Sedevacantism and PIUS IX

[SFD]

There goes the unanimity of theologians. Dominican, renowned theologian, orthodox neo-Thomist.

Here’s another one, this time from Billuart.

Yes, these are minority opinions. I am familiar with them. The majority of theologians teach the opposite. Whether a pope can fall into heresy is disputed. Bellarmine says no…but he makes clear that it is not a certain teaching.

The moral unaniminity of theologians teach that a manifest heretic is not valid matter for the papacy and if a pope would fall into heresy he would cease to be pope. Look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia under Heresy.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Yes, these are minority opinions. I am familiar with them. The majority of theologians teach the opposite. Whether a pope can fall into heresy is disputed. Bellarmine says no…but he makes clear that it is not a certain teaching.

When did this vote take place and what were the percentages? Did it happen in Florida? It would explain why all the Cardinals in the Catholic Church got it wrong and keep meeting under the leadership of the Holy Spirit to elect Popes.

 

[SFD]

When did this vote take place and what were the percentages? Did it happen in Florida? It would explain why all the Cardinals in the Catholic Church got it wrong and keep meeting under the leadership of the Holy Spirit to elect Popes.

Look, Mr. Newton, I believe you’ve already stated that the situation today is a “supposed crisis”. You don’t see the problems…you don’t see a crisis…others do.

SFD

 

[Markstorm]

Yes, these are minority opinions. I am familiar with them. The majority of theologians teach the opposite. Whether a pope can fall into heresy is disputed. Bellarmine says no…but he makes clear that it is not a certain teaching.

The moral unaniminity of theologians teach that a manifest heretic is not valid matter for the papacy and if a pope would fall into heresy he would cease to be pope. Look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia under Heresy.

SFD

You might be familiar with them, but others aren’t. Clearly, you didn’t think they were important enough to present. I am sharing them so that everyone can see both sides of this issue, especially when you are claiming that the theologians are unanimous.

There is no unanimity when a minority opinion is present.

Furthermore, even if I grant you that a manifest heretic ceases to be Pope, clearly theologians are not agreed when this happens. At least some theologians believe that this must be declared so by the Church for the Pope to lose his office and jurisdiction. Thus, your position is not supported by theologians unanimously.

Even if it were, it would not be infallible. Just because theologians have presented a point of view, you can’t assume that the Church accepts that view as a dogma unless the Church teaches it expressly. There is a such thing as the Church withholding opinion.

 

[pnewton]

Look, Mr. Newton, I believe you’ve already stated that the situation today is a “supposed crisis”. You don’t see the problems…you don’t see a crisis…others do.

SFD

There are many of every generation that have the opinion that theirs is the best, the worst, the last, etc. I do not doubt that problems and crises exists, but they are not of such great proportion in the history of the Church as to justify the dissolution of the papacy. And it is gone for good if one rejects all the recent popes. It is not like all the Cardinals next time around will elect someone pleasing enough to the so far to the right field that they have the park. This movement will continue until this generation and maybe one more dies off. It has been decades. This is not a crisis. It is a true split.

I admit to be protective, but then what else would one expect on a Catholic website. I view those that come into the faithful to try an snatch a few converts not so much like wolves but more like sharks. To me it truly may be a heaven or hell issue for some poor soul that is lured by the attraction of being unique and counter-culture to leave the Holy Catholic Church for what I see is nothing more than an arrogant cult built on their inflated sense of self-worth.

 

[SFD]

You might be familiar with them, but others aren’t. Clearly, you didn’t think they were important enough to present. I am sharing them so that everyone can see both sides of this issue, especially when you are claiming that the theologians are unanimous.

There is no unanimity when a minority opinion is present.

Markstorm,

It is called moral unanimity. Absolute unanimity is not required. This is a common theological term that you are obviously not familiar with. You showed great humility earlier today…what happened?

