Is Fr. Jim Altman a Sedevacantist?
A sedevacantist is defined as a Catholic who believes there has not been a valid Pope since 1958. Fr. Jim Altman is not a sedevacantist. I know Fr. Altman in real life. We have mutual friends who are sedevacantists and we admire them, but we are not in that camp.
To recap: Sedevacantist in Latin means empty-chair. Sedevacantist in English means one who believes no valid Pope since 1958 due to modernist heresies in them.
If you were speaking exclusively Latin, you could accurately call Fr. Altman “a sedevacantist” due to his recent video on the papacy. But while speaking English, it would be entirely dishonest and a false-accusation to call Fr. Altman “a sedevacantist” because of his recently-explained stance on the Chair of Peter.
Why isn’t it sufficient to imply the Latin for sedevacantist when speaking English? Because we have thousands of English cognates based on Latin root words where the English word means something slightly different or entirely different from the original Latin root word.
In the Traditional Latin Mass, there are many propers asking that we imitate the conversatione of the saints. Conversatione in Latin looks like the English word “conversation.” But a transliteration is not the same as a translation. Most Missals translate this as “intercourse,” but this is inaccurate, too, at least according to modern parlance. Really, the request to God that we imitate the conversatione of the saints is a request that we imitate the lifestyle of the saints. Yes, the best translation of the Latin conversatione into English is “lifestyle.” Keep in mind that those odd cognates that look like their root-word in another language but mean another thing entirely are often labeled by linguists as faux-amis.
But many conservatives and even traditionalists who know the basics about language are still calling Fr. Altman a “sedevacantist,” as if they were allowed to go on denotation without connotation. Why are they doing this? Because they are dishonest. They know that Fr. Altman believes every Pope from 1958 to 2022 was valid. Now, if you don’t agree with Fr. Altman’s view of the current Vatican right now, that’s fine. But then politely dismantle his syllogisms without calling him a “sedevacantist” if you mean that word specifically to evoke a connotation of being a “Protestant.”
If you’re doing that on purpose, keep in mind that Marxists changed Eastern European languages to promote Communism. Pro-aborts refuse to use accepted neonatology terms in discussing abortion. At a less destructive level (but perhaps because of a fear of the truth) there are Catholics today who believe they can call Fr. Altman a “sedevacantist” simply based on a transliteration and denotation of the Latin instead of a clear translation of word based in connotation, too. (Even true sedevacantists today are honest enough to admit that Fr. Altman is not a “sedevacantist” as it means in English!)
But for those who hate the Logos, it usually means hating language, too. They refrain from answering clear objections posited by their adversaries. And it’s precisely because leftists can not answer such objections that they change language to suit their foregone conclusions. Clearly, I expect this behavior from Marxists and pro-aborts. But to see such dishonesty on language from conservative and traditional Catholics should give them pause as to exactly why they are so afraid of Fr. Altman’s recent assertions.
You only change language when you’re afraid that the truth is true.
I read a Trad blog that called him that and was appalled. Glad Fr. Nix jumped on this BS. We are truly living through diabolical disorientation.
I’m not appalled at the Sede position at all. As Father Nix said, we have friends in that camp, we understand their reasoning, we still consider them friends. It’s the wielding of that word as a weapon against someone who does not hold the position that we have a problem with. It’s a lie, and the liars know they are lying.
Mark, not appalled by the term, but the deliberate misuse of it. He isn’t a 1958 guy and they know it. If you choose to use that term, you are choosing to associate him with something that he isn’t part of. It’s willful. That’s what bothered me.
“But to see such dishonesty on language from conservative and traditional Catholics should give them pause as to exactly why they are so afraid of Fr. Altman’s recent assertions.”
I have suspected for a while that many of them are controlled opposition/CIA assets/data gathering operatives. The mission: Make sure no one realizes that Jorge Bergoglio is a fake pope but talk about everything else. Their unhinged reactions, using Marxist techniques, against Father Altman are another clear warning sign. They seem madder at him than Antipope Bergoglio.
I have also noticed similar tactics used against Ann Barnhardt, who is a very normal, sane, intelligent Catholic. Why are they so threatened by her? The controlled opposition wants to isolate her, now Father Altman, and anyone else with clout who questions the legitimacy of fake pope Bergoglio. Look at the hit job by the bishop and media against a very good young orthodox priest here in the Archdiocese of Mobile, Father Alex Crow, only a month after he questioned the legitimacy of Jorge Bergoglio in a talk at his parish posted on YouTube. I also am suspicious of sudden conversions to freemasonic-style “obedience,” like Aqua’s. (What is his real name, and why does he not use it online? Are we really to believe that he suddenly had a conversion right after Father Altman conclusively proved to a large audience that Bergoglio is an anti-pope?)
