Sedevacantism and PIUS IX

[Genesis315]

Sedevacantists also claim that if a man was a heretic before he becomes Pope his election is invalid. Of course, Pope Pius II was a staunch concilliarist when he was elected, but reversed course afterwards. John XII also used to call upon pagan gods while he was gambling–yet no one called the chair vacant then either

 

[SFD]

Sedevacantists also claim that if a man was a heretic before he becomes Pope his election is invalid.

Genesis,

Sedevacantists believe this because all the Fathers and Doctors and Theologians teach it. A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and cannot hold office in Her. Bellarmine clearly states this.

"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.

SFD

 

[cam100]

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

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.

I think you misunderstood some of my points because I am not denying anything in your statements above.

But think about your statement above that I bolded. If the pope became a heretic, he would automatically fall from office, and the Church would then consist only of the laity (and priests) led by the episcopate. The Church is NOT the laity acting independently of, and in opposition to, the episcopate. What follows from this is that if the bishops all claim that the pope is NOT guilty of heresy, the laity cannot just declare them ALL to be heretics and set up shop by themselves. Thus my second conclusion as questioned by you below:

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?

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

SFD

First, I wonder how you can speak for all laymen. Many sedevacantists do declare that the post-Vat II popes are heretics and those that follow them are therefore not Catholic either. If it were just an opinion that we are free to hold or not hold, these people couldn’t claim that all who disagree are not Catholic. Second, how can you base your religion on an just an opinion? Wer’re talking about submitting or not submitting to the man claiming to be the Roman Pontiff. Submission to the Roman Pontiff is mandatory. So, this is a serious matter.

 

[pnewton]

Sedevacantists also claim that if a man was a heretic before he becomes Pope his election is invalid. Of course, Pope Pius II was a staunch concilliarist when he was elected, but reversed course afterwards. John XII also used to call upon pagan gods while he was gambling–yet no one called the chair vacant then either

That is because it was pre-Protestantism. Just like Protestants claim everyone it their own Bible authority, sedevacantists expannd that to where everyone becomes their own authority on the Bible, Church traditions, the Fathers and all the councils. Add in there crack historians. I think in this respect that sedevacantism is much closer related in spirit to Protestantism than Catholicism, only they have a much crazier task before them.

It is no wonder they run from Feeney.

 

[SFD]

I think you misunderstood some of my points because I am not denying anything in your statements above.

Good.

But think about your statement above that I bolded. If the pope became a heretic, he would automatically fall from office, and the Church would then consist only of the laity (and priests) led by the episcopate.

Yes, I agree.

The Church is NOT the laity acting independently of, and in opposition to, the episcopate.

Yes, agreed.

What follows from this is that if the bishops all claim that the pope is NOT guilty of heresy, the laity cannot just declare them ALL to be heretics and set up shop by themselves.

The laity cannot declare anything. Agreed. But they must keep the Faith also…that is not optional. They must flee the wolf; it is the humble man who flees danger.

Thus my second conclusion as questioned by you below:

First, I wonder how you can speak for all laymen.

I don’t. I don’t think I said or even implied that I did.

Many sedevacantists do declare that the post-Vat II popes are heretics and those that follow them are therefore not Catholic either.

Please realise that MHFM does not speak for anyone but themselves.

If it were just an opinion that we are free to hold or not hold, these people couldn’t claim that all who disagree are not Catholic.

It is a lawful opinion to hold during this crisis; that does not mean it is a matter of opinion as if it did not matter.

Second, how can you base your religion on an just an opinion?

I don’t…and you should be able to see that from the depth of my posts.

Wer’re talking about submitting or not submitting to the man claiming to be the Roman Pontiff. Submission to the Roman Pontiff is mandatory. So, this is a serious matter.

Yes, it is very serious. If one cannot submit to the man claiming to be Roman Pontiff then there is a problem (SSPX nor sedevacantist submit). The fact of the crisis in the Church and the particular facts of the crisis must be looked at within the parameters of Catholic Teaching and Principles.

You may notice also that I have never considered anyone here less than Catholic. Some have started to call me a “catholic” in “quotes”. They disagree with me…therefore I am not a Catholic. The argument of a man who has no argument.

SFD

 

[Four_Marks]

Sedevacantists believe that they are making a judgement about a man who was never the pope (JPII and BVXI at least) in the first place.

Sedevacantists deny that they are judging a valid pontiff, and base their judgement on the following:

“Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action.”

