Confused-Sedevecantism

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yet here we are, I almost feel it is dishonest to say that we (RC’s) don’t have divorce seeing how easily annulments are seemingly obtained.

Well, that depends on the area. In Slovakia number of annulments isn’t that high. Abuses are pretty sad, but they are abuses. It would be wrong to judge Catholicism based on abuses and say we do have divorces. If nothing else, idea with annulment is that God has not joined something together based on human error. Idea with divorce is that we break God’s commandment. In practice results may be similar, but difference in impact on our view on marriage is huge.

This increase in Catholic marriage annulments over this period seems like it is more than a bit more, No?

We also need to understand why has this changed. Before quite some time, not many Catholics would want to marry in Catholic Church and then still hold that their link is not indivisible. Nowadays that is not the case- some people marry in the Church because why not and that usually makes marriage invalid either way. This of course has no impact on divorces so that is why the disparity in the numbers exists.

Yet it subscribes to changes that were made within Catholicism up until Vatican II, it seems to me that SV’s want to have their cake and eat it too, if SV’s have come to the conclusion that the papacy is now false (at least every pope since Vatican II) then logically they prove EO correct

No not entirely. Because there is still a possibility that Popes from Schism up until Vatican II were valid. Positions are similar but they differ and don’t prove each other.

 

[tafan2]

The Pope (and previous popes) are a heretic so can’t be a Pope (popes can’t be heretics). Also the claim that the seat of Rome is the chair of the anti-Christ concern me.

If you make this claim, for the sake of of your own soul, you had better be very specific and very sure of yourself. Otherwise, it is most certainly a grave instance of calumny. If I were you, I would either retract the claim or I would provide the specific and irrefutable teachings of the popes which ere were heresy.

Post Vatican 2 church is counter-church: some saints have prophesied something like this happening. Saying that there would be so little in the church the religion would only be practiced on farms etc.

Could you please, precisely define the Post Vatican 2 church? You cannot mean all Catholics, so the true Church still must exist. We know from Catholic teaching it is a visible institution, none of this hidden stuff preached by protestants. So what precisely is the counter church and what precisely is the true church?

And prophecising a new church coming about.

This is a distinctly, and irrefutably heretical statement. Jesus Christ created one Church, that the gates of hell will not prevail against. There will not be a new Church.

You need to rethink this OP. My fraternal correction (I mean that term sincerely) is that it contains at least two claims which are gravely sinful to say.

 

[CathBoy1]

No not entirely. Because there is still a possibility that Popes from Schism up until Vatican II were valid.

But SV’s are saying popes since Vatican II are all heretical, yet the RCC has always taught that the papacy cannot fall into heresy, do you see my point?
SV’s cannot truthfully believe in the papacy (as the RCC has always taught) and yet claim that it has fallen into heresy (as they do).
Either they believe in the papacy, in which case they should cease in their error, or, in their belief of the papacy falling into heresy, they confirm (unwittingly perhaps) the EO pov.

 

[Veritas6]

If Vatican 2 is not inspired (presupposing Vatican 2 isn’t inspired for this) would that mean the church wasn’t inspired?

In this case yes because one cannot separate the Church’s authority from the Church. If it was not inspired then it follows it has never been inspired. How can the Church lose its authority that Jesus guaranteed to Peter with the keys?

If Sedevecantism is true then would all of the ordinations be invalid?

Most likely yes because if the Church were to “magically” lose its authority and splinter groups fall away then in a sense the Church has ended.

And please don’t make an argument along the lines of: ‘God wouldn’t abandon his church.’ The claim is that the Sedevecantists’ Church is the real Church not that God abandoned the church.

If we think about this, why would the true Church fall into hiding sometime before Vatican II? The Church Fathers tell us that the True Church is the city on a mountain that cannot be hidden.

The Church is not, as Martin Luther teaches, wherever the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered; it is a visible society, and visible in a way that it’s easy to know the real Church. St. Augustine says the true Church is “the one that has fulfilled the Lord’s commandment to fill all nations, beginning from Jerusalem, the one that exists over all the (Mediterranean) world.”

According to St. Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church), until the Church declares the Pope is not the Pope, the faithful must recognize him as pontiff and obey his licit commands. The Church’s judgment doesn’t cause a heretical Pope to lose his office, but confirms his heresy and as such he has lost his office.

Moreover, St. Alphonsus (another Doctor of the Church) follows the principle that if the whole Church (1.2 billion Catholics), and mainly the clergy of Rome accept a certain man as pope, then that man is pope.

