Catholic opinions about Sedevacantism?

[rr1213]

I’m a traditionalist, and believe it or not I was a sedevacantist once too.

I believe it, brother.

 

[Caesar]

I believe it, brother.

Of course you do, it was a well-recorded historical event after all. In fact, I was joined in my sedevacanist beliefs with about 1.4 billion others for those 17 days

 

[rr1213]

Of course you do, it was a well-recorded historical event after all. In fact, I was joined in my sedevacanist beliefs with about 1.4 billion others for those 17 days

Ah, I get it now. Slow on the uptake…Protestant you know.

 

[lak611]

I’m a traditionalist, and believe it or not I was a sedevacantist once too.

For a period of 17 days in 2005

Well, all of us were while waiting for Pope Benedict XVI to get elected. :bounce:

 

[RobedWithLight]

I don’t agree with the Traditionalist Sedevacantist claim, but their position has some, more moderate basis in history. Of course, there have been times when we had no Pope. A couple weeks in April 2005, we had no pope.

Sedevacantists, though, claim that it wasn’t just a couple weeks, but rather almost 50 years that we had no pope. It sounds extreme and stupid (which it is), but historically, we once had no pope for two years because they couldn’t come to a consensus. It’s not that far out of the realms of possibility.

Of course, Sedevacantists take it to a far extreme where it truly is dumb and impossible, but those of us who are faithful Catholics should stay rooted in the simple truth that there can and have been times when we had no pope, the longest on record being for two years.

Actually, the sedevacantist position is unhistorical and preposterous. It is true that there had been papal interregnums in the past, the longest being three years (1268-71). However, there was no Pope in those instances because the electors could not agree on a successor, which is the reason why the Council of Lyons in 1274 ordered that electors must be locked in seclusion until a new Pope is elected to prevent this from recurring. **Hence interregnums in the past had nothing at all to do with alleged papal heresy or apostasy. **

 

[childofmary1143]

Ah, I get it now. Slow on the uptake…Protestant you know.

I am not sure of what the dictionary defines a sedevacantist but I think its more than what all us Catholics were when Pope John Paul died until Pope Benedict XVI was elected.

 

[gorman64]

In most other aspects, sedevacantists are almost indistinguishable from ordinary devout Catholics, that is, until they start talking about the Papacy, the Mass, and Vatican II.

And it appears also that, modern Catholics are unrecognizable as Catholics until they start talking about the Papacy, the Mass, and Vatican II. They can believe whatever they want as long as they express “allegiance” to the current “hierarchy”. They may lack the Faith…but they are “obedient”…and that is all that matters to some. There is no unity of belief in the New Order…that much is true.

 

[RobedWithLight]

I am not sure of what the dictionary defines a sedevacantist but I think its more than what all us Catholics were when Pope John Paul died until Pope Benedict XVI was elected.

Of course, we were temporarily “forced” to be “sedevacantists” after JPII’s death and prior to Pope Benedict’s election.

 

[RobedWithLight]

And it appears also that, modern Catholics are unrecognizable as Catholics until they start talking about the Papacy, the Mass, and Vatican II. They can believe whatever they want as long as they express “allegiance” to the current “hierarchy”. They may lack the Faith…but they are “obedient”…and that is all that matters to some. There is no unity of belief in the New Order…that much is true.

From the schismatic perspective you are correct. Radical schismatic traditionalists “fondly” call us neo-Catholics, so should we be surprised why we should be viewed as such.

And you didn’t answer my earlier question to you in another thread: Do you consider Pope Benedict XVI a legitimate Pope or not?

 

[Caesar]

And it appears also that, modern Catholics are unrecognizable as Catholics until they start talking about the Papacy, the Mass, and Vatican II. They can believe whatever they want as long as they express “allegiance” to the current “hierarchy”. They may lack the Faith…but they are “obedient”…and that is all that matters to some. There is no unity of belief in the New Order…that much is true.

I am in no way supportive of personal opinions overriding the traditions of the Church, yet I cannot agree that the Church purposefully operates in such a way today. Sadly, we have many clergy who serve themselves rather then God, but that is certainly not a teaching of the Holy See and they are certainly not obedient.

 

[gorman64]

From the schismatic perspective you are correct. Radical schismatic traditionalists “fondly” call us neo-Catholics, so should we be surprised why we should be viewed as such.