Just look at Eric Sammons’ Linked In page as one example. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericrsammons/details/experience/ The guy is clearly a CIA asset, and he somehow got the money to take over Crisis Magazine. Some highlights:
Lived in the DC area
“Elected trust protector of the world’s first self-governing decentralized cryptocurrency-based trust.”
CEO of Vansam: “Vansam is a software development company specializing in web-based software, offering services to government agencies, private companies and non-profit organizations.”
Others should do a little investigating into the backgrounds of other traditional Catholics in the media who refuse to commit to the fact that Bergoglio is an anti-pope.
Joel said: “ I also am suspicious of sudden conversions to freemasonic-style “obedience,” like Aqua’s. (What is his real name, and why does he not use it online? Are we really to believe that he suddenly had a conversion right after Father Altman conclusively proved to a large audience that Bergoglio is an anti-pope?)”
I’ve been struggling with the question of this Pope and the false resignation of Benedict since the beginning – as Mark (and Steven O’Reilly) can attest. I have put in countless hours and hours and hours trying to make sense of this inexplicable thing that happened to the Papacy. Almost the entire 10 years, literally from the moment Bergoglio appeared on the Loggia – online, in person, confessions, Priest interviews. I talk things out online line like this for my own purposes but also just trying to add to the conversations, or spur new topics, trying to understand.
And what good did any of it do, specifically my most recent well-intentioned and rather personal discussions about obedience?
This –
“Freemasonic-style obedience”. Are we really to believe …” in the context of me as a CIA asset.
I have to say … after all this time, and all the work I put into this – I find this and all the other comments I receive here lately … discouraging.
Then again, perhaps I’m as bad an offender as the next. Right, Kono?
Not healthy for a Catholic, not conducive to a strong faith.
Even more so after reading your comment, Joel, I’m sticking with my Priests. I think my commenting days are over (crickets).
Aqua, for what it’s worth, I ABSOLUTELY and FULLY REJECT what Joel has said here about you. As I was reading his comment, I was preparing a defense for you.
Do I think you, or any traditionalist is wrong for not accepting the true sede position? You, of all people know that. But controlled opposition….NO!
Who I do think is controlled opposition, would not fly here.
There are a few litmus tests for determining whether someone is controlled opposition. If after every calamity we face, a person NEVER suffers so much as a scratch (socially, professionally, physically, or otherwise), then you’re probably looking at someone on the “inside.” By calamities, I mean any major hardship, like the scamdemic tyranny or “cancel culture.”
Some of these guys remind of John Gotti, the old “Teflon Don,” where the criminal charges would rolls right off him (for a while, at least). Many of these Trad Inc guys never suffer and remain unscathed in every scenario. Imagine, for example, if you were a 32/33-degree Freemason, you left it, blabbed about all the secrets in public, and the Freemasons DIDN’T kill you. I think that person might qualify as controlled opposition.
Aqua,
That’s why I comment very little anymore, and have stopped visiting certain sites, simply because some commenters get personal when they know not what they are talking about.
As a sede, I would argue that anyone whose “job” it is to keep one attached to the NO heretical religion in any way, shape or form is suspect. In this day and age, it ain’t hard to look up JPII and B16’s heresies and blasphemies either. My goodness, Assisi was a direct attack on the first Commandment. Twas the tipping point for Abp. Lefebvre to have the courage to risk (and receive, if in fact the NO religion was the true Church) excommunication.
Sadly, the Catholic world continues to spin their wheels. LifeSite is sadly sticking with the doublethink, and the excuse that only the next Pope can resolve this, so they will just ‘resist’ the heretic who is called ‘pope’ for simple technical procedural reasons as they bide their time.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/is-pope-francis-really-the-pope-lifesitenews-responds/
Little wonder we are losing to transsexuals, given that Trans-Pope Francis reigns!
Fight them using their logic folks, ‘Trans-Pope’, that’s how they think of him, so feel free to use that term in discussion with the conservatives. If they protest, tell them that they have no authority to deny you coining a new definition to describe such unprecedented circumstances, and you’ll happily wait for a future Pope to decide and rule on the appropriateness of that definition!
If Frankie’s fan club protests, call them bigots, and unappreciators of novelty working against the spirit of the synod.
—–
TRANS-POPE
noun
a person assumed to be a pope despite public manifest heresy and/or canonical uncertainty surrounding his election until a valid canonically elected undisputed papal successor authoritatively rules on the matter, or the Lord Jesus Christ Himself returns and settles the matter.
