sedevacantism and indefectability of the Church

[cor]

Of course the see of Rome is vacant every time a pope passes away and there have been times in the past when there were mainstream antipopes and also when the See was vacant for a few years IIRC. But modern-day “sedevacantists” claim that we’ve had antipopes for decades, antipopes who are almost universally accepted as true popes by Catholics. Wouldn’t that be contrary to the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church?

Catholic Encyclopedia

*Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.

The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, “faithlessness cannot gain access” [Ep. lv (lix), ad Cornelium). The various bodies that have left the Church naturally deny its indefectibility. Their plea for separation rests in each case on the supposed fact that the main body of Christians has fallen so far from primitive truth, or from the purity of Christian morals, that the formation of a separate organization is not only desirable but necessary. Those who are called on to defend this plea endeavour in various ways to reconcile it with Christ’s promise. Some, as seen above (VII), have recourse to the hypothesis of an indefectible invisible Church. The Right Rev. Charles Gore of Worcester, who may be regarded as the representative of high-class Anglicanism, prefers a different solution. In his controversy with Canon Richardson, he adopted the position that while the Church will never fail to teach the whole truth as revealed, yet “errors of addition” may exist universally in its current teaching (see Richardson, Catholic Claims, Appendix). Such an explanation deprives Christ’s words of all their meaning. A Church which at any period might conceivably teach, as of faith, doctrines which form no part of the deposit could never deliver her message to the world as the message of God. Men could reasonably urge in regard to any doctrine that it might be an “error of addition”.*

newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm*

 

[MTD]

But modern-day “sedevacantists” claim that we’ve had antipopes for decades, antipopes who are almost universally accepted as true popes by Catholics. Wouldn’t that be contrary to the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church?

Actually, it is precisely because of the indefectibility of the Church that sedevacantists claim there has been no pope for several decades. Let’s see if I can explain a little. (I’m not a sedevacantist, so don’t trust me too much to get my explanations correct. )

As you can see from the article from the CE, there are several elements that concern indefectibility. Sedevacantists believe that the “conciliar Church” does not preserve those elements and so cannot be the real Catholic Church. However, don’t let yourself think they regard all NO Catholics as non-Catholics, for they actually don’t. All who call themselves Catholics and sincerely follow what they believe to be what the Catholic Church teaches are Catholics. I believe they regard the present division over the identity of the pope somewhat akin to the Great Western Schism, in which we have on the one hand saints, such as Sts. Vincent Ferrer and Colette expressing allegiance to an anti-pope, and on the other hand saints, such as St. Catherine of Siena, expressing allegiance to the real pope. And yet these were all saints, true Catholics.
CE:

It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals;

The sedevacantists believe the “conciliar Church” is corrupt in faith. This not only concerns heresy, which of course they do believe the last few papal claimants were guilty of, but also other certain doctrines which are now called into question. Even though these certain doctrines are not infallibly proposed as divinely revealed, we need to remember the Church would not really be the guardian of truth if she could propose as certain a doctrine that is not really such because it means she can err with regards to the truth.
CE:

nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men.

The rites of the sacraments were changed quite a bit after VII; I think many sedevacantists do not consider them valid in their own right (that is, quite apart from the fact that they were promulgated by whom they believe to be anti-popes).
CE:

It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being.

Sedevacantists believe the “conciliar Church” has suffered this substantial change and so cannot be the true Catholic Church.
CE:

He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness.

The general and rather serious decline in reverence and holiness in the celebration of the sacraments is also an element of concern to them.
CE:

This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard.

Although Pope Paul VI did come out with Humanae Vitae, I believe sedevacantists wonder why it took him so long and why he allowed that theological commission to explore possibilities that were already expressly forbidden by the Church through previous popes; i.e., the possibility of allowing artificial birth control.
CE:

Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, “faithlessness cannot gain access” [Ep. lv (lix), ad Cornelium). The various bodies that have left the Church naturally deny its indefectibility. Their plea for separation rests in each case on the supposed fact that the main body of Christians has fallen so far from primitive truth, or from the purity of Christian morals, that the formation of a separate organization is not only desirable but necessary.

It is precisely because they know that indefectibility is assured only to the See of Rome that they believe it is vacant. They know that they cannot separate from Rome…

Maria
[/quote]

 

[Rykell]

Maria:

I believe they regard the present division over the identity of the pope somewhat akin to the Great Western Schism, in which we have on the one hand saints, such as Sts. Vincent Ferrer and Colette expressing allegiance to an anti-pope, and on the other hand saints, such as St. Catherine of Siena, expressing allegiance to the real pope. And yet these were all saints, true Catholics.