Furthermore, even if I grant you that a manifest heretic ceases to be Pope, clearly theologians are not agreed when this happens. At least some theologians believe that this must be declared so by the Church for the Pope to lose his office and jurisdiction. Thus, your position is not supported by theologians unanimously.

Yes, it is…go look it up. It’s found in the Theology manuals and even in the CE.

Even if it were, it would not be infallible. Just because theologians have presented a point of view, you can’t assume that the Church accepts that view as a dogma unless the Church teaches it expressly. There is a such thing as the Church withholding opinion.

This is incorrect. Read the statement from Bp. Gasser, relator of the Faith, at Vatican I that I posted earlier. The common teaching of the theologians is included in the definition of infallibility.

All truths are not strictly Dogmas, that is, classified as de fide. Many Catholic doctrines are given the theological note of “of Divine Faith”, “Proximate to the Faith”, Of Ecclesiastical Faith", and “Theologically Certain”, and they require the assent of certitude and it is a mortal sin to dissent from them. This is all explained in the Theology Manuals.

If you are not familiar with these concepts, then maybe you should try to learn from the official statements of the Vatican Council I and Pope Pius IX as well, in Tuas Libenter.

SFD

 

[Markstorm]

Markstorm,

It is called moral unanimity. Absolute unanimity is not required.

My understanding is that moral unanimity suggests a “vast preponderance”. How is this determined? Certainly there must be a criterion if this is to be claimed as a source of infallibility?

Yes, it is…go look it up. It’s found in the Theology manuals and even in the CE.

Google is not returning useful hits. Where can I access these?

If you are not familiar with these concepts, then maybe you should try to learn from the official statements of the Vatican Council I and Pope Pius IX as well, in Tuas Libenter.

I will indeed read these. For the purposes of our discussion, I would like you to quote whatever you believe refutes my earlier points, since waiting for me to complete your required reading list would delay things quite a bit.

EDIT: Actually I would prefer if you would just give me the links to “Theology manual” and “CE”, and I will exit this debate. I don’t think anyone’s being convinced by your arguments, so there is no reason for me to continue without reading the sources first.

 

[SFD]

There are many of every generation that have the opinion that theirs is the best, the worst, the last, etc. I do not doubt that problems and crises exists, but they are not of such great proportion in the history of the Church as to justify the dissolution of the papacy. And it is gone for good if one rejects all the recent popes. It is not like all the Cardinals next time around will elect someone pleasing enough to the so far to the right field that they have the park. This movement will continue until this generation and maybe one more dies off. It has been decades. This is not a crisis. It is a true split.

I admit to be protective, but then what else would one expect on a Catholic website. I view those that come into the faithful to try an snatch a few converts not so much like wolves but more like sharks. To me it truly may be a heaven or hell issue for some poor soul that is lured by the attraction of being unique and counter-culture to leave the Holy Catholic Church for what I see is nothing more than an arrogant cult built on their inflated sense of self-worth.

You speak as if this is some kind of political situation. The liberals and conservatives…it’s patently not.

Your problem is essentially that you are arguing against fact. Yes, a priori we know that what comes from Rome is good; we also know that most of our peers had their morals and then their faith destroyed by going to the Novus Ordo and attending Modernist schools, and all the rest; therefore, it’s not good. And it’s to be avoided.

The fact (of evil fruit) creates a doubt at least. That is, a doubt about another fact we had previously regarded as certain, and which was in turn the foundation of the a priori certitude that whatever came from Rome was “good.” That fundamental fact was that the man claiming to be pope was pope; the “fact” that you insist overcomes all other facts. But the truth is that it is not fundamental - or at least, it would be if it were indeed factual, but it isn’t.

Our Lord instructs us to “beware” false prophets who dress up to disguise their wolf-nature. St. Gregory tells us that He said “beware” to put us on our guard, because we would need to be diligent in identifying these wolves who would be harder to discern because of their efforts at concealment. And then Our Lord immediately says, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Look it up in St. Matthew’s Gospel - the Sermon on the Mount.

