Sedevacantism and PIUS IX

[VARC]

I am told by sedevacantists that if a pope becomes a public heretic then he loses the papal office. My question is why don’t sedevacantists throw Pius IX and his successors off the throne of Peter. Pius IX publically proclaimed heresy in 1854 when he speculated that invincibly ignorant could be saved. So why do sedevacantists profess that Pius IX and his successors are true popes when they are heretics for contradicting Pope Eugene IV?

 

[Arnobius]

Technically we can go back to Victor I and his decision to have Mass said in the vernacular instead of the liturgical language… the vernacular being Latin and the liturgical language being Greek.

It’s why I find the Sedevacantist position the doctrinal equivalent of “We had to destroy the village to save it from communism”

 

[pnewton]

I am told by sedevacantists that if a pope becomes a public heretic then he loses the papal office. My question is why don’t sedevacantists throw Pius IX and his successors off the throne of Peter. Pius IX publically proclaimed heresy in 1854 when he speculated that invincibly ignorant could be saved. So why do sedevacantists profess that Pius IX and his successors are true popes when they are heretics for contradicting Pope Eugene IV?

Are you claiming that Pope Pius IX was a heretic? Was that ever proclaimed by the Church?

 

[VARC]

Are you claiming that Pope Pius IX was a heretic? Was that ever proclaimed by the Church?

I’m claiming that according to the standard of sedevacantism, he most certainly was a heretic. And why would it matter whether the church proclaimed him to be so. I don’t think the church ever pronounced John XXIII a heretic either but that does’t stop sedevacantists from declaring him one.

 

[pnewton]

I’m claiming that according to the standard of sedevacantism, he most certainly was a heretic. And why would it matter whether the church proclaimed him to be so.

Because it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. No one but a Catholic would care, for sure. But otherwise a charge of heresy is an opinion, which like many other things, everyone has one. I was just curious if this was just another opinion. On the other hand, consistency was never a trademark of any group that breaks off of the Church.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I am told by sedevacantists that if a pope becomes a public heretic then he loses the papal office. My question is why don’t sedevacantists throw Pius IX and his successors off the throne of Peter. Pius IX publically proclaimed heresy in 1854 when he speculated that invincibly ignorant could be saved. So why do sedevacantists profess that Pius IX and his successors are true popes when they are heretics for contradicting Pope Eugene IV?

Probably because most sedevacantists are not Feeneyites. The SSPV and CMRI are the two largest sedevacantist sects and both of them have “fiery” articles on their websites that are aimed at refuting Feeneyite claims. The only sedevacantists that I have ever heard of that also happen to be Feeneyites are the Most Holy Family Monastery run by the Dimond Brothers, and they’re pretty small.

 

[SFD]

I am told by sedevacantists that if a pope becomes a public heretic then he loses the papal office. My question is why don’t sedevacantists throw Pius IX and his successors off the throne of Peter. Pius IX publically proclaimed heresy in 1854 when he speculated that invincibly ignorant could be saved. So why do sedevacantists profess that Pius IX and his successors are true popes when they are heretics for contradicting Pope Eugene IV?

VARC,

Yes, if a pope became a public heretic he would lose his office.

You are making a erroneous statement when you speak of Pope Pius IX. He never speculated that the invincibily ignorant could be saved…that is, those who die invincibly ignorant.

The point is that without supernatural Faith one cannot be saved, not that ignorance of any sort can or can’t save, which is a nonsense. If we follow St. Thomas, what we are saying is that a man who hasn’t the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide. If he is innocent, God will send him further graces so that he may be enlightened and brought to salvation. Which is all that Ven. Pius IX is saying in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. In that place he is merely cutting off accusations of injustice or “unfairness” against God, having just laid down that there isn’t any salvation outside the Church.

In other words, “Don’t worry about the invincibly ignorant - they won’t be left to die in that state. If they are truly innocent they will be brought to salvation by God’s light and grace.” That is, by His LIGHT - which means, by being granted the light of true Faith. None of this was controversial when everybody followed St. Thomas, but between the liberals and the Feeneyites, it has all gotten confused.

