How does one talk to a sedevacantist, and still be loving and sincere?

[bear06]

Can you p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly where your point is made in that 13 section CE reference? You can’t just say it’s in there somewhere…or can you?

VII. VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
that it will **ever be recognizable **among other bodies as the Church of Christ.

Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true Church of Christ will be **easily recognizable **for that which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must know it comes from God

.

It is unnecessary to say more in regard to the material visibility of the Church than has been said in sections III and IV of this article. It has been shown there that Christ established His church as an organized society under accredited leaders

Formal visibility is secured by those attributes which are usually termed the “notes” of the Church – her Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity (see below).

The unity of the Church stands out as a fact altogether unparalleled in human history. Her members all over the world are united by the profession of a common faith, by participation in a common worship, and by obedience to a common authority.

One and all hold the same belief, join in the same religious ceremonies,** and acknowledge in the successor of Peter the same supreme ruler**. Nothing but a supernatural power can explain this

. There hasn’t been a Peter in years according to the sedes.

Without this formal visibility, the purpose for which the Church was founded would be frustrated. Christ established it to be the means of salvation for all mankind. For this end it is essential that its claims should be authenticated in a manner evident to all; in other words, it must be visible, not merely as other public societies are visible, but as being the society of the Son of God.

As thus understood, they were made to the visible Church, not to an invisible and unknown body. Indeed for this distinction between a visible and an invisible Church there is no Scriptural warrant

.

Even though many of her children prove unfaithful, yet all that Christ said in regard to the Church is realized in her as a corporate body

.

Nor does the unfaithfulness of these professing Catholics cut them off altogether from membership in Christ. They are His in virtue of their baptism.

The character then received still stamps them as His. Though dry and withered branches they are not altogether broken off from the true Vine (Bellarmine, Dc Ecciesiâ, III, ix, 13). The Anglican High Church writers explicitly teach the visibility of the Church. **They restrict themselves, however, to the consideration of material visibility **(cf. Palmer, Treatise on the Church, Part I, C. iii).

And that is what I think the sedes do.

Got to run and I’ll be gone much of the day. Again, I would seem a little heretical to me to say that the Church is visible and then say that it’s obscured. It should be “ever recognizable” to all not just the few who know that there haven’t been popes for 40+ years. BTW, this is why the SSPX will never say that there is no pope. They realize this is to deny the Visible Church (google SSPX and Visible Church).

So MTD, you don’t have a problem with the visible yet obscured theory?

 

[sanfrancisco]

hi guanophore,

(I’m so glad I bought Roget’s!!!).

m

Roget’s & Rossi Asti Spumante? I, too, am glad.

 

[MTD]

So MTD, you don’t have a problem with the visible yet obscured theory?

Well, I don’t think obscurity of itself proves that the Church isn’t visible. There have been a few times in the history of the Church when the visibility has been obscured, such as during the Western Schism. Saints, such as St. Vincent Ferrer and St. Colette, expressed allegiance to an anti-pope. Whole sections of the Church were in material schism. Yet these sections were Catholic, were they not? An outsider, taking into account that all these were Catholics, could understandably wonder whether such a Church were truly one in “obedience to a common authority” and thus visible as the Church of God.

Material visibility, so says the CE, refers to the fact that membership in the Church is a public profession, rather than a secret one (such the Freemasons). You cannot say the Church, according to sedevacantism, is not a public profession.

Formal visibility, so says the CE, refers to the fact that the Church is easily recognizable as the Church instituted by Christ for the salvation of all men, the signs of which institution are unity, sanctity, apostolicity, and catholicity. Let’s look at the unity aspect. “The unity of the Church stands out as a fact altogether unparalleled in human history. Her members all over the world are united…by obedience to a common authority.” “One and all…acknowledge in the successor of Peter the same supreme ruler.” Can you really say that was clearly the case during the Western Schism? I do not think so. Obviously the formal visibility of the Church during the Western Schism was obscured. This is similar to what sedevacantism claims.