Therefore it seems ludicrous to expect us to know the Church has “transferred” its authority to many hidden schismatic groups. This is the same justification that caused the Protestant Reformation, except that these schismatics really like authority.

 

[Genesis315]

Sedevacantist claims are purely negative (“the putative Catholic Church is heretical, therefore we by default are the true Church”) resting on certain doctrinal controversies and arguments over whether something is a legitimate theological conclusion or actual heresy (claims that the Catholic Church has fallen into heresy are not new, just ask the Greeks or the non-Chalcedonians), none of which have been definitively condemned by the Church, but which were taught at an ecumenical Council, and IMO can all be defended. They also conflate simply being wrong about something with the heresy that necessarily separates one from the Church.

They have no argument as to why they are the true Church, because they aren’t. Sedevacantism in all its forms is clearly lacking in hierarchical communion, a teaching authority, the primacy in act or potency, and various other elements as well as a perduring continuity–all of which are proper to the true Church. The putative Catholic Church clearly has all these things.

Let’s look at some of these issues in more detail:

(1) Thave no primacy in act or in potency. Since the Roman primacy is a constituent element of the Church and the Church has defined that there is to be a perpetual succession of bishops in the Roman primacy, the Church must retain the primacy either in act (with a living Pope) or in potency (if there is no Pope, the Church retains the power recognize there is no Pope and to appoint a new one). The Church cannot choose to go without a Pope (this was an error of Hus condemned at the Council of Constance). All historical sedevacantists (ie those that thought the Pope fell out of the Church due to heresy, but still maintained the primacy) from Hippolytus’ to Okham’s group, etc., even though they were all wrong, all at least sought to restore the primacy to act. It appears that for sedevacantists, that power to restore the visible head to the Church cannot be found–in fact, they all claim not to have that power at all, from what I can see. Being unable to elect a new head or choosing not to both violate the divine constitution of the Church.

On the other hand, the true Church has not lost this constituent element and does not fail to do this. This is because it also follows that there must be divine assistance involved in this recognition, since if the Church could fail to recognize her headlessness, she could proceed as headless in perpetuity (and even possibly submit to the teaching and governance of someone other than her head), which is impossible given the above and the other divine promises made to the Church regarding her indefectibility and infallibility.

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

(2) At least according to all the sedevacantist material I have read, the Church would have had to cease to exist for a time and/or constituent elements of the Church were lost for a period and had to be imported from a false sect. For example, there’s always a lag time between when the supposed foundation of the false “Vatican II sect” is and when the true Church emerged from it. Where was the true Church during that time?

On the other hand, the Catholic dogma is that the Catholic Church’s existence and unique identity as the one Church of Christ is a perduring and permanent reality. The putative Catholic Church has never ceased to exist, unlike the sedevacantist Church.

Likewise, there is usually also a time in between when the precise moment when the Pope supposedly became a heretic and defected and the allegedl true Church stopped following him, meaning the entire Church was deceived in this matter for a time. But this is not consistent with Catholic principles:

Hunters Outlines of Dogmatic Theology Vol 1:

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.

In other words, if a Pope defects from the Church, the Church will recognize it, just as she recognizes it in those other times she lacks a head (death or resignation) (see my previous post for more on this).

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

(3) You also have those groups that got their orders from bishops who either belonged at the time to “the Vatican II sect” or to some other group the newly ordained was not in hierarchical communion with, as if the Church needed to be perfected by non-Catholic societies. They had to go outside what they see as the true Church to get constituent elements of the true Church–the Catholic dogma is that all these elements are permanently part of the Church–she cannot lose them.

(4) Other kinds of sedevacantists say the Church is whoever believes in the right doctrines, no matter which society they formally belong to, even societies not in hierarchical communion with one another or even including those formally belonging to the “Vatican II sect.” This is just a new spin on Protestant ecclesiology. But the Church of Christ has one subsistence only, it cannot be said to subsist in multiple different societies. The Church is one and includes the bonds of hierarchical communion.

There’s a reason you’re confused by “sedevacantism”–it is internally inconsistent and is at odds with Catholic doctrine on the nature of the Church.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But SV’s are saying popes since Vatican II are all heretical, yet the RCC has always taught that the papacy cannot fall into heresy, do you see my point?

No, RC has not taught Papacy can not fall in heresy. There are even ancient canons that deal with deposition of heretical Popes. If that was your impression, logical outcome was that SV leads to EO. However, Pope can fall in heresy but loss of his office wouldn’t really be subject to laity, nor anything like that. Vatican I was supposed to deal with this but Council closed prematurely but possibility of heretical Pope is a real thing. Only real discussion is whether and how does that Pope lose his office.

