Sedevacantism and PIUS IX

[Volodymyr_988]

Pnewton,

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

SFD

Show me the unanimity of the ECFs that support your views.

Who holds this? St. Ignatius of Antioch? Polycarp of Smyrna? Justin Martyr? Augustine of Hippo? Melito of Sardis? Cyril of Alexandria? John Chrysostom? Basil the Great? Benedict? John of Damascus? Gregory the Great? Bernard of Clairveaux? Leo the Great?

 

[SFD]

Show me the unanimity of the ECFs that support your views.

Who holds this? St. Ignatius of Antioch? Polycarp of Smyrna? Justin Martyr? Augustine of Hippo? Melito of Sardis? Cyril of Alexandria? John Chrysostom? Basil the Great? Benedict? John of Damascus? Gregory the Great? Bernard of Clairveaux? Leo the Great?

Volodymyr,

What views specifically?

SFD

 

[SFD]

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?

Markstorm,

There are times when there is no Roman Pontiff…between reigns. Some who dies during an interregnum is not subject to the Roman Pontiff because there is none. Can he still be saved?

Of course.

During the Western schism, which lasted for 42 years, there were countless souls who were mistakenly subject to an anti-pope. Were they all lost? Can one be lost because of a mistake?

The answers to these questions should be obvious.

SFD

 

[cam100]

cam100;3174334:

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.

Flee the wolf, yes, but you need to correctly identify the wolf. That’s the key. The Old Catholics incorrectly identified the wolf as Pope Pius IX when they accused him of “innovations” and denied the legitimacy of Vatican I as a result. Yet, they had some rather legitimate-sounding arguments.

cam100;3174334:

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.

The’re not the only sedevacantists who view non-sedes as non-Catholics. But since you don’t do this, we can drop this point.

cam100;3174334:

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.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your use of the word "opinion. How can sedevacantism be an “opinion”, yet be such a crucial aspect of one’s faith? I would want to have more than opinion about something like this. Can you explain more about how this is an “opinion” so I can understand how you’re using the term?

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.

I certainly agree.

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 agree than name-calling is uncharitable. I try to attack the argument, not the person.

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?

 

[Markstorm]

Markstorm,

There are times when there is no Roman Pontiff…between reigns. Some who dies during an interregnum is not subject to the Roman Pontiff because there is none. Can he still be saved?

Of course.

During the Western schism, which lasted for 42 years, there were countless souls who were mistakenly subject to an anti-pope. Were they all lost? Can one be lost because of a mistake?

The answers to these questions should be obvious.

SFD

SFD-

You are correct, Unam Sanctam clearly must mean that persons must be subject to the papal office. I had this answered via PM earlier, and I confess insufficient knowledge about Church history.

Pax.

 

[pnewton]

Pnewton,

…maybe you should read a little more before you speak.

SFD

Reminds me of something else I read in another post?

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.

I still question the absurdity of the merest fleck of a minority offshoot of Catholicism, in which there is still such an diversity or views, appealings to moral unanimity. Byt the way, while we are on the subject of hypocracy, how is it different questioning that one is a Catholic when that one rejects the one we all to be the Catholic Pope, and considering the pope to be a heretic and thereby not the Pope?

 

[SFD]

Reminds me of something else I read in another post?

?

I still question the absurdity of the merest fleck of a minority offshoot of Catholicism, in which there is still such an diversity or views, appealings to moral unanimity.

That’s because you can’t even follow the arguments here. I am speaking of the moral unanimity of the theologians giving theological notes to certain doctrines. We Catholics use those certain doctrines in our analysis of the current crisis. I honestly have no idea what your point might be here.

Byt the way, while we are on the subject of hypocracy, how is it different questioning that one is a Catholic when that one rejects the one we all to be the Catholic Pope, and considering the pope to be a heretic and thereby not the Pope?

I don’t question whether or not you are a Catholic based on your allegiance to Benedict XVI. Where did you get that idea? Not from me. In the past, Saints have followed antipopes.

I will say that in these types of discussions, there are the inevitable claims of “you’re not a Catholic”…this is the hiding place for those who have no arguments.

SFD

 

[Four_Marks]

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

PART 1.

