This post is for anything related to the topic of sedevacantism: https://infogalactic.com/info/Sedevacantism
 
And then more specifically:
 
I think it was a year ago that the last known Pius XII era bishop died. In one sedevacantist interpretation, this means the episcopacy has gone vacant and that only a miracle could restore it (unlikely) or that the world is to end sometime soon. Others hold out hope some other person was consecrated and the lineage continues (I tend more towards this view, as some things don't seem all together yet for the world to end). If you have to be 35 to become a bishop, and Pius XII died in 1958 (it's been over 60 years), they'd have to be pushing 100 at this point if they were still alive. Which means that within the next few decades, some definitive answer seems to be forthcoming about sedevacantism and the status of Vatican 2.
 
The situation reminds me of the Babylonian Captivity which I thought lasted 70 years, a number we'll be soon approaching if sedevacantism were true: https://infogalactic.com/info/Babylonian_captivity
 
The Jews skipped honoring the Sabbath year for almost 500 years, so God allowed them to be exiled for 70 years, one year for each seventh year the Sabbath year wasn't observed (I'm not sure on the exact math or story, but it's something like this): https://infogalactic.com/info/Shmita
 
So too it seems Catholics have been deprived of an organized Church because of the increase of sins, or perhaps as a trial to test faith. Some have wavered in this trial and become orthodox in response, or atheist, etc.
 
And of course the Western Schism, which lasted 40 years, also comes to mind: https://infogalactic.com/info/Western_schism
 
That the Church is being pushed to an extreme does not surprise me given some of the open sin I see. Although personally I do not like the current culture of sports today as they sometimes promote irreligion or a worldly spirit, I witnessed or participated in many games that came down to scoring points right before the time ran out. So you couldn't expect to win or lose until there was no time left on the clock, even if you might be winning or losing by a lot of points the whole game. So likewise today I expect the Church will be pushed to a limit and look like it is "impossibly losing" and God will then aid it as it comes up to that limit. Possibly we are close to hitting that limit here within the next however many years, given some of the aforementioned constraints.
 
At some point with the Vatican, they will have to further cross the Rubicon and promote more open and direct heresy (rather than ambiguous heresies) to continue with the Vatican 2 project. One non-sedevacantist site notes Francis has already openly embraced the heresies of Lutheranism (they seem to correctly diagnose the problem without accepting the conclusion of sedevacantism that seems to follow): https://onepeterfive.com/recant-lutheran-heresy-francis/
 
> [Francis:] Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken
 
Luther believed man was justified by "faith alone", while Catholics believe that a man was justified by "faith and good works". Hence his statement is erroneous and supportive of the Lutheran heresy, from the Catholic view.
 
Apparently according to a recent (2017) poll, even many protestants seem to believe in this traditional Catholic view that faith and good works are necessary to salvation: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/08/31/poll-most-protestants-and-catholics-believe-faith-and-works-are-necessary
 
(As an aside, in practice, it seems certain Lutherans I've seen simply seem to conclude that those with "bad works" lack faith. So that actually faith and works go together anyway. So that the dispute is frequently more in the realm of philosophy and intellectual disagreement - not to trivialize the seriousness of the disagreement, though.)
 
The successor to Francis, and his successor, if these end up existing, will be interesting to see, and also people's reaction to the death of "Benedict XVI" (whom some people believe is "pope" still). Or the course will redirect to revert back to pre-Vatican 2 norms. Or a "breakaway" conclave might spring up from Pius XII era bishops, if they still somehow exist, which will give a true traditional pope. Probably God has in mind some interesting way to end this drama, although we can guess at what will happen because there are only so many likely possibilities of what can happen. But we can only either study to try to figure out if there is some human way to put an end to the Crisis (such as educating others about what has happened), or pray that God may intervene to end the Crisis.
 
What do you think will happen in the next few decades with what claims to be or is "Catholicism"?

You must log in to comment
8 comments:
deleted 5 months ago 1 point (+1 / -0 )
Account deactivated by its owner
5 months ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
I believe the Thuc line of Bishops and priests persist in some Sedeprivationist apostolates like CMRI. I believe we could have the whole church back if the hierarchy renounces its heresy.
  
Ala https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Cassiciacum-Thesis-2019-Script-Fr-D.pdf
None
5 months ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
I disagree with sedeprivationism, some posts are on scored about it, I am glad to see more people aware of the issues and thinking on them though. I do think maybe there's something salvageable in the view though which I'll go in to.
 
https://infogalactic.com/info/Sedeprivationism
 
So the view holds that the election of Vatican 2 heretics created "material popes". Plainly we think this is an erroneous view, and it creates an invalid election instead (the "totalist" sedevacantist view). So I think pretty much this is a succinct way of rejecting this view. Other problems include that the original theory held that certain elections were valid because of the participation of Pius XII appointed cardinals, and there are none of them left. So it would also not apply now if that was the case. So I hold to sedevacantism instead.
 
