Sedevacantism and PIUS IX

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Btw, why would we want to do this?

SFD

Because I think there is some confusion in understanding. There is truth to what is said, but I think the understanding is unclear which is resulting in a wrong conclusion. That is why I wanted in it his own words.

I may be mistaken, but I think things are being misunderstood.

 

[SFD]

Because I think there is some confusion in understanding. There is truth to what is said, but I think the understanding is unclear which is resulting in a wrong conclusion. That is why I wanted in it his own words.

I may be mistaken, but I think things are being misunderstood.

Pax,

Yes, you are correct…but as long as we back up what we say with the proper authorities. This is a controverted point, there are more that one lawful positions to hold.

SFD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pax,

Yes, you are correct…but as long as we back up what we say with the proper authorities. This is a controverted point, there are more that one lawful positions to hold.

SFD

Just so you know my opinion on the matter of a heretical Pope: I personally think that a Pope can fall into heresy and lose his office. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion. In a quote you provided, Robert Bellarmine said that this was the opinion of all the Fathers of the Church. If that “unanimous consent of the Fathers” is based on scripture, we are bound to hold to that position, since both Trent and Vatican I said that Catholics are not permitted to depart from the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

St. Alphonsus, among others, certainly believed that a Pope could fall into heresy. He taught that if such happened, the Cardinals would be permitted to depose him.

But that is not why I asked the quesiton I did. It deals more with the precise definition of heretic according to canon law. That is more what I am getting at.

 

[Four_Marks]

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,

Yes, you are mistaken. I’m understanding exactly what you are writing. What SFD is writing is common knowledge among informed sedevacantists. What I wrote about Cum Ex Apostalatus, is also extremely well known.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

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,

Yes, you are mistaken. I’m understanding exactly what you are writing. What SFD is writing is common knowledge among informed sedevacantists. What I wrote about Cum Ex Apostalatus, is also extremely well known.

I’m not sure what you are saying I am mistaken about. I haven’t said anything. I just asked you some questions. What is it that you think I am getting at?

There is a good reason I asked you those questions. Let me gives you an example…

Did you know that a Bishop who knows full well what the Church teaches about the the Divnity of Jesus, yet rejects it and believes firmly that Jesus was only a mere man and that St. Joseph was his biological fathers, does not automatically cease to be a Bishop with jurisdiction?

If that sounds wrong to you, my guess is that there are a few things you don’t know. I don’t mean that as a criticism of you but it is a fact.

So, when we read quotes from Popes saying that a heretic is not a member of the Church (which is true), the statement must be understood properly. That’s why I asked you to answer those questions in your own words. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that you are drawing a false conclusion based on an imprecise understanding of certain things.

We’re all on a “journey”, so to speak. If you or I are mistaken on this or that point, wouldn’t we want to know it? Maybe it is I who am mistaken. If so, I welcome the opportunity to have you correct me. If it is you who are mistaken, wouldn’t you want to know about it?

Now, I just skimmed through this thread and read yous posts, #49 and #50. I am almost certain that you are doing what I suspected. I find it interesting how many SV’s (all of them) fall into this error and thereby draw a false conclusion.

PS: If you respond it might take me a while to get back to you since I am very busy at work.

 

[Four_Marks]

I’m not sure what you are saying I am mistaken about. I haven’t said anything. I just asked you some questions. What is it that you think I am getting at?

There is a good reason I asked you those questions. Let me gives you an example…

Did you know that a Bishop who knows full well what the Church teaches about the the Divnity of Jesus, yet rejects it and believes firmly that Jesus was only a mere man and that St. Joseph was his biological fathers, does not automatically cease to be a Bishop with jurisdiction?

If that sounds wrong to you, my guess is that there are a few things you don’t know. I don’t mean that as a criticism of you but it is a fact.

So, when we read quotes from Popes saying that a heretic is not a member of the Church (which is true), the statement must be understood properly. That’s why I asked you to answer those questions in your own words. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that you are drawing a false conclusion based on an imprecise understanding of certain things.

We’re all on a “journey”, so to speak. If you or I are mistaken on this or that point, wouldn’t we want to know it? Maybe it is I who am mistaken. If so, I welcome the opportunity to have you correct me. If it is you who are mistaken, wouldn’t you want to know about it?

Now, I just skimmed through this thread and read yous posts, #49 and #50. I am almost certain that you are doing what I suspected. I find it interesting how many SV’s (all of them) fall into this error and thereby draw a false conclusion.

