I really appreciate this resource. I regularly post these to the truecatholicfaith Telegram channel, associated with truecatholicfaith dot com. Thanks so much.
I thought that Thuc dental “newspaper” was real😅 I was like, are they serious? It was a joke right? And I am thankful for Sean’s journey, we share some similarities although I was never anti sede. I always allowed it to be an option.
In our current age were "sedevacantist" get a bad reputation for being "mean" and "hateful", its truly refreshing to read Sean's change of heart. It's also refreshing to see others who do not hold to the sedevacantist position to point out the great work you guys do. It is sites like this one and NovusOrodoWatch who continually point out the truth with heavy resources that show this position is true. You guys do it with class and the upmost respect. Others may ridicule and insult us, but you guys are nothing short of being first class gentlemen. I am proud to support you guys, and thanks for all of the great articles.
I have to admit I don't care much for the "sede-doubtist" position or label. It is obviously true for every Sedevacantist, but it seems to be a "safe" and "anything but sedevacantist" light position. Most R&Rs who are fully honest will have the same doubt. No SV claims to have the authority to deem it binding as a dogmatic truth. I think Sean's and Vlad Sarto's position is kind of a straw-man. Bishop Sanborn's article on treating this question as only an opinion demonstrates to me how the sede-doubtist position is wrong.
If we look at any other truth that is properly inferred by an already accepted binding truth, and then applied the same behavior, we can see the absurdity of treating this as if it can merely lie in the subjective arena. If we know as law that 2+2=4, then can we leave it as an opinion that adding 2 more is 6 and that someone else may very well conclude as an opposing opinion that the rule does not necessarily follow and the answer can be 7 or 8? If we are told by authority that a female cannot be pope, yet a female claims the papacy, are we then allowed to believe that one's conclusion, either way, is just an opinion? Or can we say definitively that the female claimant to the papacy is not a true pope, regardless of the majority coming to the opposite conclusion?
I am sure my examples are not perfect and some will take exception with them, but I think the point I am trying to make is demonstrated. Maybe you or others can come up with a better example. Regardless, it is good that Sean, Chris Jackson, and others are now looking at this from a more balanced perspective. So much hinges on the pope question. It has become a cardinal position. How one falls on that question changes the entire Catholic world they live in. It just has to. Principles matter!
I keep writing the same thing each time I comment on this site: "Another great article! Keep up the good work! So this time I will post something totally different: "Keep up the good work! Another great article!
It seems like only a small minority of sedes trace the Great Apostasy to the vitiated 1958 conclave, but I'm convinced, besides the substantial evidence for the Judeo-Masonic overthrow of a rightful pope, that that's the only way we could have false popes since John XXIII.
The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic - not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. Never happened and never will. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903). This is the Tradition of the Church.
"...this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail....’” - Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 6.
I really appreciate this resource. I regularly post these to the truecatholicfaith Telegram channel, associated with truecatholicfaith dot com. Thanks so much.
Thanks Steve!
I thought that Thuc dental “newspaper” was real😅 I was like, are they serious? It was a joke right? And I am thankful for Sean’s journey, we share some similarities although I was never anti sede. I always allowed it to be an option.
It was indeed a joke by Fr Cekada!
In our current age were "sedevacantist" get a bad reputation for being "mean" and "hateful", its truly refreshing to read Sean's change of heart. It's also refreshing to see others who do not hold to the sedevacantist position to point out the great work you guys do. It is sites like this one and NovusOrodoWatch who continually point out the truth with heavy resources that show this position is true. You guys do it with class and the upmost respect. Others may ridicule and insult us, but you guys are nothing short of being first class gentlemen. I am proud to support you guys, and thanks for all of the great articles.
I have to admit I don't care much for the "sede-doubtist" position or label. It is obviously true for every Sedevacantist, but it seems to be a "safe" and "anything but sedevacantist" light position. Most R&Rs who are fully honest will have the same doubt. No SV claims to have the authority to deem it binding as a dogmatic truth. I think Sean's and Vlad Sarto's position is kind of a straw-man. Bishop Sanborn's article on treating this question as only an opinion demonstrates to me how the sede-doubtist position is wrong.
If we look at any other truth that is properly inferred by an already accepted binding truth, and then applied the same behavior, we can see the absurdity of treating this as if it can merely lie in the subjective arena. If we know as law that 2+2=4, then can we leave it as an opinion that adding 2 more is 6 and that someone else may very well conclude as an opposing opinion that the rule does not necessarily follow and the answer can be 7 or 8? If we are told by authority that a female cannot be pope, yet a female claims the papacy, are we then allowed to believe that one's conclusion, either way, is just an opinion? Or can we say definitively that the female claimant to the papacy is not a true pope, regardless of the majority coming to the opposite conclusion?
I am sure my examples are not perfect and some will take exception with them, but I think the point I am trying to make is demonstrated. Maybe you or others can come up with a better example. Regardless, it is good that Sean, Chris Jackson, and others are now looking at this from a more balanced perspective. So much hinges on the pope question. It has become a cardinal position. How one falls on that question changes the entire Catholic world they live in. It just has to. Principles matter!
Way to go SJ, you picked a most useless hill to die on.
I keep writing the same thing each time I comment on this site: "Another great article! Keep up the good work! So this time I will post something totally different: "Keep up the good work! Another great article!
Mike
Thanks Mike, your encouragement always helps and is appreciated!
It seems like only a small minority of sedes trace the Great Apostasy to the vitiated 1958 conclave, but I'm convinced, besides the substantial evidence for the Judeo-Masonic overthrow of a rightful pope, that that's the only way we could have false popes since John XXIII.
The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic - not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. Never happened and never will. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903). This is the Tradition of the Church.
"...this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail....’” - Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 6.
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958
"In the Catholic faith 'a mystery [a very long interregnum] is possible but contradiction [a non-Catholic pope] is not'." Bp Sanborn.
I believe that credit for coining the term "sede-doubtism" belongs to "Ladislaus" from CathInfo, who blogs elsewhere as "Vlad Sarto".