John XXIII

[Rogerteder]

Quick question, (I do not want to get into a debate on sedevacantism—please dont go into arguments for it or against it–just answer the question if you know the answer) I know many sedevacantist groups vary on who was the last Pope… I have read that some say it was Pius XII, (I think this is by far the majority position)and some say it was Pius X… etc… Here is my question: are there any sedevacantist groups that you know of that hold that John XXIII was the last valid Pope?

 

[corsair]

It is my understanding that SSP V holds Pius XII to be the last correctly elected Pope. I, also, am sure that CMRI believes the same.

 

[malphono]

Yes, the majority of seems to hold Pius XII as the “end of the line” so-to-speak. At the same time, there would appear to be some who hold to John XIII, but whether or not they can be classified as a “group” I don’t know. If they are a “group” they’re certainly not as vociferous as the others.

 

[VetA]

you will have to excuse my ignorance, but why do they say the most recent popes are not valid?

 

[Victorious]

you will have to excuse my ignorance, but why do they say the most recent popes are not valid?

Because of Vatican II. To their way of thinking, Vatican II proves that Pope John XXIII (who convened the Council) and all subsequent Popes are heretics.

And then, too, the rite of ordination was changed in the late '60s (mid '60s?) so there is some thinking that bishops consecrated after that point have not validly been made bishops. Some sedevacantist groups refer to Pope Benedict as “Father Ratzinger.” And of course, any priests ordained under the revised rite of ordination are not really priests, as far as these same types are concerned.

 

[Rogerteder]

Yes, the majority of seems to hold Pius XII as the “end of the line” so-to-speak. At the same time, there would appear to be some who hold to John XIII, but whether or not they can be classified as a “group” I don’t know. If they are a “group” they’re certainly not as vociferous as the others.

did you mean John XXIII?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Because of Vatican II. To their way of thinking, Vatican II proves that Pope John XXIII (who convened the Council) and all subsequent Popes are heretics.

I don’t know how they can believe in papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Magisterium (which includes all the previous Councils they hold to be true) and posit that the Holy See has been bankrupted.

And then, too, the rite of ordination was changed in the late '60s (mid '60s?) so there is some thinking that bishops consecrated after that point have not validly been made bishops. Some sedevacantist groups refer to Pope Benedict as “Father Ratzinger.” And of course, any priests ordained under the revised rite of ordination are not really priests, as far as these same types are concerned.

And yet, Pope Benedict XVI is the first Pope who was not already a Bishop prior to the Second Vatican Council. Pope Venerable John Paul II, Pope John Paul I, Pope Paul VI, and Pope Blessed John XXIII were all ordained as Bishops under the pre-Vatican II rite and were Bishops present at the Second Vatican Council.

 

[malphono]

did you mean John XXIII?

Yes. It was a typo.

 

[Victorious]

I don’t know how they can believe in papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Magisterium (which includes all the previous Councils they hold to be true) and posit that the Holy See has been bankrupted.

Whether they profess to believe in infallibility or not, as a practical reality, they can’t possibly. Nor do they actually believe in Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church, if they think the line of true Popes has become extinct.

And yet, Pope Benedict XVI is the first Pope who was not already a Bishop prior to the Second Vatican Council. Pope Venerable John Paul II, Pope John Paul I, Pope Paul VI, and Pope Blessed John XXIII were all ordained as Bishops under the pre-Vatican II rite and were Bishops present at the Second Vatican Council.

Yeah, but John XXIII convened the council they regard as heretical, and then none of the subsequent Popes condemned the council, so they must be heretical too. The thing about the new rite of ordination might only apply to our current Holy Father, but that’s just part of the overall package.

(What, you’re looking for logic here?) :whacky:

 

[Rogerteder]

i said dont get into the sedevacantism debate

 

[Victorious]

i said dont get into the sedevacantism debate

What debate? Somebody asked why the sedevacantists think Pius XII was the last legitimate Pope.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Quick question, (I do not want to get into a debate on sedevacantism—please dont go into arguments for it or against it–just answer the question if you know the answer) I know many sedevacantist groups vary on who was the last Pope… I have read that some say it was Pius XII, (I think this is by far the majority position)and some say it was Pius X… etc… Here is my question: are there any sedevacantist groups that you know of that hold that John XXIII was the last valid Pope?

I believe there are at least a couple of sedevacantist bishops in the US (Bishop Sanborn and Bishop McKenna) who believe that the pope holds the See of Peter materially, but not formally. In other words, they don’t necessarily dispute the succession, but rather they hold that through acceptance of non-Catholic beliefs the pope does not possess the spiritual quality (for lack of a better term) of the papacy. But should he recant modernism, and the modern definitions of ecumenism and religious liberty, for example, he could realize the fullness of the papacy.

That being said, I believe that most if not all sedevacantists (except perhaps for the Cardinal Siri conspiracists) believe that Pope John XXIII lost the papacy when he called the Council with the intent to (in their minds) alter the Catholic faith through the introduction of modernism, etc. Prior to that, there was no impediment to Pope John initially ascending to the papacy. So he was perhaps a valid Pope for three years prior to becoming an anti-pope.