And the Thuc bishops and priests are validly priests and bishops, but we hold them to be illicit. Ordinarily papal permission is needed to consecrate bishops, which they did not have. So there is an automatic excommunication I think attached to consecrating bishops which they are ignoring. Then I think they need papal permission to set up churches which they also set aside. Also need permission to set up a religious order like "CMRI" which they had no permission for. They also need jurisdiction to offer certain sacraments like confession I think, which they admit they don't have (they don't have ordinary jurisdiction, so make arguments for jurisdiction being supplied in an extraordinary way). So for some of these reasons, some have concluded the strict interpretation of the law simply makes them unable to function. This is the "home alone" view, which is usually "sedevacantist" - believing there is no pope today (sedevacantism) and no clergy available that we know of (home alone).
 
One writer notes some problems with sedeprivationism (calls it a heresy), and this is also where I source the point about Pius XII cardinals: https://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/einsicht12.2003.html
 
> "According to the conception of des Laurier, as published in the Review, Cassiciacum, Monsignor Wojtyla was legitimately elected pope, pars minor y sanior, because about 10 cardinals created under Pius XII were present: He is papa materialiter."
 
des Laurier originated the Cassiciacum Thesis.
 
> "In SAKA-Information of January 1984, Bishop Guerard des Laurier wrote:
"For the present, the Church is "occupied" and in a state of privation (mice en etat de privation). W. [Monsignor Wojty衍a] was properly elected (I hold it valid unless it can be proved otherwise) by a conclave that con貞isted of ten true cardinals (at least they did not protest against the election), then he occupied the possession of the papal See."
 
Historically, three responses popped up in reaction to Paul VI allegedly approving a heresy in the Vatican 2 documents in December 1965: "sedeplenism", or the SSPX view, "sedprivationism" as discussed above, and "sedevacantism". It's been argued by some sedevacantists that in practice all the traditionalists were sedevacantist since they did not obey the "popes" of that time up to today.
 
So sedeprivationism can be a problem, because if the Vatican 2 church was to renounce Vatican 2 today, for sedeprivationists it would be Catholic, but not necessarily for sedevacantists. Sedevacantists would insist on a new election of a pope, while sedeprivationists would accept Francis as pope. Therefore I have argued sedeprivationism is "schismatic" and should be rejected as such by sedevacantists.
 
But there is a point where I have come to possibly agree with sedeprivationism on a bit more recently. Usually discussions of sedeprivationism versus sedevacantism focus on if there is no pope or a "material pope". For me, I think it's clear Francis is not a pope nor a "material pope", I think sedevacantism prevails. However, some have argued that perhaps there might be some who have remained Catholic who were in the Vatican 2 church. While the Western rite of creating bishops was altered, the Eastern rite has not been changed. During the Western Schism, where there was uncertainty who the pope was or if there was a pope for 40 years, those who followed antipopes in good faith were not considered to be schismatic. Hence, following the same precedent, it might be possible for certain Eastern bishops for example to have remained Catholic while having followed antipopes in good faith. So while I reject sedeprivationism as applied to the issue of the pope, in a sense this is like "sedeprivationism applied to the clergy" and I do find this to be possible, or at least some are debating about the plausibility of this view.
 
Because a major focus and conflict we don't have an answer for is about how the Church is to get a pope going forward, if sedevacantism is true. The known Pius XII bishops have died out as I think I note in the OP. So either there are some out there hidden "in the woods", or perhaps a few Eastern bishops might still be Catholic. If the Church is to continue, it seems to imply there are still Catholic clergy somewhere. So something different than sedeprivationism, but I think very much the same kind of thinking.
None
5 months ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
The future of the church, as you succinctly put the problem, is why I accept sedeprivationism. I don’t believe a situation where all that’s left of the church is the laity is consistent with the Gospels, scripture generally, and accepted prophecy. The alternative is the Siri Thesis and a possible hidden pope. I do believe there will be a pope prior to the return of Christ and totalism doesn’t allow for that.
None
5 months ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
> I do believe there will be a pope prior to the return of Christ and totalism doesn’t allow for that.
 
well, I guess I would distinguish by what is meant by "totalism". The vacancy of the Holy See, I would defend, and argue sedeprivationism is in error. An alleged vacancy of the episcopacy, sometimes called "ecclesia-vacantism", or a view that there are no more clergy, some have thought to be heretical and impossible. I don't know if it is impossible or heretical, but I guess I do believe there must be clergy somewhere: either "in the woods", hidden, like a "siri theory of the clergy", or some members of the Vatican 2 church must be Catholic clergy.
 
