www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Sedevacantist?

From the Father through the Son could be doctrinally correct, but that doesn't mean it's a compromise in the sense of changing the Creed yet again in the West. I don't see what the problem is in taking it out entirely. It's not like RC's believe the older form was incorrect.

If the See of Peter is vacant, what does that imply for the Lord's promise that He would remain with His Church to the end of the age? Does this not make Him a liar? (And that's a position I really shrink from!!!)

Aside from any discussion from our brothers and sisters in the Orthodox Churches as to whether the See of Rome is in or out of the Church, I pose this particular question as I have to many people holding this position since the end of Vatican II in the mid 1960s. So far no one has come forward with an answer to it.

If the Lord were to abandon us all, we'd be in a mess far greater than anything discussed here since I've been a member.

BOB

"If the See of Peter is vacant, what does that imply for the Lord's promise that He would remain with His Church to the end of the age? Does this not make Him a liar?"

The few sedevacantists I know come from the Priestly Union of Trent. They have a very dark view of the facts, in fact the See of Peter is vacant because Satan entered the Church and the antichrist is governing, all the diocese are vacant too, and the orders after Vatican II are all invalid and the sacraments too. Only them posess the truth and no-one but them, so that's why there is a war between the sedevacantists themselves and contradict each other.

Another group broke from the Prietsly Union of Trent when they realized that their possition was illogical (that only the PUT posessed the truth), so they adopted a more radical possition claiming that as Satan had infiltrated the sedevacantists too, there were no valid priests or Bishops, so lay men celebrate Mass in Latin without the consacration and they say that the end of the world is inminent (they are quite paranoid)

Don't you know that the See of Peter is no longer empty? The Pope lives right here in Delia, Kansas! He was elected about 10 years ago. LOL I can't remember the fellow's name, but he was a former member of the Society of St. Pius X, Diak may know who he was. The Society wasn't conservative enough for him, so he became Sedevacantist...and eventually ended up his own Pope! Too funny. Don

His name was "Pope Michael" and was elected through a conclave which included his parents. I think I remember hearing he has since abdicated.

The words of a Van Morrison song keep going through my head when I look at this thread, "real, real gone".

In a sense, anyone who might (on their own) take the position that the see of Peter is vacant becomes a Pope.

This seems to be the ultimate extension of the logic.

Peace
Michael, sinner

Hello:

The doctrine that teaches an eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit is indeed a legitimate development.

The modification of the Creed might be viewed as legitimate, but I consider it unnecessary, and therefore I'd like to see the Creed restored to its original form even for Liturgical use (for documentation purposes, the Roman Curia is already using a Filioque-less Creed).

Shalom,
Memo.

Hi:

Wasn't this guy one of the various Pius XIII we've suffered in the last couple of decades?

I think this guy's still around. He was a priest when he decided that the Church was no longer the Church, so he gathered a bunch of followers and decided that, since none of them was in holy orders, much less a Cardinal, it was safe to assume that the "ordinary" way to elect a Pope was no longer feasible, and therefore, he "found" a way to justify having a "Conclave" with no Cardinals.

This "Conclave", of course, elected him as Pope. But wait a minute, if a Pope-elect is not a Bishop, he needs to be ordained, and he has to be ordained by another Bishop. Big problem, isn't it? Of course not, that is what the Alexandrian Ordination is there for! Since he was the only priest left in the "Catholic Church", then he alone was the college of priests required by the Alexandrian rite to ordain a Bishop.

He "ordained" one of his followers as Priest and as Bishop and then this guy "ordained" him as Bishop. Of course, the brand new "Pope" elevated his buddy to Cardinal. This "Cardinal" passed away soon after (buy hey, he made it bing, didn't he?).

"Pope" Pius XIII has since "ordained" another priest, a married man. Since he was married, he couldn't be ordained to the "Latin rite", so he was ordained to the "Melkite rite", with bi-ritual faculties for the "Latin rite".

So what do you know! Perhaps we will soon have ANOTHER Patriarch of Antioch around.

These dudes are funny indeed.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

Yes, but that is not the only thing the Filioque teaches . . .

The issue of its inclusion in the Creed has nothing really to do with what it does or does not teach.

It has to do with one Church, namely the Church of Rome, approving an addition to a Creed that was meant to express the universal faith of the Church as defined by the early two Councils.

The principle of conciliarity assumed that such changes could ONLY be made by Ecumenical Councils of the entire Church, and not by any one Church unilaterally. This is something that many RC theologians today accept.

The Roman Catholic Church of Greece does NOT include the Filioque in its recitation of the Creed - something that is approved by the Vatican.

And when the Pope says Mass in Greek, he omits the Filioque as well.

Both Churches believe that the Son and the Spirit come from the Father as the Sole Principle in the Trinity.

The "Filioque" was, in part, a way for certain Western theologians to rationalize the "how" of the Spirit's Procession, since they assumed there is no difference between the action of the Son's being Begotten and the Spirit's Procession.

And that assumption is simply wrong - the Fathers of both East and West maintain that there is a distinction, but that we cannot understand it.

I have no problem knowing I cannot understand God the Holy Trinity.

I'm just happy He understands and loves me!

Alex

And when the Pope says Mass in Greek, he omits the Filioque as well.

When has the Pope said Mass in Greek?

(the only thing I know is that during the canonization mass of the Christer Martyrs in Rome, a Greek Orthodox deacon from Mexico read the Epistle in Greek, but it was a Latin Rite Mass)

But has the Pope ever celebrated the Divine Liturgy acording to the Greek tradition?

Dear Remie,

Yes, he has, numerous times, and I've seen him do it on TV!

(It was "Greek" to me!)

As for further particulars, I don't know.

You see, you are unfortunately speaking with an ignorant person in me . . .

God bless,

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Remie:

"Another group adopted a more radical possition claiming that as Satan had infiltrated the sedevacantists too, there were no valid priests or Bishops, so lay men celebrate Mass in Latin without the consacration"

Latin rite Bezpopotsy! hahahaha....

(is that correct spelling? I mean Non-priestly Old Belivers)

Christian

Dear Friend,

It's "BezpopoVtsi" - but good enough!

Alex

"" He "ordained" one of his followers as Priest and as Bishop and then this guy "ordained" him as Bishop. Of course, the brand new "Pope" elevated his buddy to Cardinal. This "Cardinal" passed away soon after (buy hey, he made it bing, didn't he?)"".

Nothing new under the sun indeed. This is the same way Joe Smith priestly ordination took place in the LDS Church.

I hope all of you are having a nice Lent.

By the way has Old Calendar Lent begun already?