Is sedevacantism the worst of all heresies?

[V_Leonius]

So, there's an invisible Pope reigning  during the rare Papal Interregnum? If I deny this am I a heretic too?

Also, sedes don't deny that the Pope has "supreme power of jurisdiction", they deny that  certain men claiming that jurisdiction were/are actually Popes. That's not heretical, sorry.

I am not a sedevacantis, I do not like them, condone them, or support them. SVism is bad yes, but that doesn't make it a heresy.

Modernism is definitely the worst heresy ever.

Now you are been absurd.  There is a Pope, that they deny his power of jurisdiction by saying he is not the Pope does not change the fact that they are denying it.  If you hold that Benedict XVI is the true Pope then those who deny his power are heretics, and I will add you nor I actually have the authority to judge that the Pope is not a valid Pope.  Please stop with the sophisms it does no one any good.

[V_Leonius]

There is a difference between been mistaken over who is Pope when there is more than one and saying that there is no Pope when the whole of the Church says that there is.

I've heard/read more than one sede argue that the "whole of the Church" has lost the Faith and that, therefore, that argument falls flat during this crisis. Just sayin'...

You realise that saying that is in itself a heresy as well and directly contradicts what Christ Himself told us.

Christ gave His Church an hierarchical constitution (De fide.)

If the whole of the Church has lost the Faith then the Church no longer exists.  Christs Church has a hierarchy the church the sedes claim to belong to does not have this.

The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the bishops.  (De fide.)

Again I will reiterate the sedes have no authority to pronounce judge the hierarchy of the Church, likewise they ahve no authority to teach, that authroity was given by God the the Church not by God to the sedes.

This argument also goes against the truths God has revealed to us in the scriptures.

This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: My spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever. Isaias 59:21

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. Luke 10:16

"Rome Has Spoken, the Issue is Settled". Saint Augustine

We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 1John 4:6

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 2Peter 3:16

Where there is no governor, the people shall fall: but there is safety where there is much counsel. Proverbs 11:14

Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. Rom 13:1-2

That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Mt 16:18

there shall be one fold and one shepherd. John 10:16.

[tleatherland]

So, there's an invisible Pope reigning during the rare Papal Interregnum? If I deny this am I a heretic too?

Also, sedes don't deny that the Pope has "supreme power of jurisdiction", they deny that certain men claiming that jurisdiction were/are actually Popes. That's not heretical, sorry.

I am not a sedevacantis, I do not like them, condone them, or support them. SVism is bad yes, but that doesn't make it a heresy.

Modernism is definitely the worst heresy ever.

Now you are been absurd.  There is a Pope, that they deny his power of jurisdiction by saying he is not the Pope does not change the fact that they are denying it.  If you hold that Benedict XVI is the true Pope then those who deny his power are heretics, and I will add you nor I actually have the authority to judge that the Pope is not a valid Pope.  Please stop with the sophisms it does no one any good.

To deny that the Pope has power, and to refuse submission to him, is schismatic, not heretical. The terms are not synonymous.

[tleatherland]

There is a difference between been mistaken over who is Pope when there is more than one and saying that there is no Pope when the whole of the Church says that there is.

I've heard/read more than one sede argue that the "whole of the Church" has lost the Faith and that, therefore, that argument falls flat during this crisis. Just sayin'...

You realise that saying that is in itself a heresy as well and directly contradicts what Christ Himself told us.

Christ gave His Church an hierarchical constitution (De fide.)

If the whole of the Church has lost the Faith then the Church no longer exists. Christs Church has a hierarchy the church the sedes claim to belong does not have this.

[/QUOTE]

Nah, the "whole of the Church" could never lose the Faith:

Saint Luke 18:8
"But yet the Son of man, when He cometh, shall He find, think thee, faith on earth?"

The Church Herself will never lose Her divine mission, but the human members can certainly fall away.

[V_Leonius]

That was a rhetorical question not prophesy, do not quote scripture if you do not understand it.  Its funny you should pick that chapter of Saint Luke, go and read the whole thing you might gain from it.

every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted.

[tleatherland]

That was a rhetorical question not prophesy, do not quote scripture if you do not understand it. Its funny you should pick that chapter of Saint Luke, go and read the whole thing you might gain from it.

every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted.

It's pointless talking with you. You can't even distinguish heresy from schism, even though it has been explained to you repeatedly. Go ahead and wallow in your ignorance. I'm done here.

[neel]

I am not a sedevacantists, I do not condone sedevacantism. But...

"Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic;"

What dogma do sedevacantists deny?

If it is heresy to hold that a certain man is an anitpope, then why didn't the supporters of the antipopes have to recant their heresy after the Great Western Schism was resolved?

They actually deny several dogma's but I will limit myself to listing the most obvious ones as I really don't like discussing these people.