Anyway, the fruits are as evil as one could imagine. That is the fundamental traditional Catholic premise. Everything else flows from it and builds upon it.

SFD

 

[Arnobius]

You speak as if this is some kind of political situation. The liberals and conservatives…it’s patently not.

Your problem is essentially that you are arguing against fact. Yes, a priori we know that what comes from Rome is good; we also know that most of our peers had their morals and then their faith destroyed by going to the Novus Ordo and attending Modernist schools, and all the rest; therefore, it’s not good. And it’s to be avoided.

The fact (of evil fruit) creates a doubt at least. That is, a doubt about another fact we had previously regarded as certain, and which was in turn the foundation of the a priori certitude that whatever came from Rome was “good.” That fundamental fact was that the man claiming to be pope was pope; the “fact” that you insist overcomes all other facts. But the truth is that it is not fundamental - or at least, it would be if it were indeed factual, but it isn’t.

Our Lord instructs us to “beware” false prophets who dress up to disguise their wolf-nature. St. Gregory tells us that He said “beware” to put us on our guard, because we would need to be diligent in identifying these wolves who would be harder to discern because of their efforts at concealment. And then Our Lord immediately says, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Look it up in St. Matthew’s Gospel - the Sermon on the Mount.

Anyway, the fruits are as evil as one could imagine. That is the fundamental traditional Catholic premise. Everything else flows from it and builds upon it.

SFD

So the fruits of the SSPX and the Sedevacantists are to break away from the Church and claim they are the only ones who are in the right… I’ll stick with Rome and the Pope thank you

 

[Markstorm]

Anyway, the fruits are as evil as one could imagine. That is the fundamental traditional Catholic premise. Everything else flows from it and builds upon it.

SFD

Pope Benedict XVI is doing great things for the Church. He even revitalized the EF over the OF which you claim to be so devastating.

So:

1. Are these fruits good enough?
2. Are you going to run through this process whenever a Pope does something you disagree with or see a problem with?

 

[pnewton]

Your problem is essentially that you are arguing against fact. Yes, a priori we know that what comes from Rome is good;

I wasn’t arguing as much as ranting. And no, I had no a priori opinion about Rome. I used to be opposed to Catholicism, at least up until the last ten years. So, yes I believe the Catholic Church is fruitful and the true Church that Christ founded. But I was a 180 degrees opposite of have an a priori opinion that the Holy Father is the true Vicar of Christ.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Our Lord instructs us to “beware” false prophets who dress up to disguise their wolf-nature. St. Gregory tells us that He said “beware” to put us on our guard, because we would need to be diligent in identifying these wolves who would be harder to discern because of their efforts at concealment. And then Our Lord immediately says, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Look it up in St. Matthew’s Gospel - the Sermon on the Mount.

SFD

Ye, maybe I should stop reading these threads altogether and avoid these sedevacantist “prophets” who draw people from the Church.

 

[cam100]

It never occured to me that I might be wrong, but I’ll keep that in mind. Now, I don’t suppose you’re suggesting that because Old Catholics accused Vatican I of innovations, and traditionalists accused Vatican II of innovations; then Traditionalists are like Old Catholics? Are you?

There are many varieties of sedevacantists. Yes, some are analogous to the Old Catholics in certain respects. The original Old Catholics believed Pope Pius IX had broken with tradition, thus they broke with him to preserve tradition. The Catholic Encyclopedia refutes the principle behind this logic:

(1) Some have claimed the introduction into the Church of abuses, dogmatic and liturgical novelties, superstitions, with which they are permitted, even bound, not to ally themselves. Without entering into the foundation for these charges it should be noted that the authors cited above do not mention or admit a single exception. If we accept their statements separation from the Church is necessarily an evil, an injurious and blameworthy act, and abandoning of the true way of salvation, and this independent of all contingent circumstances. Moreover the doctrines of the Fathers exclude a priori any such attempt at justification; to use their words, it is forbidden for individuals or particular or national Churches to constitute themselves judges of the universal Church; the mere fact of having it against one carries its own condemnation.