1. Anyone which at any time in their lives believed that the Holy See was vacant for any amount of time.
2. I’m not going to re-post all those teachings in full - heck, you’ve seen them floating around for years, and therefore you should be super-familiar with them. Ergo, you should be able to use reason enlightened by Faith (like those who believe we are in a state of sede vacante) to interpret them. If you can’t, there’s a problem with your non-intrepretation of the mind of the Church.
3. One man’s idea of an “answer”, it seems, is not another man’s idea at all.

SFD has adequately refuted your above regarding St. Robert Bellarmine. Please read his posts seen above.

In what way do you see the principle laid down by Pope Leo XIII — “It is clearly stated in Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae, that only God judges what is left internally, and men judge the externals.”; and the principle taught by St. Robert Bellarmine:" “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.”, as “defining doctrine authoritatively” or “papal legislation”? (rhetorical question).

1. Well, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the canonical meanings of heresy, and, in particular, apostasy.

The following is from the paper “The Apostasy of John Paul II: A Catholic Response” by The Most Reverend Daniel L. Dolan.

"For anyone who truly has the Catholic Faith could not:

a) kiss the Koran, the Mohammedan “Bible.”

b) say that all men are united to Christ solely by virtue of the Incarnation. 1 Redemptor Hominis, 13.3

c) say that all men are saved. 2 Homily in Santa Maria in Trastevere, April 27, 1980

d) say that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the Creed is present, in all its essential elements, in non-Catholic sects. 3 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion., (1992)

END OF PART 1.

 

[Four_Marks]

Now which one was a sedevacantist? Martin Luther also believed in the Bible, at least the way he interpreted it . . . "

PART 2.
f) say that the Catholic Church is incapable of giving credibility to the Gospel, unless there is a “reunion of Christians.” 5 Osservatore Romano, May 20, 1980

g) say that the Catholic Church shares a common apostolic faith with the non-Catholic sects. 6 ibid.

h) say that non-Catholic sects have an apostolic mission. 7 Osservatore Romano, June 10, 1980

i) say that the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic sects as a means of salvation. 8 *Catechesi Tradenda, *October 16, 1979
**

j) say that it is divinely revealed that men have a right to religious freedom and freedom of conscience. 9 *Redemptor Hominis, *12.2 and *Dives in Misericordia, *and his speech to the United Nations on October 2, 1979 and in many other places.

---

k) say that a properly ordered society is one in which all religions are given free rein to practice, proselytize and propagate. 10 Vatican II, Dignitatis Humana, a document which John Paul says has a particular binding force.

l) say that Our Lord’s descent in to hell simply means that He was buried. 11 General Audience, January 11, 1989

m) participate in all forms of non-Catholic worship, including that of the Lutherans (ironic considering your earlier “Luther” remark), the Jews, the Hindus, the American Indians, the Polynesians, to mention only some; (comment in parentheses is mine)

praise the voodoo religion; permit the abomination of Assisi, in which a golden statue of Buddha was placed upon an altar and incensed by a Buddhist priest; permit the ecumenical abominations contained in the Ecumenical Directory.

n) approve of sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament by permitting non-Catholics to receive it.

o) hold and teach the blasphemous and heretical notion of the Church, that the Church of Christ is not exactly the same thing as the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine was taught by Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning has been upheld by John Paul many times, particularly in the Ecumenical Directory.**

p) say that Moslems and Catholics worship the same God. 12 May 31, 1980 in a speech to the Moslems in Paris.

q) Give public approval to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which contains many explicit heresies, and utterly contradicts the solemn teaching of the Council of Trent concerning justification.

These are merely some of the heresies of John Paul II. We must never forget that someone can manifest an adherence to heresy not only by word, but also by deed. Thus his many ecumenical acts which are an affront to the one, true God are manifestations of an interior adherence to heresy.

All of these errors and heresies are held and taught by John Paul II in the name of ecumenism.It is this ecumenism which is John Paul II’s apostasy. Ecumenism is apostasy, because it reduces all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith to relativity. In the ecumenical system, all religions are seen to have a certain part of truth, and all religions are seen to therefore have a certain value. For this reason, John Paul II has frequently repeated the heresy of Vatican II: that the Holy Ghost has not hesitated to use non-Catholic religions as means of salvation. "

According to the correct interpretation of Catholic doctrine, Canon Law etc., both JPII and BXVI have undoubtedly “publicly lapsed”. The truth of the matter is, if you will, staring one in the face. It doesn’t require “extra knowledgeable” Catholics to perceive this, just those who truly know and adhere to their Catholic Faith.