Would you have us believe that because there was a schism in the 13th century, that it is ok to believe the papacy is vacant? Even in that rare case, it was NOT vacated, for there was a lawful pope on Peter’s Chair co-existing with the anti-pope. You are using an example from an extraordinary circumstance in history source and attempting to apply it here in order to gain sympathy. This is a poor debate tactic, and one I have no admiration for.

I realize you are just quoting what “they” believe, and it would have been interesting to hear your take on it. As it stands, it appears you concur. May I ask on what sedevacantist website this information is being circulated?

 

[palmas85]

Would you have us believe that because there was a schism in the 13th century, that it is ok to believe the papacy is vacant? Even in that rare case, it was NOT vacated, for there was a lawful pope on Peter’s Chair co-existing with the anti-pope. You are using an example from an extraordinary circumstance in history source and attempting to apply it here in order to gain sympathy. This is a poor debate tactic, and one I have no admiration for.

I realize you are just quoting what “they” believe, and it would have been interesting to hear your take on it. As it stands, it appears you concur. May I ask on what sedevacantist website this information is being circulated?

The fact that there was a schism in the 13th century actually proves that such a thing could happen again. I’m not saying that it has or will, but definitely could. And if it did, what could we the faithful go by except our own conscience?

Actually during the period in question, I believe there were actually three Popes at the same time, two elected by the same council.

Extraordinary times in history? Interesting choice of words. Could it be that we are also in an extraordinary time in history? s

 

[MTD]

Would you have us believe that because there was a schism in the 13th century, that it is ok to believe the papacy is vacant?

No, it is not okay to believe the papal seat is vacant only because there was a schism in the 14th and into the 15th century. I’m just pointing out a similar instance in history because the instant reaction of a lot of people is to dismiss the sedevacantist theory on the sole notion that such could never be the case. I do not believe that is an intellectually honest position to take; I believe everyone should abandon prejudices when they study the sedevacantist position and look at it objectively. They will see that there is a lot of truth to it; they don’t have to agree with it in the end, but I really think the idea that an empty seat for a few decades is an impossibility is not a logical position, based on both history, reason, and even some theology manuals.

You are using an example from an extraordinary circumstance in history source and attempting to apply it here in order to gain sympathy.

In my humble opinion, our own circumstances in the Church today are even more extraordinary than those of the Great Western Schism. St. Vincent Ferrer thought the end times were upon the world in his time, and rightfully so, seeing the terrible state of the Church. I personally think that our own times exceed his in terrible confusion in the Church. Just count how many factions we have that call themselves Catholic.

This is a poor debate tactic, and one I have no admiration for.

I am sorry that you regard pointing out a true fact from history to which to compare our own times is a “poor debate tactic.”

I realize you are just quoting what “they” believe, and it would have been interesting to hear your take on it.

Well, let’s just put it this way. I’m not a sedevacantist, but I regard their position as a lot more logical than that of the SSPX. And I also do not believe hiding from facts is going to help us in our pursuit of the truth.

May I ask on what sedevacantist website this information is being circulated?

I believe it’s against the forum policy to link to sedevacantist websites. Besides, I’m not really getting this from websites.

Maria

 

[Rykell]

The fact that there was a schism in the 13th century actually proves that such a thing could happen again. I’m not saying that it has or will, but definitely could. And if it did, what could we the faithful go by except our own conscience?

I agree, Palmas, but I do not agree that the papacy is ever vacated. Even in the case of the schism, there was a lawful pope, not a vacancy.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I agree, Palmas, but I do not agree that the papacy is ever vacated. Even in the case of the schism, there was a lawful pope, not a vacancy.

Occasionally there are two or more plausible contenders for the See of Peter. Those who follow the wrong man are not morally guilty if they make reasonable efforts to find out the truth, and would have followed the true Pope had they been aware of all the evidence.
However these affairs do immense damage to the Chuch’s witness to the world, and there is no point trying to deny it. Cynically you might say that the political winner was retrospectively recognised as the lawful Pope.

Mercifully, these periods have been few and brief, and the present time isn’t one of them. Though there is a Pope Michael I over in the States, no one but the most blinkered follower would confuse him with the real object, which is Benny.

 

[gorman64]

I agree, Palmas, but I do not agree that the papacy is ever vacated. Even in the case of the schism, there was a lawful pope, not a vacancy.

Dear Rykell,

The papacy is vacated every time a pope dies. There are rubrics in the Liturgy to deal with this…it’s a fact.

