Is sedevacantism the worst of all heresies?

[VetusOrdo]

Is the reigning Holy Roman Pontiff Pope Benedict XVI a modernist yes or no?

I believe he is.

Do sedes claim that the reigning Holy Roman Pontiff Pope Benedict XVI (which all the world acknolwedgles as the true head of the Roman Catholic Church) is a modernist, yes or no?

I think they do, as many other traditionalists do.

Do sedes claim that the last 4 reigning Holy Roman Pontiffs: Pope John XIII, Paul VI, John Paul I & John Paul II (which all the world acknolwedgled as the true head of the Roman Catholic Church during their respective reigns) are modernists, yes or no?

Sedes claim they were modernist and thus anti-popes, at least most of them. I believe they were modernists, but still popes.

who will guarantee that sedes will not use these words against some future pope?

That's just speculation.

[warning]

 who will guarantee that sedes will not use these words against some future pope?

That's just speculation.

No it is not speculation, it is a simple fact that you can not guarantee that the sedes will stop using these words “They should be beaten with fists..." against any future pope.
 
"In revolutions the occasions may be trifling, but great interests are at stake.Even trifles are most important when they concern the rulers...The mistake lies in the beginning- as the proverb says- 'Well begun is half done'; so an error at the beginning, though quite small, bears the same ratio to the errors in the other parts." Aristotle politics Bk V chp 4

These few words of St Pius X mis-used by some will give justification to commit bad actions:“They should be beaten with fists..."
read here: "he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions."
 
The above is the end result of mis-using these words of Pope Pius X directed against the Holy Father. Bad words lead to bad actions. This is not speculation. these soldiers are real men and many of them live today some may even read these very words. Bad men will always try to justify their actions.

[AdoramusTeChriste]

This is strange. I would have thought that rejecting the legitimate Pope stops people being real Catholics. Isn't that what happened in the past, with anti-Popes in Avignon and the fracturing of the Church?

I don't know the subtleties of your arguments, so this opinion is just that. But anybody who rejects the authority of the Holy See because they have decided it is corrupt has no business calling himself Catholic: it's an affront to those of us within the Church wrestling with difficult decisions in this difficult time.

What if everybody abandoned ship and set up their own faux Church? Isn't that part of what Protestantism was all about... and that led to terrible heresies and countless offenses.

Has the Holy Spirit abandoned the Vatican? No.

Catholics are Catholics by baptism. Sedes don't get unbaptized, so they are still real Catholics.

Protestants are Catholic by baptism are they real Catholics to?

If they are validly baptized, they are Catholic for at least a moment. Baptism is a true sacrament of the true Church. Of course, they are heretics almost immediately... but that is another thread.

[Some of the protestant sects also still call themselves Catholic, should we believe them?

The true Church has 4 marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Most protestant sects lack all four, so they are wrong to call themselves Catholic. If they desire to be Catholic, they have to convert.

I find it disturbing that so many of you would leap to the defence of some of the worst enemies of the Church today. Some of you need to make a clear decision on whether your loyalties are with the Pope of with his enemies because make no mistake a man cannot serve two masters when one is at war with the other. You are either loyal subjects of the Pope or treasonous rebels which one is it?

Choose your side carefully and remember "Who rejects you, rejects me, and rejects He who sent me."

I find it disturbing that you choose to be so divisive. Here's a scenario for you to think about:

Imagine a terrible accident. The victim's injuries are severe and his life is in danger, an ambulance has been called, and he is also wearing a scapular. The first two people on the scene are a sede and a modernist. Which one will call a priest?

Yes, I just made that up and I realize it is extreme, but it does show that the intentions of the sedes are at least imperfectly the same as the intentions of the Church- to save souls. We cannot give modernists that same benefit of the doubt.

By the way, my opinion is that the sede position is implausible.

[VetusOrdo]

No it is not speculation, it is a simple fact that you can not guarantee that the sedes will stop using these words “They should be beaten with fists..." against any future pope.