The key to remember is that sedevacantism does view sincere non-sedevacantists as Catholics, the same way Sts. Vincent Ferrer and Colette were Catholic even though attached to an anti-pope. Catholics during the Western Schism were still united in belief in the primacy of Peter; what they were not united in was who was Peter; and this was due to invincible ignorance. Thus there was still an element of oneness in acknowledgment of the supreme authority, though it was admittedly obscured, wouldn’t you say?

Look here: let’s say sedevacantism truly does posit an invisible Church. Sedevacantism can’t be wrong for that reason alone; that would be weird–to have everything right but visibility. It’s wrong for some other reason; the invisibility aspect is a side effect. Because if there’s nothing else wrong with sedevacantism, woe to us Catholics, for it all boils down to what we privately interpret as a visible Church. So instead of focusing on that side effect, why not get to the root of the problem, the real reason sedevacantism is wrong?

I’m not necessarily saying the Church, according to sedevacantism, is visible. But I am saying that it’s an iffy argument and doesn’t really get to the heart of the problem. I’m tempted to agree with Gorman that it’s a way out of tackling the tougher issues at the heart of sedevacantism.

Finally, it’s a SSPX argument. I don’t trust SSPX logic.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

I’ve been away from the forums for a few months and thought I knew where the general spectrum was.

Dear jbuck:

I am unclear as to exactly what you might mean here.

I have usually tried to avoid intruding my own tendency toward cafeteria Catholicism because I know that this, like most Catholic sites, has a strong conservative bias.

Exactly what offering of the cafeteria do you find disagreeable?

But the last I was here, sedevacantism was beyond the pale here, as it is even on as already bizarre a site as traditio.com, which I read occasionally for amusement.

I find your views here anything but amusing. You joke about being a “cafeteria Catholic”.

If things have changed, by all means let me know, but as far as I am able to determine, these are the Catholic forums, and Catholic still means you think the pope is the pope no matter what else you might think.

But are they Cafeteria Catholic forums?

Actually, Catholic means that you submit to the Catholic Rule of Faith and to Her teachings…all of them. What you are saying is that it does not matter what you “might think” about Catholic doctrine…as long as you think the Pope is the Pope.

[edited by Moderator]

Gorman

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, people. Thank you.

 

[maurin]

Gorman,

if I might interject, but isn’t one of the teachings of our faith that the Pope is infallible in the areas of faith and morals? How does the changing of the Liturgy (remember, I do not attend the NO, only an indult TLM in the Archdiocese of Miami) fit into these areas of faith and morals, and how would this render the Popes since John XXIII antipopes?

 

[maurin]

Helllooooooooooo,

maurin here—the sedevacantists have asked repeatedly for at least one corraborative piece of evidence against their position, and I provided one small one, maybe just as a starting point–and it’s possible I COULD be wrong—but it seems everyone either missed it or ignored it.

thanks for listening!

really, I did! I swear!!! Hasn’t anyone read it?

 

[gorman64]

really, I did! I swear!!! Hasn’t anyone read it?

maurin,

You mean this? I saw it, but elaborate on it…please.

I remain unconvinced that the sedevacantist claims are tenable in light of what the Evangelist wrote in Matthew 16 and 17.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[Kristopher]

… The idea that sede vacante itself is a heresy is of course ridiculous…as the seat is vacant at times that we all agree on. …

Gorman,

Rejection of the primacy of St. Peter is schism. Heresy is obstinate doubt or denial of some requisite for faith Catholic teaching.

Sedevacantism is the theory, that the chair of St. Peter is vacant: no matter that there is a pope; accepted as legitimate. Sedevacantists, those to whom I have spoken in an SSPX chapel; they reject Pope John Paul II: Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, etc. They argue, that these popes never obtained legitimate authority to exercise infallibility as pope and though, some may have done this: obtained legitimate authority as pope; they nonetheless, act outside the capacity of pope as either heretics, or schismatics themselves.

The term sedevacantist does not refer to the succession of popes, but to a theory that the chair of St. Peter, the position of the pope is actually vacant; though, we do have a pope.

You must already have been familiar with these terms. You sound very much like you are quibbling and to the extent of being incredibly absurd in your rationale. Hardly worth the attention, of anyone serious I suggest.

