Online debates with the cult of Sede.

Not open for further replies.

Pete d

I thank the Lord for the opportunity to live another day to expolore the wonders of his Church. I am in arguments on line with a few Sedevacantists. This one seems the most charitable by not resorting to Ad Hominem when they sense they are loosing ground. I like online debating because it's easier to not let the emotions get so involved. As a disclaimer: It could be possible that the names on who makes the comment may have been switched by mistake as I have edited out the Sede's real name and removed my last name and it is possible some mistakes were made in doing so. Also some of the comments cut short. I can spend more time and go to the original and retrieve them if there is interest. by all means if anyone cares to take the time and correct me in my errors in the faith, that would be very constructive and greatly appreciated. need to see if people are interested first. if a comment sounds inconsistent with that persons position it could have been an error in the editing of taking the names out. Please say a short prayer for both the persons involved. especially the one who is claiming to have the true faith. that would be dependent upon who has shown the greater works and glory of God. To whom much is given much is required.

SEDE: That could be. I've been antagonistic on the Internet before, arguing things that I don't really believe, because I value the argument its self.

Peter: thats why I asked you. and this is the exact reason why no man can judge the pope unless he comes out and directly says it. that is what the real interpretation and church teachings are on the matters of heresy to constitute removal of office.
Sede: Actually, I don't think you have any claim to "real interpretation and church teachings," after all, you're prima facia in schism.

Peter: since it was the vote of bishops that put him in then it would take the same judgement by Gods providence to remove him.

Peter:what evidence are you using for that opinion of yours. Cum Ex?

Sede:Now, I can't quote you just now, but as I recall, you said something along the lines that certain things having been uttered by the Bishop of Rome have been against the faith, and must be resisted. You said words to this effect yes?

Peter:, I have said that . that is church teaching.

Peter:It is also church teaching that the pope can speak heresy and not know it. Vat II is a prime example. they believe they are following the church.

Sede:Actually it's on very shaky ground. I don't have them handy, but I would be happy to find you some documents which spell out the level of obedience and submission you owe to the Bishop of Rome...

Peter:a pope speaking the errors of vatican II would not qualify for the judgments of cum ex.

Sede:Not the argument anymore.

Actually a Pope saying such things, if they are the Pope must be given the full assent of the faithful. ...See More

Tribus Circiter - Papal Encyclicals


Peter: This Archbishop still believed the pope was still the pope. I take this position as well.

Sede:Yes, and he died under excommunication.

Peter: Not true. Which qualifications for formal heresy did he meet according to cum ex or any other church law. If the command of the pope is an evil command it holds no power from the office.

Sede:What? Really? Are you saying that Archbishop Lefebvre did not die excommunicated?

Peter: That is my claim. what evidence can you present for your claim?
What were the church laws he broke? Sin against the Holy Spirit?

Office of Congregation for Bishops - Excommunication
Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred <ipso facto> excommunication <latae sententiae> reserved to the Apostolic See.

Sede: I presume you don't see how you've tied yourself in knots eh Peter?

Peter:I have not. do you believe the popes had authority to make the changes to the mass?

Peter:It's more clear in that matter then cum ex.

Peter:It's precisly because they were attempting to force heresy on the good Archbishop that had to disobey. therefore they had no legal basis to excommunicate him and therefore it did not happen.

Peter:Just as they had no authority to change the mass they did not have authority to excommunicate one who did not publicly profess leaving the church.

Sede:You are arguing that the Pope is judged by no one, etc. etc. Well the Catholic doctrine on the Papacy in this regard is that John Paul II, though the proper exercise of authority excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre. The Catholic doctrine on the Papacy...See More

Peter:I am not arguing that point. that is defined church doctrine.

Sede:I think you just doubted the authority of the Pope. The Pope as you are arguing has supreme, universal and immediate authority.

He absolutely had the authority to excommunicate Abp. Lefebvre, and no appeal is possible other than to the Pope himself...See More

Peter: Two rules of the church: The church does not judge the dead. (De Mortuis Ecclesia non judica.) The church does not judge internal things (De internis Ecclesia non judica.).