And you didn’t answer my earlier question to you in another thread: Do you consider Pope Benedict XVI a legitimate Pope or not?

Dear “robedwithlight”:

And you have not answered my post. I made myself perfectly clear (much earlier than your arrival here) that it appears that B16 and others cannot be and could not have been true popes.

In your response you have called me a “radical” and a “schisimatic”; you have avoided any substantive reply to what I said…I must assume it is because it is that you have nothing of value to say.

Gorman

 

[RobedWithLight]

Dear “robedwithlight”:

And you have not answered my post. I made myself perfectly clear (much earlier than your arrival here) that it appears that B16 and others cannot be and could not have been true popes.

In your response you have called me a “radical” and a “schisimatic”; you have avoided any substantive reply to what I said…I must assume it is because it is that you have nothing of value to say.

Gorman

“gorman64”

And you have proven my initial assumption to be correct even before my arrival in this particular thread. You are a sedevacantist then. Does it make me uncharitable for stating what you have in fact admitted?

No wonder threads concerning sedevacantism have been disallowed in the past, because of the very sensitivity of this subject, and the tendency of subjects like this to become occasions for unpleasantness.

And please, don’t rudely accuse anyone here as having nothing of value to say. Before you start lecturing the Pope and the Cardinals, and 1.1 billion Catholics as to what is right, what isn’t, and what should be changed about Catholicism, perhaps you should first come down from your rhetorical high horse and change your manners first.

 

[gorman64]

Dear “robedwithlight”,

What is your point? I don’t see it.

Gorman

 

[Genesis315]

The sedevacantist claim is that if the Pope is no longer a member of the Body of Christ due to heresy, he no longer has any authority. This error was condemened by the Council of Constance under Pope Martin V:

remember, this is a condemned error:

1. If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a member of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by Caesar.

 

[maurin]

Dear “robedwithlight”:

And you have not answered my post. I made myself perfectly clear (much earlier than your arrival here) that it appears that B16 and others cannot be and could not have been true popes.

In your response you have called me a “radical” and a “schisimatic”; you have avoided any substantive reply to what I said…I must assume it is because it is that you have nothing of value to say.

Gorman

With all due respect, sir, maybe a substantive reply would be forthcoming if there were something of substance to reply to.

“cannot be and could not have been true popes” :sounds like we’re back in the 1500’s.

 

[gorman64]

The sedevacantist claim is that if the Pope is no longer a member of the Body of Christ due to heresy, he no longer has any authority. This error was condemened by the Council of Constance under Pope Martin V:

remember, this is a condemned error:

1. If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a member of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by Caesar.

Dear Genesis315:

From the Catholic encyclopedia:

VIII. CHURCH LEGISLATION ON HERESY

Additional penalties to be decreed by judicial sentences: Apostates and heretics are irregular, that is, debarred from receiving clerical orders or exercising lawfully the duties and rights annexed to them; they are infamous, that is, publicly noted as guilty and dishonoured. This note of infamy clings to the children and grandchildren of unrepented heretics. Heretical clerics and all who receive, defend, or favour them are ipso facto deprived of their benefices, offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church. Baptism received without necessity by an adult at the hands of a declared heretic renders the recipient irregular. Heresy constitutes an impedient to marriage with a Catholic ( mixta religio ) from which the pope dispenses or gives the bishops power to dispense (see IMPEDIMENTS). Communicatio in sacris, i. e. active participation in non-Catholic religious functions, is on the whole unlawful, but it is not so intrinsically evil that, under given circumstances, it may not be excused. Thus friends and relatives may for good reasons accompany a funeral, be present at a marriage or a baptism, without causing scandal or lending support, to the non-Catholic rites, provided no active part be taken in them: their motive is friendship, or maybe courtesy, but it nowise implies approval of the rites. Non-Catholics are admitted to all Catholic services but not to the sacraments.

Also,

THE IPSO FACTO EXCOMMUNICATION OF A HERETIC FALLS UNDER DIVINE LAW, as is ably demonstrated in the following excerpts from the article titled “Heresy” by J. Wilhelm, S.T.D., Ph.D., that appears in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII.

