Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: jec1ny
sedevacantists

Yes! A new word every day.

7 posted on 05/25/2005 8:48:33 PM PDT by kezekiel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: kezekiel
Sinkspur taught me that one. Religion, and particularly the Catholic religion, has this rich vocabulary of its own. That is what happens when you have been hashing out theological disputes and conundrums for 2000 years; there is an attendant accretion of insider jargon.
8 posted on 05/25/2005 8:53:09 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: kezekiel

"sedevacantists
Yes! A new word every day."

The word is a term for schismatic and heretical traditionalists who believe that the pope is not the pope. Although few in numbers, there are a lot of different branches of these individuals. Most believe the throne of Peter has been vacant since the reign of either Pope Pius XII or John XXIII. Some hold that John ceased to be pope when he embraced what they claim was modernist heresy. Others claim that John was never legally elected because he was (so they claim) a secret Free Mason and therefore excommunicated.

Of course this is utter nonsense. The one thing which binds all these traditionalist quasi-Catholics is their visceral hatred of all things connected to Vatican II, most particularly the reformed (Novus Ordo) liturgy. In fairness I am not a great fan of the reformed liturgy myself. I do not doubt its legitimacy or its legality. But I do believe as a matter of private opinion, that it is manifestly inferior to that which it was intended to replace. Many of the sedevacantists have validly ordained priests. A few of the groups may even have validly though illicitly consecrated bishops (usually obtained through Old Catholic lines). Many however do not have valid orders. In any case, sedevacantists are formally schismatic and heretical by virtue of their denial of the lawful authority and election of the supreme pontiff and also their denial of the dogmatic definitions of the Second Vatican Council. They are ipso facto excommunicated.

As a side note the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) founded by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is not sedevacantist. They acknowledge the lawful election and authority of the post conciliar popes. Their position on the validity of Vatican II is not altogether clear. However their open and very grave disobedience coupled with their unauthorized episcopal consecrations renders them schismatic although they deny this. Unlike most of the fringe traditionalist groups there is some hope that the SSPX might be reconciled with the Holy See. Pope Benedict XVI has been quite blunt in his own criticisms of the reformed liturgy and his high opinion of the pre-Vatican II (Tridentine Rite) liturgy. It is entirely possible that a much broader permission for the use of the old mass may be forthcoming.


9 posted on 05/25/2005 9:24:24 PM PDT by jec1ny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: kezekiel

"Sedevacantist" is a term made by combining the Latinate "Sede" for chair or "See" and "vacant" for vacant.

So, a "sedevacantist" is one who believes that a chair, in this case the Papal Chair - the Holy See - is vacant due to the failing to properly invest a pope.

I think that after the death of John Paul II and before the selection and installation of Benedict XVI, the Vatican itself printed stamps and minted coins that said "Sede Vacant" - the chair is empty. Some Catholic wag here made his tagline "I am feeling strangely sedevacantist!"

To answer someone else's point, the Orthodox are not sedevacantists. They also acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome is senior in dignity to the other patriarchs, the primus inter pares, "first among equals". Were there be an ecumenical council at which Orthodox and Catholics all sat again, the Orthodox are the first to acknowledge that Pope would be seated at the head of the table, and would be the chair and run the agenda.

Where disagreement arises is over the extent of monarchical authority of the Pope: to what extent does the Pope have the authority to impose a doctrine on the Church over the objection of a Patriarch.

The original flaring of this controversy was the Great Schism itself and the assertions of papal supremacy in the filioque dispute.

I myself think that renunification with the Orthodox and the High Church Anglicans is eminently possible and theologically necessary. Jesus prayed for the UNITY of his Church. We can't keep defying him on this fundamental matter because we want to fight with each other. Where we cannot find a way, we have to pray to the Holy Spirit to cover us in our meetings so that He can show us a way we cannot devise for ourselves.

It is too important in a European world that is literally rotting at the core, both in Orthodox Russia and the Catholic West and Anglican England, with sexual libertinism and its intendant diseases running utterly rampant and getting deeper and deeper into the fabric of everything, legalized brothels, gay marriage, and sharply rising intolerance of Christianity. The Church has got to pull itself together and face this united.

"We are not divided, all one body we. One in hope and doctrine, one in charity. Onward Christian soldiers..."


16 posted on 05/26/2005 7:43:53 AM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson