In your opinion are sedevacantists Traditional Catholics?

[TNT]

I believe sedevacantists hold the Catholic faith, but truly are schismatic. But they ARE Catholic. …

Isn’t that an Oxymoron?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I thought they were explicitly excommunicated as heretical, at least by Bruskowiz? (sic)

Are you saying that a SEDE is excommunicated? If not, why the comparative?

Are we talking about participation in groups and involvement in Masses offered by folks who take a SEDE postion?

OF course the sede would be. Most espeically if they were involved in a sect of sedevacantism over “merely” mentally assenting to the notion.

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz listed attendance at SSPX chapels as well. How much more any “breakaway order” or “independant priest” that denied HH B16 as the Pope?

 

[rlg94086]

I totally agree. And you know, you can consider Vatican II to be in error and not be a sedevacantist, as well. IMO, those who would compare sedevacantist Catholics to “Catholic for a Free Choice” are the real “fringe loonies.” The Novus Ordo Church is, in fact, full of “fringe loonies”, even Cardinals, yet hardly anyone is accusing THEM of not being Catholic. Funny how that works. It seems like ANYTHING GOES in the Novus Ordo Church…anything except Catholic Tradition, of course.

Well, in fairness, the “cafeteria” Catholics get their faith questioned by those of us who are more orthodox in our beliefs constantly. But you would be correct in claiming hypocrisy on the part of Catholics who refuse to follow the precepts of the Church and/or deny dogmatic teachings, who have no problem in condemning the sedavacantist Catholics.

 

[Cor_Jesu]

Isn’t that an Oxymoron?

I don’t think so, or at least it depends on what sense you’re using it. If someone holds the Catholic faith, and is not a heretic, I see no reason why they could not just be considered a Catholic, albeit one who is in schism. Sedevacantists are more Catholic than many of the Novus Ordo laity and clergy…in some cases more Catholic than the Novus Ordo popes.

 

[Cor_Jesu]

Are we talking about participation in groups and involvement in Masses offered by folks who take a SEDE postion?

OF course the sede would be. Most espeically if they were involved in a sect of sedevacantism over “merely” mentally assenting to the notion.

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz listed attendance at SSPX chapels as well. How much more any “breakaway order” or “independant priest” that denied HH B16 as the Pope?

If anyone is in schism it’s Bruskewitz.

 

[maurin]

I believe sedevacantists hold the Catholic faith, but truly are schismatic. But they ARE Catholic. Many, many people in the Novus Ordo Church, however, are considered to be in full communion even though their faith is not truly Catholic.

very interesting perspective. thanks for that–something to think about.

 

[MysticalMan]

No!!!

 

[maurin]

I think it is well to distinguish between sedevacantism and individual sedevacantists. Sedevacantism is wrong; it’s schismatic. But I daresay most sedevacantists are erring in good faith and thus not true schismatics. Such sedevacantists would therefore still be Catholics.

Maria

thanks, Maria. as I said to Cor Jesu, intersting perspective-- good to think about. thanks.

 

[gmarie21]

I totally agree. And you know, you can consider Vatican II to be in error and not be a sedevacantist, as well. IMO, those who would compare sedevacantist Catholics to “Catholic for a Free Choice” are the real “fringe loonies.” The Novus Ordo Church is, in fact, full of “fringe loonies”, even Cardinals, yet hardly anyone is accusing THEM of not being Catholic. Funny how that works. It seems like ANYTHING GOES in the Novus Ordo Church…anything except Catholic Tradition, of course.

I think MANY accuse the extreme left, Cafeteria Catholics as NOT being Catholic. The one thing both extreme right and left agree on is that they don’t like the current pope nor the popes since VII

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

If anyone is in schism it’s Bruskewitz.

Oh come now! I think it was extremely misleading for His Excellency to mention the SSPX alongside groups who advocate murdering unborn children, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say he is in schism!

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

I think MANY accuse the extreme left, Cafeteria Catholics as NOT being Catholic. The one thing both extreme right and left agree on is that they don’t like the current pope nor the popes since VII

The “extreme left” hasn’t liked any popes-- ever. They have less of a problem with the post-V2 popes, probably because the post-V2 popes have been much softer on defending and teaching unambiguously the Catholic faith.

 

[pnewton]

If anyone is in schism it’s Bruskewitz.

Maurin,

Since you are the one asking the questions, let me show you one more reason we do not let each individual Catholic decide these things for themselves.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Since you are the one asking the questions, let me show you one more reason we do not let each individual Catholic decide these things for themselves.

Sedevacantism is a techncial device for saying that the Pope has made a mistake whilst maintaining that he is infallible.
It leads to far more problems than it solves, but the inspiration is wholly traditional Catholic.

 

[gorman64]

Sedevacantism is a techncial device for saying that the Pope has made a mistake whilst maintaining that he is infallible.
It leads to far more problems than it solves, but the inspiration is wholly traditional Catholic.