This is ridiculous! Nor can you guarantee that they will use those words against any modernist for that matter. Your claim is not a fact, it's just your own fantasy in action.

I've yet to see any sedevacantist boxing a modernist, though I wouldn't mind seeing that in the ring!

 

The above is the end result of mis-using these words of Pope Pius X directed against the Holy Father. Bad words lead to bad actions. This is not speculation. these soldiers are real men and many of them live today some may even read these very words. Bad men will always try to justify their actions.

This is utter nonsense! It is you who are relating St. Pius X's words against modernists with the hypothetical misusage of them by sedevacantists as a hypothetical justification for their hypothetical murder of the Pope, as described in the third (and yet incomplete) secret of Fatima.

This is not a fact, unless you consider as fact your own musings.

[loggats]

This is strange. I would have thought that rejecting the legitimate Pope stops people being real Catholics. Isn't that what happened in the past, with anti-Popes in Avignon and the fracturing of the Church?

I don't know the subtleties of your arguments, so this opinion is just that. But anybody who rejects the authority of the Holy See because they have decided it is corrupt has no business calling himself Catholic: it's an affront to those of us within the Church wrestling with difficult decisions in this difficult time.

What if everybody abandoned ship and set up their own faux Church? Isn't that part of what Protestantism was all about... and that led to terrible heresies and countless offenses.

Has the Holy Spirit abandoned the Vatican? No.

Catholics are Catholics by baptism. Sedes don't get unbaptized, so they are still real Catholics.

Protestants are Catholic by baptism are they real Catholics to?

If they are validly baptized, they are Catholic for at least a moment. Baptism is a true sacrament of the true Church. Of course, they are heretics almost immediately... but that is another thread.

Some of the protestant sects also still call themselves Catholic, should we believe them?

The true Church has 4 marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Most protestant sects lack all four, so they are wrong to call themselves Catholic. If they desire to be Catholic, they have to convert.

I find it disturbing that so many of you would leap to the defence of some of the worst enemies of the Church today. Some of you need to make a clear decision on whether your loyalties are with the Pope of with his enemies because make no mistake a man cannot serve two masters when one is at war with the other. You are either loyal subjects of the Pope or treasonous rebels which one is it?

Choose your side carefully and remember "Who rejects you, rejects me, and rejects He who sent me."

I find it disturbing that you choose to be so divisive. Here's a scenario for you to think about:

Imagine a terrible accident. The victim's injuries are severe and his life is in danger, an ambulance has been called, and he is also wearing a scapular. The first two people on the scene are a sede and a modernist. Which one will call a priest?

Yes, I just made that up and I realize it is extreme, but it does show that the intentions of the sedes are at least imperfectly the same as the intentions of the Church- to save souls. We cannot give modernists that same benefit of the doubt.

By the way, my opinion is that the sede position is implausible.

I didn't say any of that (except the first bit, embedded in somebody else's quote)!

You've messed up with the quotes: please correct your post.

[austinemarie]

A sedevacantist in the room. Got a question for him? You ought to understand our position very well.

Rantings are useless in this matter.

Catholic Charity should triumph - even in the face of the worst heresies.

[V_Leonius]

A sedevacantist in the room. Got a question for him? You ought to understand our position very well.

Rantings are useless in this matter.

Catholic Charity should triumph - even in the face of the worst heresies.

Catholic Charity of the same kind as sedes express towards the Pope.  Go and spread your errors some where else you are not welcome here.

[AdoramusTeChriste]

Loggats,

I fixed my post. Sorry for the mix-up.

[Catholicmilkman]

A sedevacantist in the room. Got a question for him? You ought to understand our position very well.

Rantings are useless in this matter.

Catholic Charity should triumph - even in the face of the worst heresies.

Catholic Charity of the same kind as sedes express towards the Pope. Go and spread your errors some where else you are not welcome here.

With charity like that who needs..... Why don't you debate and prove your position as St. Thomas did instead of throwing accusations around?

[loggats]

Loggats,

I fixed my post. Sorry for the mix-up.

No probs.