Sede: So.... you are refusing to recognize the validity of the excommunication on the grounds that it was issued based on purely internal judgement...?

Peter:the popes authority is only as good as it follows the Holy Spirit. Does he have the power to take away the sacraments? Is he more powerful then popes who have come before him?

Peter:the church can not judge internal matters. that why the pope can't be judged either.

Sede:What does that have to do with Abp. Lefebvre, and the corner you've painted yourself into?

Peter:it appears to you I have painted myself in a corner. that is because you have an incorrect understanding of Cum Ex and other church documents.

Peter:You never answered my question about the popes changing the mass to the new ordo. Did they have the authority to do that?

Sede:Uhhh.... No.

You've painted yourself into a corner because you are defending Apb Lefebvre, saying that his excommunication was invalid, or something, while simultaneously insisting on the authority of and inability to judge a Pope. ...See More

Sede: Yes I did.Peter: Canon 13, 7th Session of the Council of Trent says: “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administrations of the sacraments, may be condemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by...See More

Sede:Okay, so you're quoting Canon Hesse a fair bit. What's your point? I don't disagree with any of that, but, since Pop Leo XIII made changes to the classification of feasts, then prima facia, he deviated from Quo Primum.

According to black letter la...See More

Peter: So for Archbishop Lefebvre to be excommunicated for his attempts to preserve the mass and the faith would be an unjust and ineffective sentence.

Sede:That's not at all why Lefebvre was excommunicated! Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for disobeying a direct, lawful order. A direct order from the Pope, no less.

Peter:He was not denying his authority, it is simply not obeying an unjust command since he did not reject his power to give commands, just the command itself. This is the present relationship to the Pope.

Sede:Where's that in Catholic teaching?

Sede:But even if the order were unjust, that cannot impact the validity of the consequent, so long as the issuing authority remains such.

Peter:If the church says we must go to a good mass and then the pope commands us to destroy all traditional masses and only the new order mass should survive do we obey?

Peter:the order was to remove the traditional mass.


No, the order was that Archbishop Lefebvre was not to consecrate four priests as Bishops.

Peter: It was directly contrary to the Faith of the ages. The pope had lost his mind. still pope but an insane one.

Sede:Which Pope lost his mind, and where's the evidence for that?

Peter:and what was the intention for doing this? To preserve the faith. To pass on the tradition of the church.

Sede:I'm sorry, but the noblest of intentions is not a defense for disobedience, especially to the putative Vicar of Christ.

Peter: Love is higher then obedience in virtues.
higher then faith.

Sede:That's all very well, but that cannot render a judgement of the Roman Pontiff invalid, or non-binding.

Peter:But he said to them: What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?
[Matthew 12:11]

Sede: Is this the necessity defense? Look, I'm happy to voice my support for the historical actions of Abp. Lefebvre, but we're talking about black letter law here...

Peter:he was not rendering a judgement against the pope. He was subjectively following a higher order to preserve the faith from a crazy man. what if king David would have listened to King Saul on certain matters. No more line of David.

Sede: John Paul II was many things, but considering he remained lucid until his death, that's not actually true...

Peter:He was under the influence of evil spirits. probably from all those blessings he got from those ecumenical celebrations with false religions.

Peter:It would have been better for him had he lost his mental faculties. his spiritual ones were not operating.

Sede:He was under the influence of evil spirits...? Wow... Umm.. Weren't you saying that the Church does not judge internal things...? I don't suppose you have any evidence for that....

Aren't you now saying that the Pope's faith failed?

Peter: I do not know how it turned out for him in the end. I pray he repented. His failure to feed the sheep was quite evident and not acceptable or should have been tolerated. He was still the pope.

Peter:a the fruits of Vat II tell all we need to know about the spirits involved around him.

Peter:the silence in the midst of all the vaticano pedos. A Saint would not have kept silent during all that went on. he can't claim he did not know. It was his job to know.