——-
I think this term will helpfully serve in illustrating this new age, let us get it into the history books beside Frankenstein’s picture.
Manipulating terminology and vocabulary is often a very clever way of disguising one’s underlying ideology. That happened many times in history. That’s how some have changed the concept of human rights into something like “reproductive rights.” That’s how some have simply redefined the word “conception” as no longer being the time of union of sperm cell and egg cell, but rather the time, one week later, when this new human becomes implanted inside the lining of the mother’s womb. And others have—sometimes openly, sometimes slyly—redefined the “gender” concept to refer to the sex a person identifies with, instead of the sex a person was born with. However, redefining terms does not change reality.7
More specifically:
Teilhard knew how to manipulate language so you don’t quite know what he actually says or intends to say. That probably explains why he can be accepted and praised by Christians and non-Christians alike, by believers and non-believers, by orthodox and heterodox Christians. But that’s also the reason why one cannot just completely defend him or [completely] attack him.… Again, his secret was ambiguity, with which he could mislead the ones “for” him as well as those “against” him.… In much of his writing, Teilhard is vague and ambiguous enough to dodge critics on either side.… Teilhard knew how to dress his ideas up sufficiently for them to have some chance of not being suppressed at first sight.8
https://traditionsanity.substack.com/p/teilhard-de-chardin-a-key-to-understanding
Long-time lurker and slightly OT, but Mark, what are your thoughts on the sede position regarding episcopal consecrations performed in the new rite, i.e. all (N.O. consecrated/ordained) bishops and priests are invalid? I’ve dug into the rites, I understand it was a significant change from Pius XII rite. The change is concerning, yet Ottaviani went along without any significant challenge. In contrast with the Anglican rites, which were created with rupture from the Church explicit, these changes were made from within though some participants may have desired rupture and saw this as a stepping stone.
It is one thing to say there are concerns with the changes but to reject all future holy orders and thus, all sacraments seems excessive and dangerous to souls. If the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls, one would think God’s acceptance or rejection of Catholic bishops and priests would be less restrictive than the idea that there are only a handful of priests in the world with valid orders, and all the rest, no matter how attached to tradition, are celebrating invalid masses.
I find it more compelling that the majority of Masses are valid yet in varying degrees illicit. Our Lord in His mercy continues to make Himself widely present, yet our worship of Him is deficient. It seems the more damnable to offer offensive Masses than that we simpletons unknowingly worship bread. One would think satan would rather hearts grow cold to our Lord’s true presence than to an empty tabernacle. One would think our Lord would allow Himself to be mocked for the good of the few faithful present who had nowhere else to go.
I think this is a point of contention that begs clarity as it drives people to quit attending Mass even when there’s a reachable TLM said by a faithful priest ordained in the N.O. That doesn’t seem right.
Steven, this is the issue that stopped me dead in my tracks when I did my deep dive into the Sede position. It clinches that the Absolutist position cannot be reconciled with Indefectibility, though they argue it can. They say it’s a mercy there aren’t billions of sacrilegious Communions, for instance. It stinks of Gnosticism.
Gnosticism? Really Mark? Is it secret knowledge to KNOW Bergoglio is not pope? Secret knowledge to KNOW B16, the heretic, was the last “pope”? Secret knowledge to KNOW (or at least doubt) the infallibility of the true Church regparding canonizations? Or do you really, really believe John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII are Saints? You pray to them?
Upwards of 70% Catholics worldwide do not hold the truth faith whole and entirppe. It’ s probably more like 90%+ if you factor in overlay beliefs; e.g. belief in the RP, but not in the sinfulness of contraception or divorce.
This is what St. Thomas says about the number of priests necessary to administer to Catholics:
76. Bishops and religious superiors should not be deterred from this needful severity by fear of diminishing the number of priests for the diocese or institute. The Angelic Doctor St. Thomas long ago proposed this difficulty, and answers it with his usual lucidity and wisdom: “God never abandons His Church; and so the number of priests will be always sufficient for the needs of the faithful, provided the worthy are advanced and the unworthy sent away.” The same Doctor and Saint, basing himself upon the severe words quoted by the fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, observes to Our purpose: “Should it ever become impossible to maintain the present number, it is better to have a few good priests than a multitude of bad ones.”
Also, think about the Japanese Catholics who for 200 years had no priests. Think they were ALL damned? We can make it to heaven without the Mass, without the Sacraments (praise God baptism can be conferred even by pagans), but we cannot make it without the true faith.
Fr. Jim Altman is an “Interregnumist.”