What many here are saying, sometimes implicitly but many times explicitly, is that no one can question the orthodoxy of any member of the hierarchy…no one can identify them as wolves.

What I will say explicity is that it is very difficult to prove that a pope is a heretic. I have not seen evidence that it has been done with regard to the post-Vatican II popes. You might demonstrate abuses and sins, even by the pope himself, but these don’t give us the right to reject the pope, as the CE quote above explains.

It is a theological opinion in the current crisis. That does not mean that whether Benedict XVI is a true Pope or a false claimant does not matter. It’s not a mere preference…but it is a controverted point at this time. There are many lawful opinions…including the opinion that he is a true pope. If there were no crisis I don’t see why anyone would hold the position. Sedevacantist hold that the Chair is vacant…this is not a denial of the primacy of Peter. There is a distinction between the seat and the seated. Cardinal Franzelin makes this distinction quite forcefully…if you want that document please PM me and I’ll send it to you.

I’m not sure I’ve seen this piece by Cardinal Franzelin. I’ll PM you about it.

I’m sure you can see that if we were permitted to reject a papal claimant during every crisis in the Church, the Church couldn’t stand. At what point do you believe that such authority passes to the people? Perhaps your response below begins to answer this…

cam100;3177731:

Now here’s a crucial question: Is a layperson, on their own, free to reject an individual claimant to the Chair of Peter who has otherwise been accepted as such by the church? If so, under what circumstances?

If a claimant has been peacefully accepted and adhered to…no. That is one sure proof of his valid papacy. I would argue that Pope John XXIII was accepted and adhered to peacefully. Paul VI was not. The answer to your question then is yes. I’ll elaborate on why I give that answer shortly.

Yes, please explain how Paul VI was not accepted to the extent required for acknowledgement as the legitimate pope.

 

[SFD]

There are many varieties of sedevacantists. Yes, some are analogous to the Old Catholics in certain respects. The original Old Catholics believed Pope Pius IX had broken with tradition, thus they broke with him to preserve tradition. The Catholic Encyclopedia refutes the principle behind this logic:

quote=CE Some have claimed the introduction into the Church of abuses, dogmatic and liturgical novelties, superstitions, with which they are permitted, even bound, not to ally themselves. Without entering into the foundation for these charges it should be noted that the authors cited above do not mention or admit a single exception. If we accept their statements separation from the Church is necessarily an evil, an injurious and blameworthy act, and abandoning of the true way of salvation, and this independent of all contingent circumstances. Moreover the doctrines of the Fathers exclude a priori any such attempt at justification; to use their words, it is forbidden for individuals or particular or national Churches to constitute themselves judges of the universal Church; the mere fact of having it against one carries its own condemnation.

What I will say explicity is that it is very difficult to prove that a pope is a heretic. I have not seen evidence that it has been done with regard to the post-Vatican II popes. You might demonstrate abuses and sins, even by the pope himself, but these don’t give us the right to reject the pope, as the CE quote above explains.
[/quote]

Cam,

Except traditional Catholics are not Old Catholics…and I am not making the argument that the problem is abuses, nor sins, nor novelties. I would be the first to correct anyone who would say such a thing.

I’m sure you can see that if we were permitted to reject a papal claimant during every crisis in the Church, the Church couldn’t stand.

And what do you base this on? Are you saying that because we can’t always reject a claimant…that we never can? This flies in the face of Canon 188.4 and the principle behind Cum Ex Apostolatus. It is true that CEA is no longer the law but gives us the principles behind Canon 188.4.

I’ll dig out some principles of intrepretation of Canon law and post them.

At what point do you believe that such authority passes to the people?

Never.