PS: If you respond it might take me a while to get back to you since I am very busy at work.

Please take your time in replying.

Yes, I fully understand your "bishop example, and am well aware that a bishop’s jurisdiction would not automatically cease in that scenario. But surely you speak of basic things that all sedevacantists should understand?

Now, do you fully understand the ecumenism and apostasy as per posts # 49 & 50?

Do you understand that there is NO corollary to you bishop example?

 

[cam100]

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.

It seemed you were making the argument that because a crisis exists in the Church that sedevacantism is a legitimate view to hold.

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.

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.

It seems that you state the imortance of acceptance with regard to a papal election, but then try to slip in *“adherence”. *I don’t see evidence of a lack of acceptance of Pope Paul VI by the universal church. There was a problem with adherence to his teachings and instructions, perhaps. But I’ve never seen any Church teaching that lack of adherence to a pope’s teachings or instructions is a legitimate reason to doubt his validity.

 

[Arnobius]

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.

Just a note… are you sure you mean 188.4? (Does not exist)
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_PM.HTM
ARTICLE 1: RESIGNATION

Can. 187 Anyone who is capable of personal responsibility can resign from an ecclesiastical office for a just reason.

Can. 188 A resignation which is made as a result of grave fear unjustly inflicted, or of deceit, or of substantial error, or of simony, is invalid by virtue of the law itself.

Can. 189 §1 For a resignation to be valid, whether it requires acceptance or not, it must be made to the authority which is competent to provide for the office in question, and it must be made either in writing, or orally before two witnesses.

§2 The authority is not to accept a resignation which is not based on a just and proportionate reason.

§3 A resignation which requires acceptance has no force unless it is accepted within three months. One which does not require acceptance takes effect when the person resigning communicates it in accordance with the law.

§4 Until a resignation takes effect, it can be revoked by the person resigning. Once it has taken effect, it cannot be revoked, but the person who resigned can obtain the office on the basis of another title.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Please take your time in replying.

Yes, I fully understand your "bishop example, and am well aware that a bishop’s jurisdiction would not automatically cease in that scenario.

Why not? I thought a heretic was not part of the Church. If a heretic is not part of the Church, how can he maintain his jurisdiction?

Now, do you fully understand the ecumenism and apostasy as per posts # 49 & 50?

I’m not defending John Paul II’s version of ecumenism.

Do you understand that there is NO corollary to you bishop example?

In respect to the heretical state of the soul and possible loss of office, how is what your described in post 48 and 49 (I incorrectly said 49 and 50 in my early post) worse than the situation of a Bishop who willingly rejects a clearly defined dogma that he knows the Church teaches… and which is worse?

 

[cam100]

Just a note… are you sure you mean 188.4? (Does not exist)
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_PM.HTM

SFD is quoting from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not the current Code. Since he is arguing from a sedevacantist perspective, the current (1983) Code wouldn’t be valid, because it was promulgated by a non-pope (according to a sedevacantist viewpoint). Also, if he is arguing about a case before 1983, the 1917 Code would still have been in effect.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

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. .

That is one reason why I left the traditional movement. I was taught the Catholic Faith and baptized by a Sedevacantist Priest.

 

[Arnobius]

SFD is quoting from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not the current Code. Since he is arguing from a sedevacantist perspective, the current (1983) Code wouldn’t be valid, because it was promulgated by a non-pope (according to a sedevacantist viewpoint). Also, if he is arguing about a case before 1983, the 1917 Code would still have been in effect.

Ah I see. I couldn’t find the reference. Thank you for the information

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"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.

That is one reason why I left the traditional movement. I was taught the Catholic Faith and baptized by a Sedevacantist Priest.

In addition to thinking that the Sedavacantists are drawing an incorrect conclusion, this is also one of my arguments against their position. Laity are under absolutely no obligation to judge whether or not one who has been elected by the college of Cardinals has lost his office through heresy (or never validly received it due to being a heretic before being elected). If anyone has an obligation to judge such a thing it is the Cardinals, not the laity.

If the Sedevacantists are incorrect in their judgment, that one incorrect judgment in and of itself might be enough to send them to hell for all eternity. Regardless of how good a life they live, this one error might be enough to damn them.

Moral theology teaches that we required to take the safest course. Since a false opinion in this matter could very well damn a person; and since we have no obligation to form such an opinion about the Pope, doing so is not the safest course. It is a completely unecessary risk.