Pope Pius X

“Men are not bound, or able to read hearts, but when they see someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

St. Robert Bellarmine

Sedevacantists also cite: “All offices shall be vacant ipso facto by tacit resignation in the following cases: If a cleric has publicly lapsed from the Catholic Faith.” Canon 188.4

Sedevacantists, inherently, have identified the heresy and apostasy of certain individuals purporting to be pope and have acted accordingly.

Sedevacantists also cite the papal bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostalatus, — being legislation, that if a heretic was elected pope the election is null and void and cannot be convalidated in any manner.

It is clearly stated in Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae, that only God judges what is left internally, and men judge the externals. It is a matter of judging the externals, which every man has a right to do. Naturally, the above quote from St. Robert Bellarmine complements Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae.

 

[pnewton]

Sedevacantists also cite: “All offices shall be vacant ipso facto by tacit resignation in the following cases: If a cleric has publicly lapsed from the Catholic Faith.” Canon 188.4

Sedevacantists, inherently, have identified the heresy and apostasy of certain individuals purporting to be pope and have acted accordingly.

Sedevacantists also cite the papal bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostalatus, — being legislation, that if a heretic was elected pope the election is null and void and cannot be convalidated in any manner.

So they do with Canon Law what Martin Luther did with the Bible.

 

[Four_Marks]

So they do with Canon Law what Martin Luther did with the Bible.

No. I believe they do with the teachings of Pope St Pius X, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Leo XIII, Canon Law and many others, which is decidely Catholic. What isn’t Catholic, is heresy and apostasy. One can attempt to skew it (i.e., invalid comparisons to Luther etc.), but they run up against the teachings of all the above.

 

[pnewton]

No. I believe they do with the teachings of Pope St Pius X, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Leo XIII, Canon Law and many others, which is decidely Catholic. What isn’t Catholic, is heresy and apostasy. One can attempt to skew it (i.e., invalid comparisons to Luther etc.), but they run up against the teachings of all the above.

Now which one was a sedevacantist? Martin Luther also believed in the Bible, at least the way he interpreted it. The error was his right to interpret for himself superceded any authority. The parallel is that you believe in the teachings of these people, as you see it. Thus, again it is your interpretation of what these people say and how it relates to today’s times.

Do you really think no one in the Catholic Church except a handful of extra knowledgeble sedevacanists know the writings and the quotes above. Heck I have seen them floating around for years. I can imagine how many times the same questions have been answered.

Here is a brief run down. St, Robert Bellarmine, never defined any doctrine authoritatively. He was never a pope and is unable to bind popes. The papal legislation of Pope Leo XIII is no longer authoritative as he is no longer pope. No pope may bind a subsequent pope in a legislative matter.

Canon law clearly says “publicly lapsed”. I believe that both John Paul II and Pope Benedict practice(d) Catholicism. I am no canon lawyer, but I think considering Pope Benedict a lapsed Catholic is as absurd as believing he isn’t the pope.

 

[SFD]

SemperFidelis:

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.

SemperFidelis,

Are you disagreeing with the below quote?

SFD:

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.

from Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church:

Suprema Haec Sacra

A year before the appearance of the Humani generic, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office sent to the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston a letter containing explanations on the subject of the dogma that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church. This highly important document was approved by Pope Pius XII. Despite the fact that it was sent prior to the issuance of the Humani generic, it was not published until two years after the publication of the encyclical. This Holy Office letter is the Suprema, haec sacra, one of the most important doctrinal statements which appeared during the reign of the late and beloved Sovereign Pontiff.15

This document set forth clearly and in detail, and as the authentic teaching of the Holy See, the explanation of the dogma on the necessity of the Catholic Church for the attainment of eternal salvation which had long been presented as common teaching in the theological teaching on the Church itself. The elements of the exposition contained in the Suprema, haec sacra had, of course, long since been presented to the faithful in previous authoritative statements of the Church’s magisterium. The entire doctrine, however, had never before been synthesized and set forth as clearly and in such scientifically complete detail in any previous document.

The Suprema haec sacra insisted again upon the fact that the declaration: “there is no salvation outside the Church” is an infallible statement which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach, and it qualified this statement as a dogma. It explained that the Church understood this dogma to mean that the Church is necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation with both the necessity of precept and the necessity of means. Furthermore, it taught that the Church was a means of salvation to be classified among those quae divina sola institutione, non vero intrinseca necessitate, ad finem ultimum ordinantur, and that thus, under certain circumstances, salvation can be attained when the Church itself is used or entered voto solummodo vel desiderio. Again it brought out the Catholic teaching that, in cases where men are invincibly ignorant of the true Church, "God accepts also an implicit desire (votum), so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."16

The strictly doctrinal portion of the Suprema haec sacra ends with this essential teaching:

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Hebrews, 11:6). The Council of Trent declares [Session VI, chap. 8] “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (Denzinger, n. 801).17"

SFD

 

[Markstorm]

Knowledgeable scholars-

Quick question. If Pope Boniface VIII defined that salvation requires one to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and the Sedavacantists don’t believe that a Roman Pontiff exists, how can anyone be saved?