[Edited by Moderator]

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[Kristopher]

no kristopher–unlike you I asked before i shot my guns!!!

Au Contraire! Neither did I ask any questions, nor did I state, that your friend either was right, or was wrong: I said, by the “sound” of it; altogether different than–your friend was right to hold you accountable.

You do see the difference; I trust: no guns were shot at anyone.

 

[Jacafamala]

I am having a conversation with a sedevacantist–not my choice, it is his or hers, (let us use the pronoun ‘he’ for simplicity), he is being gently insistent, and I don’t feel right saying ‘no.’

He has quite gently called me to account for a comment I made to someone who it seems is leaving the Catholic Church for the Orthodox one. The comment was to the effect: is walking away from Peter analagous to those who walked away from Christ in John’s Gospel?

I do not wish to insult this person with whom I am having the conversation, I have made it clear that I pray for his return to the fold, find his position shocking and disordered, but I wouldn’t mind help in the proper way to talk about this.

thanks,

maurin

Hi Maurin!!! You are always very respectful so just be yourself.
Pax Christi,
Ann

 

[gorman64]

Rejection of the primacy of St. Peter is schism.

Sedevacantists do not reject the primacy of the Pope.

Heresy is obstinate doubt or denial of some requisite for faith Catholic teaching.

This is a little imprecise, I think. Or maybe just worded poorly.

Sedevacantism is the theory, that the chair of St. Peter is vacant: no matter that there is a pope; accepted as legitimate.

This is worded rather strangely as well. Sedevacantists do not hold to the bolded part of your statement.

Sedevacantists, those to whom I have spoken in an SSPX chapel; they reject Pope John Paul II: Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, etc. They argue, that these popes never obtained legitimate authority to exercise infallibility as pope and though, some may have done this: obtained legitimate authority as pope; they nonetheless, act outside the capacity of pope as either heretics, or schismatics themselves.

This is nonsense. A public heretic is not a member of the Church. He is also ipso facto excommunicated. The first fact is a matter of divine law. The second fact is a matter of ecclesiastical law.

St. Robert Bellarmine states as follows:

“There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”

The term sedevacantist does not refer to the succession of popes, but to a theory that the chair of St. Peter, the position of the pope is actually vacant; though, we do have a pope.

Is this your refutation of the SV thesis?

You must already have been familiar with these terms. You sound very much like you are quibbling and to the extent of being incredibly absurd in your rationale. Hardly worth the attention, of anyone serious I suggest.

I think you have misunderstood to the point that you can only see this issue as quibbling. Are you saying the papacy is not unoccupied between popes? Or is this the super-interregnum argument?

Kristopher, please try to be more explicit as to what your actual points might be…then maybe it will appear less like a quibble to you.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[MTD]

Rejection of the primacy of St. Peter is schism.

Actually, I’m inclined to think that rejection of the primacy of Peter is heresy; it is the refusal of communion with and submission to Peter that is properly schism. Of course, schism is almost always joined to the heresy of rejecting the primacy of Peter, but not necessarily.

You must already have been familiar with these terms.

Yes, for he is a sedevacantist.

You sound very much like you are quibbling and to the extent of being incredibly absurd in your rationale.

Wouldn’t you say this is a personal attack that was really uncalled for? What about the mutual charity I was suggesting at the beginning of this thread?

Hardly worth the attention, of anyone serious I suggest.

I disagree. Sedevacantists have valid concerns, and souls just like yours and mine. They are worth the attention.

May I make a small suggestion? These issues touch our hearts and souls because they concern one of the pillars of our Faith. That’s why these debates usually end up getting very heated. So let’s make a special effort to keep our cool. It would be sad if the thread got closed because we couldn’t keep the tone calm and charitable, wouldn’t it?

Maria

 

[maurin]

maurin,

You mean this? I saw it, but elaborate on it…please.

