as a person.  He is the Holy Father; he is the Vicar of Christ.  His person must remain inviolate.  As we speak the truth about troublesome words and actions, we must take great care not to attack his person.  

But we must speak out.

13 comments:

  1. Well said...I agree wholeheartedly with your summation. And the Orcs and Uruk-hai are the some of the bad guys in Tolkein's Lord of the Ring books. Ugly things, they are, also...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Humor has it's place but mocking does not. One must shine a light, but not to embarrass or scandalize. We should be sad to report anything wrong and do it constructively.
    The Holy Father is no different than one's own Father. While he makes mistakes openly, it is a pox on the family. We should be slow to judge and quick to forgive, but when the faith of our children and fellow Catholics we can't look away or hide in a hole. We must be honest and kind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I went over to that site and made a couple of comments. My last one is awaiting moderation.

    I wonder if at some point, I have to make a decision not to read sites/posts such as that mundaborum. My own recent tendency to read posts and sites that flow in to outright scandalous comments from a Catholic in regards to the Holy Father. I am very familiar with Tolkien and Orcs and Uruk hai's. The only thing that would come to mind as a comparison to an Uruk hai is an Einszatts Gruppen or mobile killing forces of the SS. wiki or google that if you want to know more. I'll let that alone for now. Terrible.

    I want and have often prayed to be an effective witness and evangalist. But, candidly, seeing this type of response from well meaning but wrong headed and frankly "crazy" type of characterizations of the holy father is worthy more of my prayer and mortification.

    I am glad you noted this in your post.

    Ad jesu par mariam

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=659585

    I think this link just sums it all up. Anyone who is thinking of venturing into such waters should listen to this talk. Father Shannon Collins speaks of all the dangers of sedevecantism here, and how it is a forbidden fruit, and often a trap for orthodox Catholics.

    -Dawn

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bravo! Thank you for this... and for your other comments, here and elsewhere! :) (I think especially of the "Fr. Ray Kelly" comments, here and on another blog!)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with Mundabor in the sens that in the whole wave of this blind idolatry toward Francis, many had forgotten that HE STILL MIGHT NOT BE A LEGALLY CHOSEN POPE... The story of two living popes on the Throne of Peter and the enigma of the removal of pope Benedict XVI ( with artificially created scandals and even rumors of the plot on his life) give me shivering : what if he is an anti-pope??? Such possibility exists in the light of many heresies and controversies, which Francis already had created. Voice of Mundabor is HUGELY IMPORTANT, because it calls on blindness of people drowning in irrational praises for Francis! It cools down the stupid fever over many his mistakes and cut off comments... BEWARE OF FRANCIS...

    ReplyDelete
  7. LOOK : BLOG: http://sbyvl.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/read-this/ BERGOGLIO INVALIDLY ELECTED
    The source is confidential — a prominent figure in Rome:
    “There was an agreement when card. Ratzinger was elected Pope, as there was a stalemate: 70 to 40.
    Bergoglio had enough votes to block the election of card Ratzinger. So a group of about 12 mainly German and US cardinals changed their vote in favour in exchange for an illicit pact: that card. Ratzinger wouldn’t last more than a given period and thereafter, if he had not died before, he would have had to step down and let card Bergoglio become Pope. Once Pope however Benedict tried to have it his own way, see for instance the Motu Proprio and his remarks on Fatima being a reference not to past events but to future ones. From thereon he was besieged and shelled from all sides: the various gay and paedophilic scandals and the abuses in the Vatican finances with hints that the Vatican bank, the IOR, would be a tool of money laundering, mafia connections and you name it.
    “Pope Benedict was therefore reminded of the (illicit) pact and threatened of worse to come.
    He felt therefore compelled to resign. This is one of the reason why I consider illegitimate the election of Father Bergoglio.”
    These mainly American and German cardinals were of the same group that coerced the newly elected pope (Cardinal Angelo Scola) to resign as he was making his way to the balcony of St. Peter’s, after he had been elected Pope Benedict ‘s successor. Bergoglio’s election is null & void — canonically irregular.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tereze, everything you just related about this supposed history behind Pope Francis' election is merely rumor and innuendo. "The source is confidential"? There's no way it can be corroborated. Because the Cardinals are bound by a sacred oath not to disclose the proceedings of the papal elections, they are not at liberty to rebut the allegations. This theory has no basis that can be verified. Without the necessary corroboration, this sort of speculation can veer dangerously close to slander and/or calumny.

      Delete
  8. Recall, too, that when one thinks a Pope is false, they can also fall into the sin of schism, by refusing to obey him. The end of this article has a few lines on that. http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=29495

    -Dawn

    ReplyDelete
  9. I presume Pope Francis is a validly elected Pope until proven otherwise, or declared otherwise...As much misery as he causes me at various points, he's still the Pope, and I pray for him.

    Tereze, I would say, presume validity...the Church has not declared Bergolio a heretic, and there's no way to definitively prove that Pope Benedict XVI was forced out of the Papacy. I'm extremely weary of Pope Francis, he has said things that have been VERY close to heretical at worse...but I will say if the synod rules that those who are divorced and re-married can receive Communion, and it is approved by Pope Francis, in good conscience we could not follow that decision, and opposition would have to become public.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Francis is indeed the true pope, but only because the Church is neither indefectible nor infallible according to the Church's own teachings. A recently published book worth reading is "The Sedevacantist Delusion: Why Vatican II's Clash with Sedevacantism Supports Eastern Orthodoxy". The book shines a critical light on both sides of the debate (modernists and traditionalists) and provides the real explanation for the mess the Church created that has effectively divided the faithful. In attempt to preserve certain myths about the Church the faithful are forced to point fingers at each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In your first sentence, are you getting the "neither-nors" confused into double-negatives? I'm not sure where you're going with all that.

      Delete
    2. Lol - I guess I could have said the Church is fallible and defectible but Catholics are familiar with the terms as stated in the original. As for where I am going? That the Catholic Church's claims of infallibility and indefectibility are myths.

      Delete

Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.