 

[pnewton]

That’s because you can’t even follow the arguments here. I am speaking of the moral unanimity of the theologians giving theological notes to certain doctrines. We Catholics use those certain doctrines in our analysis of the current crisis. I honestly have no idea what your point might be here.

If by not follow, you mean convert, good luck with that. When people come here trying to pull people away from the Catholic Church, they are not usually successful. I do understand what you are saying. I am merely amazed by the contadiction I see. If by Catholics who analyze this supposed crisis, should we not include all the best trained Catholics, to wit, the Cardinals who convene to elect the Pope and the Bishops who know the validity of the Pope. In addition, we have a billion faithful, including millions who have looked into the claims of sedevacantists and found them laughable, were it not for the souls they put in danger by snatching a handful away from Holy Mother Church.

 

[Markstorm]

Likewise, pnewton, I have understood the sedavacantist arguments and found them completely unpersuasive. It is the mark of immaturity to accuse others of “not understanding” when they disagree.

 

[SFD]

Likewise, pnewton, I have understood the sedavacantist arguments and found them completely unpersuasive. It is the mark of immaturity to accuse others of “not understanding” when they disagree.

Markstorm,

Actually, I said that pnewton was not following the argument…not complaining that he didn’t come to the same conclusion that I do.

I’ve been immature plenty of times…but not here.

SFD

 

[Arnobius]

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

Sounds remarkably similar to the argument used by the Sedevacantists actually with regards to the Popes they don’t like

 

[SFD]

Sounds remarkably similar to the argument used by the Sedevacantists actually with regards to the Popes they don’t like

Arnobius,

It’s wasn’t an argument…it was an observation.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Arnobius,

It’s wasn’t an argument…it was an observation.

SFD

Then understand that when people come along and reject the Pope and call him a heretic and apostate, then I have no problem saying they are no longer Catholic for rejecting the Pope, as per other Protestants. Not an arguement, just an observation.

 

[Arnobius]

Arnobius,

It’s wasn’t an argument…it was an observation.

SFD

Indeed, and mine was an observation as well

 

[SFD]

cam100:

Flee the wolf, yes, but you need to correctly identify the wolf. That’s the key. The Old Catholics incorrectly identified the wolf as Pope Pius IX when they accused him of “innovations” and denied the legitimacy of Vatican I as a result. Yet, they had some rather legitimate-sounding arguments.

Cam,

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?

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.

The’re not the only sedevacantists who view non-sedes as non-Catholics. But since you don’t do this, we can drop this point.

Thank you. You know the old saying, “I’ve never had to defend something I didn’t say”? Well, for me usually, it just isn’t true.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your use of the word "opinion. How can sedevacantism be an “opinion”, yet be such a crucial aspect of one’s faith? I would want to have more than opinion about something like this. Can you explain more about how this is an “opinion” so I can understand how you’re using the term?

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 certainly agree.

I agree than name-calling is uncharitable. I try to attack the argument, not the person.

Isn’t it nice to agree at least once in a while. However, it is appropriate to use charitable ad hominum attacks in some circumstances.

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.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

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

As a stickler for terms, surely you can appreciate the difference between questioning a member of the hierachy by anyone and the removal from office by any and everyone. No one has ever made that claim. While you try to issue assignments to others, let me suggest you look up the term straw man.

 

[SFD]

As a stickler for terms, surely you can appreciate the difference between questioning a member of the hierachy by anyone and the removal from office by any and everyone. No one has ever made that claim. While you try to issue assignments to others, let me suggest you look up the term straw man.

pnewton,

Oh, it’s nitpick time now. Here, I clarified it for you:

“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.”

I thought the original statement, “no one can identify them as wolves” was sufficient. Wolves being heretics.

Btw, “removal” from office is not the same as a heretic “losing” office ipso facto due to public manifest heresy.

SFD

 

[Markstorm]

“a heretical Pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. The reason is that whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx or interior faith or charity.”

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, De Verbo Incarnato (p.232)

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

My guess is that he for some reason does not count. I look forward to our sedavacantist friends’ illuminating rebuttal.

Edit:

Here’s another one, this time from Billuart.

Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.

Q: How does a mere catechumen possess such quotations?
A: He doesn’t. Gotta love research.

intheruinsofrome.googlepages.com/sedevacantism

Nice info on this site.