As for whether we know about individual cases or not, that is not really relevant, although the Feeneyites try to make it so. The point is to establish which PRINCIPLES govern the question of salvation. Cases will then fall within or without those parameters.

SFD

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

An individual Catholic is under no authority to decide which Pope is a heretic and excommunicated and which one is not. All this is is an individual opinion and one needs to wait for the Church to make the decision. Only she can declare a Pope an anti-Pope and declare him excommunicated after a proper trial. I might think that Pius X was a heretic, but Bob might disagree and say that he was not, that in fact it was Leo XII. In the end if people start making these decissions on their own and act accordingly by making “our own schisms” they can just go and join their “protestant friends”.

 

[cam100]

An individual Catholic is under no authority to decide which Pope is a heretic and excommunicated and which one is not. All this is is an individual opinion and one needs to wait for the Church to make the decision. Only she can declare a Pope an anti-Pope and declare him excommunicated after a proper trial. I might think that Pius X was a heretic, but Bob might disagree and say that he was not, that in fact it was Leo XII. In the end if people start making these decissions on their own and act accordingly by making “our own schisms” they can just go and join their “protestant friends”.

Good point. Even those theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine, who supported the idea that a pope who became a heretic falls from office, never supported the idea that the laity were to make this determination and take action on their own. Rather, implicit in those theologians’ teaching is the idea that if a pope should become a manifest heretic, it would fall to the bishops to decide upon and take corrective action.

In addition, a more subtle implication of these theologians’ ideas is that in a situation where the members of the magisterium see no heresy in a pope, the condition of manifest heresy does not exist. Thus, a small band of laity can’t make these declarations themselves. (I am including priests in this group because they aren’t technically part of the magisterium)

 

[SFD]

An individual Catholic is under no authority to decide which Pope is a heretic and excommunicated and which one is not. All this is is an individual opinion and one needs to wait for the Church to make the decision. Only she can declare a Pope an anti-Pope and declare him excommunicated after a proper trial. I might think that Pius X was a heretic, but Bob might disagree and say that he was not, that in fact it was Leo XII. In the end if people start making these decissions on their own and act accordingly by making “our own schisms” they can just go and join their “protestant friends”.

This is full of errors. St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church explains the Pope Heretic Thesis.

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.’

“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.”**

Btw, Gandalf, does a Catholic have the right to recognise a heretic when he encounters one? Or does Canon Law require him to keep his eyes closed?

SDF

 

[Arnobius]

SFD, are you advocating Conciliarism (condemned at Lateran V)? Or perhaps recognizing the schismatics who declared the Pope excommunicated as having a right to do so?

One is declared a heretic by the Church and not by an individual of the Church.

The Bellarmine document in context:
fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

This is full of errors. St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church explains the Pope Heretic Thesis.

Sorry, but I don’t see anything that contradicts my previous statements.

Btw, Gandalf, does a Catholic have the right to recognise a heretic when he encounters one? Or does Canon Law require him to keep his eyes closed?

He has right to have his private opinions, which will however remain simply his opinions until Church rules on whether he is a heretic or not. No individual has the right to solemnly declare a Pope or any idividual a heretic and form a schism.

 

[SemperFidelis]

SFD, are you advocating Conciliarism (condemned at Lateran V)? Or perhaps recognizing the schismatics who declared the Pope excommunicated as having a right to do so?

One is declared a heretic by the Church and not by an individual of the Church.

The Bellarmine document in context:
fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html

I do believe he is a sedevacantist. For some reason, there has been an influx of them on this board recently.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I do believe he is a sedevacantist. For some reason, there has been an influx of them on this board recently.

Yes, I think so too.

 

[SemperFidelis]

VARC,

Yes, if a pope became a public heretic he would lose his office.

You are making a erroneous statement when you speak of Pope Pius IX. He never speculated that the invincibily ignorant could be saved…that is, those who die invincibly ignorant.