According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have sucessors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. (De fide.)

The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome. (De fide.)

The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdicyion over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. (De fide.)

De fide: of faith: used to designate doctrines held to be revealed by God and so requiring the unconditional assent of faith by all

source: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Dr. Ludwig Ott
Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah J. O'Sullivan, D.D -Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: Cornelius, Ep.Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rossessis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. 2 Timothy 3:7-9

They don't deny any of those dogmas though.

#1. Perpetual popes doesn't mean that there are times when there's not a pope. There's obviously time in between the death of one pope and the election of another.  Or am I a heretic now for saying that?

#2.  Duh?  Really, I don't know what to say to that.  There are obviously no sedevacantists that say that the pope isn't bishop of rome.

#3. Yes, they acknowledge that also.

Can you explain exactly how they deny those dogmas? (because they don't!)

Neel when did the history sedes start? in the 1970's. If so, any sede living today never lived under any Pope that they accepted as a true pope. Therefore sedes deny the authority of the pope. There is no guarantee by the sedes that they will ever accept any future pope. Because no one alive today ever witnessed a living sede claim that he held the sede position and accepted this pope or that pope as a true pope.

Some very old sede can say that he lived under Pope Pius XII or maybe Pope Pius XI but did this old sede hold sede position at the time? No, of course not, therefore the sede position is a novelty for those with itching ears: "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" 2Tm4:3

They don't deny the authority of the Pope in the abstract, meaning that under Pius XII, they wouldn't have denied any of his authority in any of things you said.  They don't deny the authority of the "papacy".  Yes, they deny the authority of Joseph Ratzinger, because they don't believe him to be pope.  But does that mean they deny the dogma of papal authority?  No.

[V_Leonius]

They deny both papal authority, the authority of the bishops and the authority of the whole church, refusal to recognise the people who wield this authority amounts to the same thing, because they claim to obey the authority of a make believe church that exists only in their own heads does not change this fact, in reality they deny all authority but their own, It makes me sad that you could fall for such trickery, though I will admit they have all the cunning of the serpent in their arguments, and his pride to match.

If an atheist says he recognises the authority of God but that there is no God would he still be an atheist?     

[warning]

I am not a sedevacantists, I do not condone sedevacantism. But...

"Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic;"

What dogma do sedevacantists deny?

If it is heresy to hold that a certain man is an anitpope, then why didn't the supporters of the antipopes have to recant their heresy after the Great Western Schism was resolved?

They actually deny several dogma's but I will limit myself to listing the most obvious ones as I really don't like discussing these people.

According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have sucessors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. (De fide.)

The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome. (De fide.)

The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdicyion over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. (De fide.)

De fide: of faith: used to designate doctrines held to be revealed by God and so requiring the unconditional assent of faith by all

source: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Dr. Ludwig Ott
Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah J. O'Sullivan, D.D -Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: Cornelius, Ep.Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rossessis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. 2 Timothy 3:7-9

They don't deny any of those dogmas though.

#1. Perpetual popes doesn't mean that there are times when there's not a pope. There's obviously time in between the death of one pope and the election of another. Or am I a heretic now for saying that?

#2. Duh? Really, I don't know what to say to that. There are obviously no sedevacantists that say that the pope isn't bishop of rome.

#3. Yes, they acknowledge that also.

Can you explain exactly how they deny those dogmas? (because they don't!)

Neel when did the history sedes start? in the 1970's. If so, any sede living today never lived under any Pope that they accepted as a true pope. Therefore sedes deny the authority of the pope. There is no guarantee by the sedes that they will ever accept any future pope. Because no one alive today ever witnessed a living sede claim that he held the sede position and accepted this pope or that pope as a true pope.

Some very old sede can say that he lived under Pope Pius XII or maybe Pope Pius XI but did this old sede hold sede position at the time? No, of course not, therefore the sede position is a novelty for those with itching ears: "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" 2Tm4:3

They don't deny the authority of the Pope in the abstract, meaning that under Pius XII, they wouldn't have denied any of his authority in any of things you said.  They don't deny the authority of the "papacy".  Yes, they deny the authority of Joseph Ratzinger, because they don't believe him to be pope.  But does that mean they deny the dogma of papal authority?  No.

Sure they do deny the dogma of papal authority in practice. None of the sedes in practice ever submitted themselves to the authority of the last 4 or 5 reigning pontiffs. So in practice they deny the authority of the pope. In theory? who cares?

 

[V_Leonius]

Sure they do deny the dogma of papal authority in practice. None of the sedes in practice ever submitted themselves to the authority of the last 4 or 5 reigning pontiffs. So in practice they deny the authority of the pope. In theory? who cares?

Exactly.  Actions speak louder than words and more often reveal the truth.