 

[SFD]

St, Robert Bellarmine, never defined any doctrine authoritatively. He was never a pope and is unable to bind popes. The papal legislation of Pope Leo XIII is no longer authoritative as he is no longer pope. No pope may bind a subsequent pope in a legislative matter.

St. Robert Bellarmine is a theologian of great weight and was declared a Doctor of the Universal Church by Pope Pius XI. He is citing what all theologians and Church Fathers taught.

The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant (Consensus universalis et constans non solurn opinionis sed firmae et ratae sententiae). If all agree that a particular doctrine is a Catholic dogma and that to deny it is heresy, then that doctrine is certainly a dogma. If they agree that a doctrine cannot be denied without injuring Catholic truth, and that such denial is deserving of censure, this again is a sure proof that the doctrine is in some way a Catholic doctrine. If, again, they agree in declaring that a doctrine is sufficiently certain and demonstrated, their consent is not indeed a formal proof of the Catholic character of the doctrine, nevertheless the existence of the consent shows that the doctrine belongs to the mind of the Church (catholicus intellectus), and that consequently its denial would incur the censure of rashness.

These principles on the authority of Theologians were strongly insisted on by Pius IX in the brief, Gravissimas inter (cf. infra, § 29), and they are evident consequences of the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to Theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be led astray. The consent of Theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine’s dictum: “Not to resist an error is to approve of it — not to defend a truth is to reject it.” (“Error cui non resistitur approbatur, et veritas quae non defenditur opprimitur “ (Decr. Grat., dist. 83, c. error). And even natural reason assures us that this consent is a guarantee of truth. “Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertullian). (Supra, p. 68.)

The Church holds the mediaeval Doctors in almost the same esteem as the Fathers. The substance of the teaching of the Schoolmen and their method of treatment have both been strongly approved of by the Church (cf. Syllab., prop xiii., and Leo XIII., encyclical AEterni Patris on the study of St. Thomas).

A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben’s “Dogmatik” Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. With A Preface By Cardinal Manning

 

[Markstorm]

I quote from SFD:

And even natural reason assures us that this consent is a guarantee of truth. “Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertullian). (Supra, p. 68.)

SFD-

Far be it from me to pick an argument with a Church Father, but was the Arian heresy not one and the same among many persons? I’ve heard that at one point the majority of Church members may have fallen victim to it. And yet it is a heresy, not a tradition. It has always been a heresy, even when the Church had not officially condemned it. Therefore it does not seem that such criterion guarantees truth.

Pax.

 

[SFD]

I quote from SFD:
SFD-Far be it from me to pick an argument with a Church Father, but was the Arian heresy not one and the same among many persons? I’ve heard that at one point the majority of Church members may have fallen victim to it. And yet it is a heresy, not a tradition. It has always been a heresy, even when the Church had not officially condemned it. Therefore it does not seem that such criterion guarantees truth.

Pax.

The consent of the episcopate does not include heretics. Heretics are not members of the episcopate. A heretic is outside the Church and as such, he cannot hold office in Her. This is just the nature of heresy…as Bellarmine points out in De Romano Pontifice.
St Robert Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice:

Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: ‘We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right’; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

St. Robert Bellarmine is a theologian of great weight and was declared a Doctor of the Universal Church by Pope Pius XI. He is citing what all theologians and Church Fathers taught.

Was he a sedevacantist? Did he ever promote sedevacantism? Besides, if you are going to talk about great theologians who have been honored by the Church, there is always Joseph Ratzinger. I wonder how Robert Bellarmine feels knowing how he is being used by the enemies of the Catholic Church?

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Genesis,

Sedevacantists believe this because all the Fathers and Doctors and Theologians teach it. A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and cannot hold office in Her. Bellarmine clearly states this.

SFD

Yes,

But as awesome as San Carlo Bellarmino is, his opinions are as a theologian and hold the same weight as any of the theologians that we may disagree with.

These are not infallible statements.

 

[SFD]

Yes,

But as awesome as San Carlo Bellarmino is, his opinions are as a theologian and hold the same weight as any of the theologians that we may disagree with.