Perhaps your response below begins to answer this…

Yes, please explain how Paul VI was not accepted to the extent required for acknowledgement as the legitimate pope.

There is a question as to this “peaceful acceptance”. Was it peaceful acceptance? A peaceful acceptance and adherence was not there and I think history shows this…the entire traditionalist movement grew out of this non-acceptance. This problem began to be manifest even before the Council closed…the idea that there was no conflict between the modernists and those men of tradition is absurd given the history of Vatican II and the modernists still suspected to be in the Church.

It also seems that those Catholics who might still be actually recognised as Catholics are not few in number and definitely do not peacefully accept what appears to be a new and different religion.

Here’s the quote from Billot:

“God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election… For the universal acceptance of the Church heals in the root any vitiated election." [Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (1927-1929), Vol. I, pp. 612-613].

Peaceful acceptance is one proof of the validity of a pope…if it is there, there is no question that the pope is valid. If it is not there, it does not “prove” he is not the pope.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Peaceful acceptance is one proof of the validity of a pope…if it is there, there is no question that the pope is valid. If it is not there, it does not “prove” he is not the pope.

But the Pope has been recognized by all except the most miniscule segment. Even though there is a someone larger traditionalist movement, even the vast majority of them never doubted the validity of the Pope. Even among those who seperated in schism, most realized that the Holy Father was legitimate, even though they believed they had good reason not to follow him. The existence of people like Pope Michael scarcely annuls the vast acceptance of the true Holy Pontiff.

 

[SFD]

But the Pope has been recognized by all except the most miniscule segment. Even though there is a someone larger traditionalist movement, even the vast majority of them never doubted the validity of the Pope. Even among those who seperated in schism, most realized that the Holy Father was legitimate, even though they believed they had good reason not to follow him. The existence of people like Pope Michael scarcely annuls the vast acceptance of the true Holy Pontiff.

pnewton,

It is a peaceful acceptance and adherence that makes this a proof. If it’s not peaceful, it’s not a proof.

All traditional Catholics have resisted these popes…sedevacantist or not. It was and is anything but a peaceful acceptance.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

pnewton,

It is a peaceful acceptance and adherence that makes this a proof. If it’s not peaceful, it’s not a proof.

It was peaceful. No everybody was thrilled, but the vast majority have received the last Popes peacefully. There was no violence and no questioning the legitimacy of the election. Where did you get the word “peaceful”, by the way? It was not in the quote immediate above the place you used the term. Ecclesia Christi adds no such qualifier.

 

[Four_Marks]

Cam,

And what do you base this on? Are you saying that because we can’t always reject a claimant…that we never can? This flies in the face of Canon 188.4 and the principle behind Cum Ex Apostolatus. It is true that CEA is no longer the law but gives us the principles behind Canon 188.4.

I’ll dig out some principles of intrepretation of Canon law and post them.

SFD

Cum Ex Apostalutus contains an element of Divine Law, i.e., a heretic cannot be the pope.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Cum Ex Apostalutus contains an element of Divine Law, i.e., a heretic cannot be the pope.

Give me your definition of a heretic. It needs to be in your own words.

Also, please explain why you say that, accordig to Divine law, a heretic cannot be the Pope. I need it in your own words. If you can supply quotes that support what you are saying that would be good, but also put it in your own words.

Thanks,

 

[SFD]

Give me your definition of a heretic. It needs to be in your own words.

Also, please explain why you say that, accordig to Divine law, a heretic cannot be the Pope. I need it in your own words. If you can supply quotes that support what you are saying that would be good, but also put it in your own words.

Thanks,

Pax et Caritas,

I believe that it is NOT theologically certain that a pope cannot fall into personal heresy. Some theolgians say he can. One may hold either view.

No theologian teaches that a pope can teach heresy as Pope, or promulgate evil disciplines, etc.

Btw, why would we want to do this?

Give me your definition of a heretic. It needs to be in your own words.

SFD