In this case yes because one cannot separate the Church’s authority from the Church

Not really. Church doesn’t claim Vatican II was inspired. At the same time, Councils can promulgate documents that are not quite correct. Council of Constantinople established Ecumenical Patriarchate which was rejected by Rome and East at large. Council of Constance had a document saying Councils are above Popes which was later rejected by subsequent Popes and Magisterium. Either way, Pope Paul VI clearly said that Vatican II is not infallible and hence we can say that not everything in it has to be true (it can, but so can in any local council). Vatican II was pastoral and to be quite honest I do personally think that there are some errors or at least things that can be misinterpreted very easily. That does not mean I don’t respect Council itself, Council Fathers or current Papacy.

Ironically that means that even if there were errors in Vatican II that wouldn’t make Church less infallible…

 

[CathBoy1]

However, Pope can fall in heresy but loss of his office wouldn’t really be subject to laity, nor anything like that.

Yes an individual Pope can theoretically fall into heresy (as posted earlier in this thread the only examples were later run back), but I’m not talking about an individual Pope.

SV’s say every Pope since Vatican II is heretical, thus they are saying that the office of the papacy (since Vatican II) is now heretical, the RCC teaches that the (office of the) papacy will not fall into heresy, as such, by declaring that every Pope since Vatican II heretical, SV’s have de facto declared the (office of the) papacy heretical in their pov since Vatican II, and this is why I said that they (SV’s) want to have their cake and eat it too, their argument is an oxymoron, because logically if the papacy (as RC’s have understood it since the great schism) is now heretical, it always has been, this supports/confirms the EO pov.

At the end of the day, either you support and believe in the papacy or you do not.
SV’s want it both ways, that is an impossibility and as I have pointed out above, their argument only supports Eastern Orthodoxy (unintentionally for sure, but nonetheless).

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yes an individual Pope can theoretically fall into heresy (as posted earlier in this thread the only examples were later run back), but I’m not talking about an individual Pope.

Oh I see. I misunderstood… apologies.

because logically if the papacy (as RC’s have understood it since the great schism) is now heretical

Technically yes… it would make Papacy unnecessary for the Church and unable to be established again. Some await miraculous re-installation of Papacy but to that I ask, how do you know that it won’t be Anti-Papacy set up by Satan pretending to be our Lord? Until we see Son of a Man coming from the Heaven, we ought to not believe imposters. In the end SV belief logically boils down to that or they claim Papacy has been OK until now but God has allowed it to fall (hence it is not necessary anymore? I guess).

 

[CathBoy1]

Exactly, it seems to me that SV’s should either go join the Eastern Orthodox or come fully back into the RCC.
What they’ve instead opted to do is become some odd, fringe group, with some very peculiar ideas on the current state of the RCC, some circles within Sedevacantism border on cult-like, IMHO.

 

[Veritas6]

Either way, Pope Paul VI clearly said that Vatican II is not infallible and hence we can say that not everything in it has to be true (it can, but so can in any local council). Vatican II was pastoral and to be quite honest I do personally think that there are some errors or at least things that can be misinterpreted very easily. That does not mean I don’t respect Council itself, Council Fathers or current Papacy.

I agree, but many of those sedevacantists insist it was infallible and did teach heresy. I personally don’t mind either way (if it was infallible or not), but I could agree it was only pastoral. I wouldn’t agree the Church taught errors, but it could have been communicated inaccurately and/or misinterpreted.

I will continue to trust and respect our Church authority (as I’m sure you do as well) because I believe wholeheartedly in Jesus’ promise to Peter when He gave him the keys to the kingdom. Based on this the sedevacantists have no justification for separating themselves from the true Church; only on subjective opinions - the very same as the “Reformers”.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I agree, but many of those sedevacantists insist it was infallible and did teach heresy. I personally don’t mind either way (if it was infallible or not), but I could agree it was only pastoral. I wouldn’t agree the Church taught errors, but it could have been communicated inaccurately and/or misinterpreted.

Yeah… I have seen some claim that. It’s honestly interesting considering it was stated by Pope Paul VI. I don’t necessarily think that Church taught errors in real sense (because that is impossible) but for example I can not in good conscience agree that Buddhists can attain supreme illumination by their own efforts (Pelagianism) neither that it teaches us something that would allow perfect liberation. I don’t necessarily think that this is misinterpreted as it is exact wording of the document, but perhaps Council Fathers opted for wrong language and meant to say that this is what Buddhism attempts to do (not that it actually succeeds in it). To accuse them of heresy would be something different.