Sede:Woah.. so John Paul II isn't a Saint then?

Peter:, Is there any doubt in peoples mind that his is? That is why the principles of the church are to operate with zero doubt. That is why a pope can't be automatically excommunicated without the Churche's process of exposure to remove all doubt of His intentions and such is the same principle applied by the devils advocate to remove all doubt someone qualifies as a saint. And who was it that made the changes to the process of sainthood? The pope who is now claimed a saint. Another of his unjust laws that must be rejected by faithful Catholics in defense of the One True Faith. We are allowed to judge the law but not the Pope.

Sede:I don't think it works that way. Canonization is to my knowledge infallible.

As for doubt, I beg to differ but I have heard at least one person tell me very forcefully that John Paul II is a fake Saint, meaning no Saint at all.

Sede: I think you are a sedevacantist Peter. The Canonization of John Paul II, and the validity of Francis are a package deal; you cannot reject the former without also rejecting the latter, because Canonizations are protected under the charism of infallibility. Francis could not have made a mistake; by rejecting the canonization you must necessarily read-into the situation that Francis is in some way, not the true Vicar of Christ.

On a personal note, I do in fact, know some sedevacantists, and I'm at peace with them. Maybe you should drop your apparent crusade against people who, at least from my perspective, just want to restore some sanity in the Church? Just a suggestion...

Peter: , I think you are Novus Ordo. people who speak heresy can be popes but not saints. for you not to find doubt in the writings and words of pope JPII says a lot.

Peter:, there is no sanity in denial of the true faith and the teachings regarding the papal office. by their fruits we will watch as providence unfolds.


I have you so tied in knots you can't see straight.

Actually the Novus Ordo has frustrated me to such a degree that I changed rites; my family and I now attend St. Michael the Archangel Ukranian Catholic Church in Kingston Ontario. Byzantine rite Liturgy, in Ukranian, and I don't speak a word of it.

Peter: I can see very clearly. It is you who for some reason see me to be a sedevacantist. How would you even begin to come to that conclusion based on all my statements and comments that in the midst of all the errors the pope is still pope. Am I unaware of the offenses committed against the One Faith? And still see that the Pope can not be unseated from the chair. What must happen, more then what already has, to turn me back to sedevacantism?

Sede:It's very simple Peter. The Sainthood of John Paul II, and the validity of the person making that declaration cannot be separated. Perhaps you cannot admit this to yourself; I'm merely pointing out the necessary implications of your position, at least insofar as I understand it.

Now, if on the other hand, you were to find your way to rejecting the validity of Jorge Bergoglio, then it's possible, perhaps even necessary to reject the canonization of John Paul II.

Or even more easily, you could just drop the crusade against those who are just hoping and praying for a return to tradition, despite certain differences...

Since the papacy is in no way a sacrament, isn't it possible for someone to fulfill most of the administrative function of the papacy without actually being the Vicar of Christ...?

Peter: , once again you demonstrate ignorance of church law. Holy Orders is indeed a sacrament. Which is why Sedevacantists sin by judging that which alone belongs to God. But I also have pity on them because they know not what they do. And I understand the temptation to mentally find a solution in the midst of what appears to be an unsolvable crisis. (Luke 1:37) " Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

Sede:Ignorance? Excuse me? Are you saying that the Papacy is a sacrament? If you think the papacy is a sacrament, then 1) you actually haven't done a very good job listening to Canon Hesse, and 2) there's not much help for you, and I think it might be best to leave you starring in the lead role of your very own Cervantes novel. Are you so confused that you're deliberately misreading me?

The papacy is not a sacrament. In no way is it a sacrament. The elevation of a Pope is in no way a sacrament. The consecration of a Bishop, the Ordination of a priest, and the Ordination of a Deacon are three steps of the same sacrament of Holy Orders. These confer a sacramental character on the recipient, they are a single sacrament.

But not the papacy. The election of a Pope is an act of Church administration, not a sacrament.