Yours,

Gorman

Gorman,

you are a very intelligent man (or woman), and have shown this intelligence many times. I believe you do know exactly why I mentioned Matthew 16 and 17, but if you would like my take, here you go:

CHrist gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He promised Peter, first, and then the Apostles, second, that that which they bind on earth is bound in heaven, and that which they loose on earth is loosed in heaven and promised that the gates of hell will never overcome His Church.

Thank you for having this conversation with me,

In Christ’s Scourged Body, maurin

 

[MTD]

Gorman,

you are a very intelligent man (or woman), and have shown this intelligence many times. I believe you do know exactly why I mentioned Matthew 16 and 17, but if you would like my take, here you go:

CHrist gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He promised Peter, first, and then the Apostles, second, that that which they bind on earth is bound in heaven, and that which they loose on earth is loosed in heaven and promised that the gates of hell will never overcome His Church.

Well, see, you’re mentioning this verse but you’re not showing how it applies to the situation. I mean, sedevacantists do believe that Peter’s binding and loosing is upheld in heaven and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church founded on the rock of Peter. The real issue is that they don’t regard the current pope as the successor of St. Peter; in other words, they don’t believe those promises of Christ apply to Pope Benedict XVI.

This denial of the promises applying to BXVI does not imply of itself denial of the promises applying to Peter since the reason they deny them as applying to BXVI is because they don’t believe him to be a true successor of St. Peter. So the real question is why they don’t believe BXVI to be a successor of St. Peter.

Maria

 

[maurin]

Well, see, you’re mentioning this verse but you’re not showing how it applies to the situation. I mean, sedevacantists do believe that Peter’s binding and loosing is upheld in heaven and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church founded on the rock of Peter. The real issue is that they don’t regard the current pope as the successor of St. Peter; in other words, they don’t believe those promises of Christ apply to Pope Benedict XVI.

This denial of the promises applying to BXVI does not imply of itself denial of the promises applying to Peter since the reason they deny them as applying to BXVI is because they don’t believe him to be a true successor of St. Peter. So the real question is why they don’t believe BXVI to be a successor of St. Peter.

Maria

I don’t know, Maria, if that’s really true. Look, I admit that I am a simple man with a simple intellect–well educated, thanks to my parents, but by no means the brightest nor the dimmest bulb in the bunch.

It seems to me that the sedevacantist position necessarily implies that there are only a handfull of “faithful” Bishops and maybe no faithful Cardinals–those who elect the Pope-- left on the earth.

It seems to me-- again, I could be wrong-- that Jesus promises Peter and his successors, and the Apostles and their successors that satan will not prevail against His Church.

If Peter’s chair is empty, and there are only, let’s say for the sake of argument because the sedevacantists have not supplied us a number, 5 good men left in the hierarchy, that either the gates of hell are just this close from prevailing, or the only place the gates of hell are prevailing is in the collective imagination of those who hold the sedevacantist view.

It just seems impossible to me that Christ would allow this to happen, regardless of what man has done–God’s will always prevails, and we find proof in many of the Old Testament Books; Joseph being sold into slavery comes to mind. ANd it further seems to me that the Spirit has acted clearly in John Paul the Second’s granting of the Indult, and in the hoped and prayed for Universal Indult we have been hearing about (and I am one that patiently and hopefully awaits it).

Maybe I’m just tooooooo simple.

 

[pnewton]

thanks Maria, you’ve helped a lot. ANd of course I have a choice, I just don’t “feel right” saying no to the conversation. I appreciate your time!

I still think Maria has the best idea. I offer as evidence this very thread, where instead of advice, you have proselytizers for this perversion of Catholicism. The fact is, I doubt you will ever offer convincing evidence, because once one rejects authority, they are free to color any statement over the last 2000 years by whatever level of authority, or lack of authority suits their whim. One can not simply redefine the Catholic Church in their image and remain Catholic.

In case you need specific help:
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003fea1.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9003fea2.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9507fea1.asp

I personally have found my This Rock subscription invaluable in answering some of these questions for myself.