Sedprivationism was created as a response to Paul VI being a "pope who fell in to heresy", going from a formal to material pope in their view. And part of the reason is because it is an unresolved issue, how the Church is to handle the case of an heretical pope. But once he died, then sedeprivationism should have ended. Because then there were heretics trying to be elected as pope, and those elections would be invalid. Further, many sedevacantists / sedeprivationists then started to think John XXIII never became pope in the first place. This would also exclude any need for sedeprivationism.
 
Also, so the concern seems to be about how a pope could be elected in the future. Originally as I noted, sedeprivationism held a "material validity" of certain papal elections because Pius XII cardinals participated in the elections. But they have all died off, so this would be another case where sedeprivationism also should have ceased as a theory. However now it has also been made in to a second theory, that these "material popes" have created "material cardinals". I suppose the misunderstanding here may be in thinking that it is necessary for there to be cardinals to elect a pope. For about a millennium, there was no set method for electing a pope, the bishops and clergy (with some participation from the laity) just chose one and then the election was peacefully accepted: https://infogalactic.com/info/Papal_selection_before_1059
 
Other writers have noted that a pope could be elected by a general imperfect council of bishops if somehow all the cardinals died. So I don't see any need to argue for a "material papacy" of "material cardinals" in order to elect a pope and preserve the indefectibility of the Church as far as those go.
 
Then to me there's also the question of conclavism which has not been adequately addressed in my view by sedevacantists or sedeprivationists (sedevacantists elect a pope). Essentially how it's manifested is a kind of agnosticism or embrace of "ecclesia-vacantism" or a belief that there were no clergy available (laity only) or existing. So laymen elected a "pope", who can then make the various illicit but valid "traditionalist clergy" in to licit clergy. This would potentially solve the problem of "how to get a pope". But I object that this method has been doubtful with respect to preserving apostolicity, as it seems to presuppose "ecclesia-vacantism", which may be impossible or heretical to begin with. In other words, I think there must be Catholic clergy somewhere, and they can elect a pope or confirm an election. Hence this is my own objection I developed to conclavism.
 
So I guess I'm supportive of a "sedeprivationism of the clergy" view, possibly, and not "totalist" in that sense. Although this view has problems, since if they are truly Catholic clergy in the Vatican 2 church, then why shouldn't Catholics just follow them? So I find possibly that view to be inconsistent, and find the "bishops in the woods" view most favorable - there must be Catholic clergy somewhere, but possibly in hiding, or at a remote distance who may not know if there's a pope or who the pope is (so that they would not fall in to schism due to being at a distance).
 
Another problem I have with the sedeprivationist view or general view of some of these "trad chapels", is I've seen some sedeprivationists argue that abjurations of errors weren't required of converts to any of the traditionalist chapels, and that therefore this was a sign that sedeprivationism was true. Rather instead, this is a sign to me that these "trad chapels" are not Catholic, and abjurations of errors should have been required. Because even setting aside specific Vatican 2 errors, which might be new, pepole have been falling in to older errors which are already condemned. So to err on the side of caution, it would seem abjurations of errors would be encouraged.
 
That would be another reason why in practice I would tend towards a totalist view (or specifically "home alone" view), as in practice my experience has been "totalist". I would not recommend Catholics attend any of these trad chapels or any known church, due to wide variations in teaching and practice.
 
In short, many things should be put "on hold" and much work done to come to more of an authoritative consensus on how to proceed. From the taste I see of the pre-Vatican 2 way of life, it does not seem like a lot of traditionalists have been carrying that forward. Another random thing I think of is how a lot of communications are in English rather than latin, among these "traditionalist" writings (like the linked Cassiciacum thesis ... perhaps it is in latin, I forget, I did not click it as I have read it before, and the few links on this topic have not been in latin).
 
But I do concede I think more discussion is probably required, to definitively put the sedeprivationist thesis to rest, given that we still have no forthcoming "bishops from the woods" or rival papal election to challenge the Vatican 2 institution which still has such organization as to make it look like having some "material" claim to carrying on something of the Church.
None
5 months ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
All the Bishops and Cardinal Siri signed V2. If there is no way back to their positions without papal intervention, there are no clergy. All the preV2 priests are likely dead or retired. If renouncing the heresy is sufficient, then the Thuc line of bishops persist and there may be a hidden pope from the Siri Cardinals as Siri renounced ecumenism in 1985.
None
5 months ago 1 point (+1 / -0 )
> there may be a hidden pope from the Siri Cardinals as Siri renounced ecumenism in 1985
  
ok I've looked in to this a little and maybe you've seen the same, interestingly I think there is Pius XII legislation that says even excommunicated cardinals can validly elect a new pope. So it's possible there's some kind of hidden lineage that was created. I don't think it's siri though, and I heard possibly ottaviana but they both have the same problems of having accepted Vatican 2. idk the significance of siri renouncing ecumenism in 1985, there would be weird legal problems with him having become possibly a "heretic pope" which would become like another sedeplenist or SSPX predicament. But he or someone could have been elected in the 1958 election, appointed some other people as cardinals and bishops, and have kept a hidden lineage going. But there are really only so many possibilities here, and this is as likely to some people as there being hidden bishops out there somewhere I guess.
  