Peter: Holy Orders is a sacrament. How is the pope made a pope? The power comes from man or God? that is your problem, you think like a man and so your vision and actions and words and teachings will reflect this. All I can do is pray for you to see and then it would be up to you to accept the truth when your free will allows it.

Sede:The Pope becomes a Pope, at present, through the election of the Cardinals.

In the past, Popes were chosen by their predecessors. And prior to that, Popes were elected by popular vote.

I think you need to pray for yourself, it is you who are profoundly ignorant.

Papal selection before 1059 - Wikipedia
There was no fixed process for papal selection…

Peter: wikipedia? really? What am I going to do with you? All I can do is pray.

Sede: Peter, you're not making any sense anymore. If the form of sacraments can never be changed, and the Papacy is a sacrament, then the election cannot ever change. Yet it has changed.

You're not just a sedevacantist; you're necessarily a sedevacantist to St. Linus.

Sede: So, John Paul II was crazy, and/or also under the influence of evil spirits. And the Papacy is a sacrament, and therefore, anyone who attempted to change the rite, because the Papacy is a sacrament, put themselves outside the Church. But the Council which said so was necessarily in error, because we actually have 8 sacraments, Baptism, Confession/Penance, Holy Eucharist, Marriage, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Anointing and Papacy. Making the Councils which solemnly defined that the Catholic Church had seven sacraments, not eight, apparently in error. And because the papacy, or the rites around it anyway can't change, then we've had probably 150 invalidly elected Popes, but they're still Popes because reasons. Well, I guess that makes sense given the Council of Trent and a few others being in error about the sacraments.

And you insist that you see things clearly... Huh...

Peter: , "Or how canst thou say to thy brother: Brother, let me pull the mote out of thy eye, when thou thyself seest not the beam in thy own eye? Hypocrite, cast first the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the mote from thy brother's eye."
[Luke 6:42]

"And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh."
[Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 36:26]

Sede: I don't think quoting scripture can help you Peter. Not when we have this much pretzel logic happening.

Peter:How would you know if it helps me or not. you claim to know and that's all you have.

Sede:Because, your position no longer makes any sense, and you have some ideas which are completely irreconcilable with Church teaching.

Sede:And you're too busy trying to figure out my position that you can't understand the implications of your own.

Peter:I understand both positions well enough. God always provides, and the Catholic Faith and Her true teachings are a great gift for this world.

Sede:I don't think you understand your own position, much less the sedevacantist position.

Peter:how would you know my position? You said yourself that it makes no sense to you.

Peter:your position, on the other hand, makes sense to me. And the reason is because I used to hold those positions myself. And so I was a heretic, or was I, because nobody knew and then I repented.


I have yet to disclose my position, other than stating the Novus Ordo drives me a bit nuts, that much is sincere. The rest though, I have kept to myself.

You however, are making wildly irreconcilable claims like, the notion that Pope Francis is the true Vicar of Christ, yet he erred in Canonizing Pope John Paul II. But also that the papacy is apparently a sacrament, or even part of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Never has the Church taught that the Papacy is part of Holy Orders.

Sede: And you demonstrably don't fully know what my position is; you stated that I was Novus Ordo (whatever that means...?), when in reality I have sought to put as much distance as possible between myself, my family and the Novus Ordo Mass. Yet you know my position?

What's with the rejection of Wikipedia? I'm sure I can get Catholic Encyclopedia to tell you the same thing, but it'll be in much more difficult language. Here you go.

So, what's the status of the office of Cardinal? Is being made a Cardinal also a part of Holy Orders? Gee, why didn't the Church figure out Cardinals back in St. Peter's day?
· Reply · 5 minsRemove

Write a reply...
View more comments
A friend is typing a comment...

Write a comment...


Being a new member Peter you may not be aware that the sedevacantism issue has been debated, done and dusted on Cor Mariae. If you go to this link you will see that it is not debatable subject as one does not debate Church doctrine/teaching.:). You will understand why this thread is now locked.
Not open for further replies.