 

[gorman64]

Dear pnewton,

From your second link:

Fr. Brian Harrison: “I am well aware that St. Robert Bellarmine and some other noted theologians have held that a pope may cease to be pope if he falls into heresy. But that is not doctrine, to which all Catholics are obliged to give their assent—it is debatable theological opinion with which we are free either to agree or disagree. I have no access at present to all the relevant canonical legislation in vigor four centuries ago in Bellarmine’s time, but for present purposes that does not matter.”

Fr. Harrison is wrong here. A public heretic is not a member of the Church. He is also ipso facto excommunicated. The first fact is a matter of divine law. The second fact is a matter of ecclesiastical law. St. Pius X (and afterwards Pius XII) altered only the ecclesiastical law. This is very simple and obvious, and it seems to me that the only way one could be confused about it is if one were familiar with only one or two documents, so that the significance of them was not fully grasped, or if one were incapable of distinguishing between divine and ecclesiastical law.

St. Robert Bellarmine has already answered this objection, from De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30., as follows:

“There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”

I regard these comments as sufficient proof of the sedevacantist position. However, as an additional proof, one could try and find a manualist or canonist who teaches that it is not divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy. It would be particularly interesting to find one who wrote after St. Pius X issued his legislation, with a view to noting any citation of that legislation. It appears that no canonist or theologian thought that St. Pius X (or Pius XII) had made it possible for a public heretic or any other non-Catholic to be validly elected pope. Indeed, all of the ones I have seen state the exact opposite, that is, that it is a matter of divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy.

Yours,

Gorman

P.S.

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope * in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate , and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’*

 

[TNT]

…

if I might interject, but isn’t one of the teachings of our faith that the Pope is infallible in the areas of faith and morals?
This is a little too general, to the point of being untrue or at least misleading.
To wit:
VATICAN COUNCIL I
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION “PASTOR AETERNUS”
CHAPTER IV
(On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff)

"…we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, i.e., when exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals which must be held by the universal Church, enjoys, through the divine assistance, that infallibility promised to him in blessed Peter and with which the divine Redeemer wanted His Church to be endowed in defining** doctrine** of faith and morals; and therefore that the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church. “If anyone should presume to contradict this definition of ours - may God prevent this happening - anathema sit.”​

We see clearly that “the Pope is infallible in the areas of faith and morals” is not what is taught, but ONLY in the above stated circumstances, briefly, when he Defines + Requires Belief by the Universal Church.
There are many encyclicals that do not pass this test, even more so homilies, greetings and addresses.​

How does the changing of the Liturgy …fit into these areas of faith and morals, and how would this render the Popes since John XXIII antipopes?

The Liturgy is the supreme act & actions of Faith Defined + Required for the Church in each Rite.
Therefore, it falls under the Infallibility requirements.

So, if a pope defined a Liturgy that was corrupted in the Faith to the point of heresy or the odor of heresy, he would be Ipso facto, not the pope, as such is not possible by a true pope using the charism of infallibility, but a fallen away heretic with no power over the Church.
The Council of Trent tells us that the rites & sacraments of the Church cannot be harmful to the Faithful, and anyone who says otherwise is Anathema.​

In other matters such as “encyclicals, homilies, greetings and addresses” he may indeed profess heresy and thus Ipso facto depose himself as pope should he fail to retract same when he knows they are heretical to the perennial Magisterium.​

And,
NO, sedevacantism or even extended-time sedevacantism is not a heresy, and never was.
It has nothing to do with the visibility of the Church, as the Church is visible not only in its faithful hierarchy, but in its baptized faithful members who hold fast, or intend to hold fast, to the teachings of the perennial Magisterium & wherever they may be.​

That’s my take on it all as I understand it.

 

[pnewton]

The fact is, I doubt you will ever offer convincing evidence, because once one rejects authority, they are free to color any statement over the last 2000 years by whatever level of authority, or lack of authority suits their whim. One can not simply redefine the Catholic Church in their image and remain Catholic.

I will quote my own post, because the post above is such a clear example. The writing of St. Robert Bellarmine is deemed more authoritative than legitimate Church authority, popes, church councils, and conclaves. Why? Because it says what he wants to here. Authority is based on content. I am no saint, but I recognize false appeal to authority when I see it, even in a saint.