No, Malcolm, it is the application of divine law to manifest heretics. A manifest heretic is outside the Church and loses all jurisdiction by the fact of the heresy. This is the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine and all the Church Fathers…it is therefore, the teaching of the Church.

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

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."

"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.’*

 

[pnewton]

No, Malcolm, it is the application of divine law to manifest heretics. A manifest heretic is outside the Church and loses all jurisdiction by the fact of the heresy. This is the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine and all the Church Fathers…it is therefore, the teaching of the Church.

Your post does not address the topic, except to say that sedevacantist are right. But I would like to use this to point out one way in which sedevacantist are not Traditional Catholics. Namely, traditionally, each Catholic was not given the authority to self-interpretation of every document, contrary to the authority of the Church. In other words, each Catholic can not be a self-taught canon lawyer who acts as judge, jury and excommunication-er of every Pope.

 

[MTD]

Namely, traditionally, each Catholic was not given the authority to self-interpretation of every document, contrary to the authority of the Church. In other words, each Catholic can not be a self-taught canon lawyer who acts as judge, jury and excommunication-er of every Pope.

Well, see, the fact of the pope teaching heresy does not make him a heretic. He has to realize a certain teaching is heresy (i.e., contrary to de fide doctrine) first. Likewise, both the heresy and the pertinacity (realization that the teaching is heresy) must be outwardly discernible to us. If it is not discernible, he is either no heretic at all or an occult heretic. (An occult heretic pope does not lose his papacy; only a manifest heretic does.)

If a Catholic comes up to you and says that he doesn’t believe the Blessed Mother was assumed into heaven, would you be so rash as to assume that he didn’t really believe that? No, of course not; you’d take his word for it. However, you wouldn’t think of him as a heretic until you find out if he realizes that he’s holding a belief contrary to dogma. So you’d logically proceed to say to him, “But the assumption of the Blessed Mother is a dogma of the Church, so how can you be Catholic and not believe it?” Let’s say the person says, “Yes, I know that, but it’s not in the Bible, so it has no foundation.” Would you then be so rash as to assume that he didn’t really realize that it was against de fide doctrine? No, of course not; you’d take his word for it.

And this is exactly what Bellarmine is talking about when he mentions a manifest heretic pope losing jurisdiction. If the pope is obviously pertinacious in his wrong belief, he is publicly heretical. He loses jurisdiction by being a public heretic. We, the faithful, would only be recognizing a fact that he has already made clear of his own accord. We are only believing what he has made known to us.

Maria

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Cor Jesu,

I notice it says you’re from Louisiana. Where do you attend Mass down there?

 

[pnewton]

Maria,

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.

Dogma-The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

I noticed the example you used was a clearly defined dogma and therefore would meet the criteria of what must be believed. I have never seen denying a clearly defined dogma being used to accuse a pope of heresy.

 

[MTD]

I noticed the example you used was a clearly defined dogma and therefore would meet the criteria of what must be believed.

Precisely, pnewton. That’s why I used it. To show that it would be possible to recognize a manifest-heretic-pope. Even if the person in my example were a pope, you can come to no other conclusion but that that person is a manifest heretic.

That’s all I was clarifying: that it is not an act of judgment upon a pope to recognize a heretical papal claimant as being manifest in heresy and pertinacity.

I have never seen denying a clearly defined dogma being used to accuse a pope of heresy.

And that is why you have no reason to oppose Gorman’s post by saying, “each Catholic can not be a self-taught canon lawyer who acts as judge, jury and excommunication-er of every Pope.” It doesn’t apply. All Gorman is saying is that a manifest heretic isn’t pope anymore. And a manifest heretic is one whose heresy and pertinacity in that heresy is public for all to see. If you can recognize the person in my example as a heretic, you can recognize a pope doing the exact same thing as a heretic. It’s actually quite simple and unthreatening.

Maria

 

[pnewton]

And that is why you have no reason to oppose Gorman’s post by saying, "each Catholic can not be a self-taught canon lawyer…

I still stand by it. Every Catholic can’t. In the case you describe, where clear dogma is denounced as heresy, do you not think that the Church as a whole, cardinals, bishops, priest and laity, would mostly all know this also? Besides, I am curious as to how St. Bellarmine’s writings have been incoporated into Church law. I noticed that he is often quoted, but never the canon laws which his teachings influenced.

After all,

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—

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

You see, I have a hard time taking a teaching which might apply to dogma and using it for discipline (or even doctrine) in contradiction to more clear teaching.

I have a little problem with the practicality of St. Bellarmine’s position in that it does make the issue of infallibility an eternal begging of the question of infalibillity. It is poor logic. It actually undercuts the trust in the infallibility of all popes. Anytime a pope would make an infallible statement, it is possible that he is promoting heresy, thus ceases to be pope and thus is incapable of making this infallible statement. All one would have to do to deny any dogma, is to say that it was heretical, therefore the pope ceased to be pope and therefore the statement wasn’t infallible.

If you know of some reason this logic is faulty, let me know. I am open to understand this teaching more fully, but I can not unless I can rectify the inherent logical fallacy.