The Great Western Schism lasted for forty plus years…during that period there was no certainty as to who the legitimate Pope actually was. Nevertheless, the Church survived. To say that this does not matter, because at least one Claimant was in fact legitimate, is pointless. The unity of the Church cannot be maintained by an unknowable Pope. Hence “Papa dubius, papa nullus.” It is true and de fide that the papacy cannot lie vacant permanently. The question is, how long is permanent?

If the Western Schism had not actually happened…people of your mindset would tell me it could never happen…there could never be three claimants to the Papacy…and Saints following a false claimant.

The Western Schism had to end…and this crisis will end as well.

Gorman (the ultratraditionalist)

P.S. I am not directly comparing this crisis to the Western Schism…today is much worse a crisis.

 

[gorman64]

Cardinal Franzelin, from VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE, the distinction between the seat and the seated:

1. “On account of the distinction as explained [between sedes and sedens], in so far as the Apostolic See can never fail in its permanence by divine right and law, but the individual occupants [sedentes], being mortal, fail at intervals, the APOSTOLIC SEE ITSELF, as the necessary foundation and center of unity of the Church can never be called in doubt without heresy; but it can happen sometimes, in great disturbances, and it is evident from history that it has happened, that many men, while holily keeping the Faith and veneration towards the Apostolic See as true Catholics, without their own fault are not able to acknowledge the one seated in the Apostolic See, and therefore while in no way falling into heresy, slip into schism, which however is not formal but only material. Thus in the lamentable disturbance throughout forty years, from Urban VI until Gregory XII [the Great Western Schism], Catholics were split into two and then three obediences, as they were then called, while all acknowledged and revered the divine rights of the Apostolic See; nevertheless, not acknowledging the right of the one seated in the Apostolic See, from invincible ignorance of the lawful succession * and thus adhering either to no one, or to a pseudo-pontiff. Among these, even saints such as St. Vincent Ferrer for a time, and his brother Boniface, a Carthusian Prior, were implicated in material schism.” (Ibid. p. 223-4)*

Who’s Cardinal Franzelin?

newadvent.org/cathen/06242a.htm

Gorman

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

No, it is not okay to believe the papal seat is vacant only because there was a schism in the 14th and into the 15th century. I’m just pointing out a similar instance in history because the instant reaction of a lot of people is to dismiss the sedevacantist theory on the sole notion that such could never be the case. I do not believe that is an intellectually honest position to take; I believe everyone should abandon prejudices when they study the sedevacantist position and look at it objectively. They will see that there is a lot of truth to it; they don’t have to agree with it in the end, but I really think the idea that an empty seat for a few decades is an impossibility is not a logical position, based on both history, reason, and even some theology manuals.

In my humble opinion, our own circumstances in the Church today are even more extraordinary than those of the Great Western Schism. St. Vincent Ferrer thought the end times were upon the world in his time, and rightfully so, seeing the terrible state of the Church. I personally think that our own times exceed his in terrible confusion in the Church. Just count how many factions we have that call themselves Catholic.

I am sorry that you regard pointing out a true fact from history to which to compare our own times is a “poor debate tactic.”

Well, let’s just put it this way. I’m not a sedevacantist, but I regard their position as a lot more logical than that of the SSPX. And I also do not believe hiding from facts is going to help us in our pursuit of the truth.

I believe it’s against the forum policy to link to sedevacantist websites. Besides, I’m not really getting this from websites.

Maria

Very good, this is the first time I have ever seen anyone give an unbiased overview of sedevacantism. Not to promote the position, but I do have to admit, it is hard to admit the scandals present now, as being in the Catholic Church, it is a lot easier to say that they are not Catholic.
Indeed it is much more plausible than the schismatic positions of the SSPX and the rediculous assertions of the SSPV.

 

[kellyanne]

You remind me very much of another poster. Are you also sedevantist Carlus?

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

You remind me very much of another poster. Are you also sedevantist Carlus?

I never really said that I was, and I disagree with sedevacantists on certain issues, not that much of what they assert is not fascinating, which I don’t believe would be prudent to post here concerning the rules.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

You remind me very much of another poster. Are you also sedevantist Carlus?

Why do you inquire, are there sedevacantists on this board?

 

[gorman64]

Very good, this is the first time I have ever seen anyone give an unbiased overview of sedevacantism. Not to promote the position, but I do have to admit, it is hard to admit the scandals present now, as being in the Catholic Church, it is a lot easier to say that they are not Catholic.