"All sects, denominations, confessions, schools of thought, and associations of any kind have a more or less comprehensive set of tenets on the acceptance of which membership depends. In the Catholic Church this natural law has received the sanction of Divine promulgation, as appears from the teaching of Christ and the Apostles quoted above [too lengthy to reproduce here]. Freedom of thought extending to the essential beliefs of a Church is in itself a contradiction; for, by accepting membership, the members accept the essential beliefs and renounce their freedom of thought so far as these are concerned.

“But what authority is to lay down the law as to what is or is not essential? It certainly is not the authority of individuals. By entering a society, which ever it be, the individual gives up part of his individuality to be merged into the community. And that part is precisely his private judgment on the essentials; IF HE RESUMES HIS LIBERTY HE IPSO FACTO SEPARATES HIMSELF FROM HIS CHURCH. The decision, therefore, rests with the constitutional authority of the society - in the Church with the hierarchy acting as teacher and guardian of the Faith. NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT THIS PRINCIPLE UNDULY CURTAILS THE PLAY OF HUMAN REASON. THAT IT DOES CURTAIL ITS PLAY IS A FACT, BUT A FACT GROUNDED IN NATURAL AND DIVINE LAW, AS SHOWN ABOVE.” [p.259]

 

[gorman64]

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, himself says:

"THE FOUNDATION OF THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT THE MANIFEST HERETIC IS NOT IN ANY WAY A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH, THAT IS, NEITHER SPIRITUALLY NOR CORPORALLY, WHICH SIGNIFIES THAT HE IS NOT SUCH BY INTERNAL UNION NOR BY EXTERNAL UNION. FOR EVEN BAD CATHOLICS * ARE UNITED AND ARE MEMBERS, SPIRITUALLY BY FAITH, CORPORALLY BY CONFESSION OF FAITH AND BY PARTICIPATION IN THE VISIBLE SACRAMENTS; THE OCCULT HERETICS ARE UNITED AND ARE MEMBERS ALTHOUGH ONLY BY EXTERNAL UNION; ON THE CONTRARY, THE GOOD CATECHUMENS BELONG TO THE CHURCH ONLY BY AN INTERNAL UNION, NOT BY THE EXTERNAL; BUT MANIFEST HERETICS DO NOT PERTAIN IN ANY MANNER , AS WE HAVE ALREADY PROVED."*

Dogmatic Theology - Volume II Christ’s Church,
Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Mercier Press, Cork , 1958 p 294

Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions— opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to an error in a matter already defined. The more probable and respectful opinion, followed by Suárez, Bellarmine and many others, holds that just as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so too he never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papal heresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself

or at least by a subsequent decision of an ecumenical council, would by divine law forfeit his jurisdiction. Obviously a man could not continue to be the head of the Church if he ceased to be even a member of the Church.

 

[maurin]

Dear Gorman,

Are the aforeposted documents the “substance” you are providing for your declarations that Christ has reneged on His promise to Peter of guidance?

If these documents are the “substance” of your argument, you have set yourself up as judge and jury, then, haven’t you? You have judged the Popes since John XXIII as heretics and separated from Christ’s Body.

I don’t like what’s happened and is happening in our Church either. But Peter has taken a step back and has bound the Traditional ways again here on earth. Is this not proof enough for you that the Holy Spirit is turning the tides? Is He not turning the tides fast enough for you?

Why are you so comfortable— you who are probably not a great Theologian, you who probably do not sit in an appropriate office or Chair that was once sat in by an Apostle—making such declarations rashly that the Church herself does not make so readily?

Jesus spoke to those such as you: “You know not what you ask. Can you drink the chalice that I shall drink? They say to him: We can. He saith to them: My chalice indeed you shall drink; but to sit on my right or left hand is not mine to give to you, but to them for whom itis prepared by my Father…It shall be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister. And he that will be first among you shall be your servant. Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a redemption for many.”

You seem more interested in taking life, rather than giving your own for the redemption of any.

I am certain that that is not your intention. It is obvious how much you love the Church. But you are not proving your love to be self-sacrificial.

 

[gorman64]

Are the aforeposted documents the “substance” you are providing for your declarations that Christ has reneged on His promise to Peter of guidance?

They are a refutation of what was posted by Genesis315. That was their only purpose.

 

[maurin]

Thank you for the clarification…