The point is that without supernatural Faith one cannot be saved, not that ignorance of any sort can or can’t save, which is a nonsense. If we follow St. Thomas, what we are saying is that a man who hasn’t the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide. If he is innocent, God will send him further graces so that he may be enlightened and brought to salvation. Which is all that Ven. Pius IX is saying in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. In that place he is merely cutting off accusations of injustice or “unfairness” against God, having just laid down that there isn’t any salvation outside the Church.

In other words, “Don’t worry about the invincibly ignorant - they won’t be left to die in that state. If they are truly innocent they will be brought to salvation by God’s light and grace.” That is, by His LIGHT - which means, by being granted the light of true Faith. None of this was controversial when everybody followed St. Thomas, but between the liberals and the Feeneyites, it has all gotten confused.

As for whether we know about individual cases or not, that is not really relevant, although the Feeneyites try to make it so. The point is to establish which PRINCIPLES govern the question of salvation. Cases will then fall within or without those parameters.

SFD

I didn’t know one could have the individual authority to interpret what a Pope is saying in an Encyclical. I think what Bl. Pius IX is saying in this encyclical as well as in Singulari Quidem is pretty clear when referring to the invincibly ignorant. Several Popes after Bl. Pius IX, and before the “Chair became vacant in 1958,” would disagree with YOUR interpretation, including Pope Saint Pius X and Ven. Pius XII.

 

[somepurpose]

Sorry, but I don’t see anything that contradicts my previous statements.

He has right to have his private opinions, which will however remain simply his opinions until Church rules on whether he is a heretic or not. No individual has the right to solemnly declare a Pope or any idividual a heretic and form a schism.

Bizarre. Let’s, for the sake of vocabulary, call someone who has been declared by the Church to be a heretic a “procedural heretic”. I would think there really are 4 groups:

Heretic but not procedural heretic.
Heretic and procedural heretic.
Not heretic but procedural heretic
Neither heretic nor procedural heretic.

I gather you believe there are only two groups, i.e. one is a heretic if and only if he’s a procedural heretic. Is that so? It doesn’t seem to agree with any account of heresy I’ve seen. Do you also think it follows from the fact that OJ was found not guilty that he didn’t kill anybody?

 

[Arnobius]

I do believe he is a sedevacantist. For some reason, there has been an influx of them on this board recently.

Ah, so when the profile says Catholic, I should recognize that in some cases it should be in quotations?

Thanks for the heads up on that.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Ah, so when the profile says Catholic, I should recognize that in some cases it should be in quotations?

Thanks for the heads up on that.

No problem. It is an unfortunate and sad reality.

 

[ncjohn]

Ah, so when the profile says Catholic, I should recognize that in some cases it should be in quotations?

Thanks for the heads up on that.

I fear for many of them it’s us that should have the Catholic in quotation marks. “Catholic” is defined in many different ways here and does not indicate communion with the Church in all cases for sure.

There’s something about SFD’s writing style that is vaguely familiar and makes me wonder if this isn’t a recycled former poster, though I haven’t put my finger on exactly who it reminds me of yet.

 

[SFD]

cam100:

Good point. Even those theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine, who supported the idea that a pope who became a heretic falls from office, never supported the idea that the laity were to make this determination and take action on their own.

Cam,

No, Bellarmine says that a pope who becomes a heretic loses his office.

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

Rather, implicit in those theologians’ teaching is the idea that if a pope should become a manifest heretic, it would fall to the bishops to decide upon and take corrective action.

No, Bellarmine says that a pope heretic is has already lost his office by the fact that he is a manifest heretic. He may be deposed only by the episcopate. The pope is judged by no one. A manifest heretic loses the papacy and may then be judged by the Church.

"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.

In addition, a more subtle implication of these theologians’ ideas is that in a situation where the members of the magisterium see no heresy in a pope, the condition of manifest heresy does not exist.

So subtle an implication that it does not exist maybe? Did you make this up on your own or do you have a source for it?

Thus, a small band of laity can’t make these declarations themselves. (I am including priests in this group because they aren’t technically part of the magisterium)

No layman is declaring anything and I don’t see why you keep repeating this. It is an opinion, not a declaration.

SFD