But yeah anyway we have some idea of what move God makes next, either He brings some hidden person out in to the open or the trads or V2 "clergy" will have to be legitimized. We don't really have too many other options. And this seems like it will have to happen somewhat soon because time's running out.
  
I remember reading that St. Augustine's mother prayed for him for 18 years, for his conversion. Sometimes when you're in the middle of waiting it feels like forever. And some people have lost faith and become orthodox or atheist or whatever as a result. But if you've experienced something finally happening after a long wait, I guess this helps to boost faith. I am still waiting on a lot of things in my life but I am reminded of these stories of long waits like the 40 years of the Western Schism.
  
Either way, Catholics have all kinds of tradition to attend to and plenty of prayer and good to try to do as we wait on things that may be out of our control otherwise.
5 months ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) Edited 2022-06-04 15:09:26 1 child
>What do you think will happen in the next few decades with what claims to be or is "Catholicism"?

I'm a catholic. Born in a catholic family and baptized as an infant. I went to catechism. I received first communion and confirmation. My uncle was a catholic priest. He's now past.

I tell you all that so that I can tell you this: Catholicism has probably been dead as a real religious faith for at least 10 or 15 years. Subversive Jews and homosexuals killed it. It was severely harmed with communist and homosexual subversion in the 30's and 40's. It was fatally wounded with Vatican II. Today is lies comatose on the edge of death.

I don't see how the faith can be revived. If it is revived it will probably be a very different fake globo homo 'faith'. The church had an opportunity at redemption when Bishop Williamson stepped up and attempted to warn about the major mistakes of Vatican II and ignoring Jews and globalists false religions. The leadership of the church and most of the flock did not listen to Williamson or they listened but didn't hear.

Why do I think Catholicism is dead? Well, it doesn't really stand for anything it use to stand for. Almost every value it use to hold is either inverted or ignored. Most modern Catholicism punishes and turns it's back on it's own followers. Especially when they attempt to stand up for European ethnic rights, natalism, monogamy, etc. Catholicism in my humble opinion was all about ultimate faith in Christ whom is above earthly pursuits; Truth in all forms was the currency of the catholic faith. Thus, for generations Catholics told the oppressive state and the mammon worshipers and the un-repentant sinners to fuck off to hell. The old faith was about in group out group. Catholicism was intrinsically association with European peoples, their well being and strength in general. Catholicism was closely linked to fighting the devil manifest in human form: the Jew. It was a masculine faith. That's not the case anymore. How can any strong white male that wants: wife, family, and a moral safe ethnically European society support modern satanic, cucked and subverted anti white Catholicism?



 
None
5 months ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
> catholicism has been dead for 15 years
 
ok we're somewhat on the same page, are you aware of what the sedevacantist view is? basically with vatican 2, it's believed those teachings are not catholic, so then no one believing them can be pope. so almost all bishops and priests accepted the changes, taking churches away from Catholics. my view is there are no catholic churches known anywhere. they all took this "upgrade" which is not catholic. a few people got bishops to make them bishops but outside of the normal rules, so they're bishops but we argue not Catholic bishops. so they can't and didn't elect a pope, and they set up churches but have no authority to do so, so my view is they should be avoided. and the churches in league with the current vatican don't believe in traditional catholicism so they should also be avoided.
 
however some of us think God preserved a few bishops somewhere who can keep the Church going. But they've never presented themselves to the public so some people doubt they exist. This leaves Catholicism not dead (it can't die) but as if dead. So some of us are continuing to try to think if there's a way out of this, or are praying for God to act to fix things.
 
yeah, I've known "catholic" priests and seen things first hand. it doesn't seem Catholic to me anymore. Because I also saw how things were before Vatican 2 and it seems very different. I am confident somehow God will bridge the gap between what was to the future, but I am not sure how we get there and where we are at in the present exactly. Some people think things are hopeless and end times is the only solution. but I am not sure of that, I could see God turning some things around.
 
there's still a lot people can do, even while we don't know what to do with this. like pray, fast, work, help people, be a good person, study, and so on.
None
Toast message