These are not infallible statements.

This is false. Catholics are required to accept the common teaching of the theologians and Church Fathers.

Here is the Relatio of Bishop Gasser, who was the Relator of the Faith at Vatican I - this is the official explanation (to the Fathers) of the text they are about to vote upon. In other words, this is what they meant when they defined papal infallibility.
Bp. Gasser:

Therefore, in this entire definition, the following three things are contained:

1. The Roman Pontiff, through the divine assistance promised to him, is infallible, when, by his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine which must be held by the Universal Church, or, as very many theologians say, when he definitively and conclusively proposes his judgment;
2. the object of these infallible definitions is doctrine about faith
   or morals;
3. in respect to the object of infallibility, generically proposed in this way, the infallibility of the Pope is neither more nor less extensive than is the infallibility of the Church in her definitions of doctrine of faith and morals.

Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.

The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant (Consensus universalis et constans non solurn opinionis sed firmae et ratae sententiae). If all agree that a particular doctrine is a Catholic dogma and that to deny it is heresy, then that doctrine is certainly a dogma. If they agree that a doctrine cannot be denied without injuring Catholic truth, and that such denial is deserving of censure, this again is a sure proof that the doctrine is in some way a Catholic doctrine. If, again, they agree in declaring that a doctrine is sufficiently certain and demonstrated, their consent is not indeed a formal proof of the Catholic character of the doctrine, nevertheless the existence of the consent shows that the doctrine belongs to the mind of the Church (catholicus intellectus), and that consequently its denial would incur the censure of rashness.

These principles on the authority of Theologians were strongly insisted on by Pius IX in the brief, Gravissimas inter (cf. infra, § 29), and they are evident consequences of the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to Theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be led astray. The consent of Theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine’s dictum: “Not to resist an error is to approve of it — not to defend a truth is to reject it.” (“Error cui non resistitur approbatur, et veritas quae non defenditur opprimitur “ (Decr. Grat., dist. 83, c. error). And even natural reason assures us that this consent is a guarantee of truth. “Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertullian). (Supra, p. 68.)

(A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben’s “Dogmatik”)

SFD

 

[pnewton]

This is false. Catholics are required to accept the common teaching of the theologians and Church Fathers.

Even contradicing theologians? No wonder sedevancatnists are all over the map. But if we consider the modifier “common”, how many theologians are sedevacantists? All of sedevacantism is builton the one in a million being right and the Holy Spirit guides them, but not the million. Does their word carry more weight than the whole college of cardinals that think sedevacantist are full of what makes the grass grow green and vote for the Pope? Maybe they should read the Church Fathers. Wait, most would put the sedevacanantist to shame on their knowledge of Church Fathers. They just lack the special inside knowledge the Holy Spirit has to this elite and neglected to give to the Catholic Church.

 

[ncjohn]

You may notice also that I have never considered anyone here less than Catholic. Some have started to call me a “catholic” in “quotes”. They disagree with me…therefore I am not a Catholic. The argument of a man who has no argument.

SFD

I’m actually not sure that you haven’t considered many here less than Catholic as the sedevacantist position as I understand it is that anyone who follows those whom we consider to be Popes, but which the sedevacantists consider to not be Popes, are apostates and heretics. By definition that would seem to imply less than Catholic.

Of course “Catholic” is a state by one’s baptism unless renounced, even if one’s state of communion with the Church might be questionable, so perhaps we would both agree that there are “Catholics” across the spectrum.

I do find an interesting dichotomy though. The sedevacantist position, again as I understand it, would question the salvation of those who stand “outside the Church”, albeit the Church as they define it, thus including those who follow the concilar Church and the Popes that follow it. If they are wrong however about who the Church really is, then they have to hope they are also wrong about losing one’s salvation by standing “outside the Church” and are then dependent for their own salvation on essentially being considered “invincibly ignorant” of the “true Church”.

I personally have no problem with any of those who consider themselves Catholic, however much I may disagree with some of their interpretations. The only thing that has ever concerned me is the confusion that is caused when one who is not in communion with the conciliar Church tries to imply that their beliefs are what the Church “really” teaches, or “should” teach. If one is honest about what foundation they are working from so people can make decisions about the weight to give arguments, I feel like fair debate of the issues can take place to the benefit of all.

Peace,

 

[SFD]

Even contradicing theologians? No wonder sedevancatnists are all over the map.

Pnewton,

It called moral unanimity. It’s a very well know concept. It’s found in any Theology Manual…maybe you should read a little more before you speak.

SFD