Dear Carlus Magnus,

What is your issue with the sedevacantist position? No one I know holds the SV position because of “scandals”…are you calling something a scandal that is in reality a doctrinal problem?

Indeed it is much more plausible than the schismatic positions of the SSPX and the rediculous assertions of the SSPV.

Can you share with us your issue with these particular schismatic “positions” and ridiculous “assertions"?

Gorman

 

[icxc_nika]

Regarding SV position:

At this point in time, I would hazard a guess that there are very few remaining people that have been ordained prior to Vat II.

In a few short years, there will be no one alive that was ordained pre-Vat II.

How does the SV reconsile the fact that if the current pope is an anti-pope, how will there ever be a validly appointed Pontiff, in accordance with the laying of hands, done from the apostolic times, if Rome continues on it’s current course?

 

[TNT]

Regarding SV position:

At this point in time, I would hazard a guess that there are very few remaining people that have been ordained prior to Vat II.

In a few short years, there will be no one alive that was ordained pre-Vat II.

How does the SV reconsile the fact that if the current pope is an anti-pope, how will there ever be a validly appointed Pontiff, in accordance with the laying of hands, done from the apostolic times, if Rome continues on it’s current course?

Wasn’t that Bp Lefebvre’s fear (though not Sede)? Yes. So he anointed bps. under the old Rite which continues today. Also, there are some valid bps. in the Sede groups that are perpetuating other bps.
No, we are not really running out of PreVII Rite Ordinations and won’t be in the foreseeable future.

 

[icxc_nika]

Wasn’t that Bp Lefebvre’s fear (though not Sede)? Yes. So he anointed bps. under the old Rite which continues today. Also, there are some valid bps. in the Sede groups that are perpetuating other bps.
No, we are not really running out of PreVII Rite Ordinations and won’t be in the foreseeable future.

Thank you for your post!

Can you please reference me any valid bishops that the sede’s claim to have.

This is an interesting issue since the Orthodox and the Catholics have a differing view on the validity of orders.

The Catholics are of the opinion that once you are ordained, you are ordained for life, end of story.

The Orthodox have the view that if anyone ceases to be Orthodox, the validty of the ordination has also ceased.

Thanks again for the info.

 

[gorman64]

Thank you for your post!

Can you please reference me any valid bishops that the sede’s claim to have.

This is an interesting issue since the Orthodox and the Catholics have a differing view on the validity of orders.

The Catholics are of the opinion that once you are ordained, you are ordained for life, end of story.

The Orthodox have the view that if anyone ceases to be Orthodox, the validty of the ordination has also ceased.

Thanks again for the info.

Dear icxc nika,

The orthodox are schismatics and heretics. This is the Roman Catholic Church’s position…you seem to be unaware of this.

The orthodox Churches are not part of the Catholic Church…they are cut off from Her by schism and heresy.

Gorman

P.S. For the benefit of Catholics here:

From Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII, (found in Denz. 2286)

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Also see (Denz. 714) Council of Florence, Cantata Domino and the encyclical Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Wasn’t that Bp Lefebvre’s fear (though not Sede)? Yes. So he anointed bps. under the old Rite which continues today. Also, there are some valid bps. in the Sede groups that are perpetuating other bps.
No, we are not really running out of PreVII Rite Ordinations and won’t be in the foreseeable future.

Old Rite? The TLM isn’t a separate Rite from the NO.

 

[icxc_nika]

Dear icxc nika,

The orthodox are schismatics and heretics. This is the Roman Catholic Church’s position…you seem to be unaware of this.

The orthodox Churches are not part of the Catholic Church…they are cut off from Her by schism and heresy.

Gorman

P.S. For the benefit of Catholics here:

From Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII, (found in Denz. 2286)

Also see (Denz. 714) Council of Florence, Cantata Domino and the encyclical Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII.

Dear Gorman,

[Edited by Moderator]

The Orthodox church has NEVER been considered heretical by the RCC. Not that we need this as a vindication [Edited by Moderator]. Perhaps you should make yourself a bit more “aware” of what the RCC position is.

Furthermore, the Orthodox have always been Catholic, whether or not you believe otherwise.

There has never been a time when the RCC has claimed that the Orthodox do not hold valid ordination ( or any other sacrement for that matter ) either.

I am simply asking a question in regards to the laying of hands, and if any SV bishops are claimed to have the proper ordination, and if so, which of the SV bishops.

Laslty is it the opinion of the non SV Catholics that the SV bishops do have the proper ordiniation, if it is true that the SV’s claim to have the laying of the hands.