Interestingly enough, Priest who wrote that exact document got laicized, admitted to having sexual relations with other male Priests, got married to his long-time friend and spent end of his life fighting for LGBTQ. I don’t mean to say document holds less authority solely because of that, but it does show that perhaps that document was not written in proper language or understanding.

I will continue to trust and respect our Church authority (as I’m sure you do as well) because I believe wholeheartedly in Jesus’ promise to Peter when He gave him the keys to the kingdom.

Of course. I mean… Church has survived one of Apostles being Judas, it has survived some peculiar Popes and even Schism with 2 Anti-Popes. Vatican II isn’t that big of a deal in historical perspective. There are perhaps 5-6 things that are ambiguous or wrongly worded but that’s not even a big deal historically speaking.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The problem is that you won’t be able to get anyone here to explain the sedevacantist position or arguments. If someone dared to do that, their post would get deleted for sure and their account would likely get suspended.

That’s sad. I don’t get why is that the case. As long as they do not break forum rules this should not be done. I am eager to learn Sedevacantist position and perhaps understand them better but just because internet is full of polemics, someone civil about Sedevacantism is not welcome at this forum.

 

[vsedriver]

But they believe that the vatican 2 is a new religion (which makes sense in a lot of ways) and the current cardinals and bishops are going towards society/world instead of being the One Catholic Apostolic Church

it doesn’t make any sense to me since nothing the church teaches has been changed. But people hang on to what they think church teaching is, even if their understanding has been wrong.

For example: “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church”. A lot of people think they knew what this meant and that VII changed the meaning. A lot of people thought you had to be a card carrying Catholic to get to heaven and everyone else was going straight to hell. That isn’t the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[vsedriver]

In 1991, under the rules which expanded the grounds of invalid consent, there were more than 63,900 per that year (1991) in the USA .

there are greater impediments to consent today than in the past.

 

[PrayForMe]

The problem is that you won’t be able to get anyone here to explain the sedevacantist position or arguments. If someone dared to do that, their post would get deleted for sure and their account would likely get suspended.

As someone who used to be involved in sedevacantism, I will explain the position, while first adding a disclaimer that I disavowed the position a good while ago and don’t condone it. It is a schismatic position.

Sedevacantists are Traditionalist Catholics, except they differ from Traditionalists you would come across at FSSP or even SSPX Masses. Like many other Trads, sedevacantists are opposed to the changes that occurred after Vatican II, including the New Mass. They exclusively attend the Latin Mass, nothing else. If they do not have a Latin Mass in their vicinity, sedevacantists will usually stay home on Sunday.

What differentiates them from other Trads (such as those in the SSPX) is that sedevacantists do not believe we currently have a legitimate Pope (the name sedevacantist roughly translates as “vacant seat”). Since they believe Vatican II was a heretical council and that the Popes from Vatican II onward (starting with John XXIII, though some sedes may differ in when they believe the state of sede vecante began in the Church) were heretics, they thus believe that the Church has been without a true Pope since Pius XII died in 1958. They point to things such as the inter-faith Assisi meetings (which they consider to be an example of indifferentism), among many others, as evidence that the Church is now run by men entrenched in heresy.

Besides how dangerous it is for non-clergy purporting to be Catholic to be making these sorts of serious charges against the Church hierarchy and a Church Council, sedevacantism poses another colossal problem. Most sedevacantists believe the New Rites of Ordination and Consecration are invalid, stemming largely from the fact that the Church, in their opinion, has been without a Pontiff for over 60 years. Thus, this would mean there are no valid Cardinals and very few - if any - valid Bishops and priests left in the world. We all know the consequences this has for the belief in the indefectibility of the Church.

I could go further but it’s probably not worth it to give additional advertising to such schismatic points of view. Hopefully that gives people an idea of what the position entails, and enough insight to know to stay away from it!

 

[AlNg]

Before quite some time, not many Catholics would want to marry in Catholic Church

Source? I am interested to see where data substantiating this has been published.
The number of Catholics marrying has been declining, while the Catholic population has been increasing. Further, only 15 percent of divorced American Catholics seek to annul their marriages.

As Vatican Revisits Divorce, Many Catholics Long for Acceptance - The New York Times

 

[Maximian]

Sedevacantists are their own kind of protestants

That really isn’t the case. Protestantism doesn’t mean not recognising a particular pope, it means not recognising the papacy as a whole.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Before quite some time, not many Catholics would want to marry in Catholic Church and then still hold that their link is not indivisible.

This is what I said. You quoted part of my sentence which is why it does not make sense.