In my opinion, the safest course it to simply suspend judgment on this point, as God will not fault us for suspending judgment on a point that we have no obligation to judge.

 

[SFD]

In addition to thinking that the Sedavacantists are drawing an incorrect conclusion, this is also one of my arguments against their position. Laity are under absolutely no obligation to judge whether or not one who has been elected by the college of Cardinals has lost his office through heresy (or never validly received it due to being a heretic before being elected).[/qoute]
Do the laity have a right?

If anyone has an obligation to judge such a thing it is the Cardinals, not the laity.

 

[SFD]

GandalfTheWhite:

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

I was taught the Catholic Faith and baptized by a Sedevacantist Priest.

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.

This doesn’t even make sense. No one has ever claimed that the laity has any authority. He may however, notice it and reject the Heretic. That is his right.

You say it is an opinion, and rightly so. He need not wait for the Church’s decision to withdraw from a Heretic. When the Church decides…then he submits to that decision. Now, please don’t take this out of the context of a period of crisis…this type of contraverted period is covered by the theologians.

SFD

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

This doesn’t even make sense. No one has ever claimed that the laity has any authority. He may however, notice it and reject the Heretic. That is his right.

You might have an opinion, but such thing can be decided only by the Church after she holding a trial. If you are willing to risk your whole soul based on one personal opinion, we can’t hold you with force.

Schismatics just appear in every age. I’m sure there were few during the reign of every Pope. May God have mercy on their souls.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

That is your opinion. And why do you think that God will fault those who have a different opinion?

I’m sure Marin Luther asked this question as well. Even those who left Jesus when he told them about the Eucharist had *just *a different opinion.

We all have opinions…

 

[Four_Marks]

Why not? I thought a heretic was not part of the Church. If a heretic is not part of the Church, how can he maintain his jurisdiction?

I’m not defending John Paul II’s version of ecumenism.

In respect to the heretical state of the soul and possible loss of office, how is what your described in post 48 and 49 (I incorrectly said 49 and 50 in my early post) worse than the situation of a Bishop who willingly rejects a clearly defined dogma that he knows the Church teaches… and which is worse?

Dearest Pax,

I’ve had the benefit of reading some of your previous posts.

Please stop presuming that I don’t have an understanding of heresy, apostasy and loss of offices. Tell me, just how many “errant” sedes have you brilliantly instructed in these matters? Save it for others.

Come straight out and tell me what “conclusion” do you think I’ve arrived at incorrectly, and why?

 

[Four_Marks]

In addition to thinking that the Sedavacantists are drawing an incorrect conclusion, this is also one of my arguments against their position. Laity are under absolutely no obligation to judge whether or not one who has been elected by the college of Cardinals has lost his office through heresy (or never validly received it due to being a heretic before being elected). If anyone has an obligation to judge such a thing it is the Cardinals, not the laity.

If the Sedevacantists are incorrect in their judgment, that one incorrect judgment in and of itself might be enough to send them to hell for all eternity. Regardless of how good a life they live, this one error might be enough to damn them.

Moral theology teaches that we required to take the safest course. Since a false opinion in this matter could very well damn a person; and since we have no obligation to form such an opinion about the Pope, doing so is not the safest course. It is a completely unecessary risk.

In my opinion, the safest course it to simply suspend judgment on this point, as God will not fault us for suspending judgment on a point that we have no obligation to judge.

Wrong! The safest course is to adhere to the Catholic
Faith. You appear to have little understanding of the obligation of the Catholic laity to remain Catholic. In your simplistic world is it all a matter of the identity of the pope? It is far more far reaching than that.

Please don’t carry on about “that one incorrect judgment in and of itself might be enough to send them to hell for all eternity. Regardless of how good a life they live, this one error might be enough to damn them.”.

They are the speculative words of an amateur would be “theologian”.

Yes Pax, a lot of things “might” send a lot of people to hell. I could be extremely imprudent and begin to raise things that “might” send one to hell for holding your position — but I wont.

Listen, I don’t have time to refute point-by-point your anti-sedevacantism. But if it begins to appear that you have not previously (but I suspect you have been, and therefore it would be a waste of time to have it at you a second, third or … time?) been dismantled piece-by-piece, I just might.

 

[VARC]

I have an honest question for “sedevacantists”. Instead of protecting the belief that the pope is infallible by declaring the post conciliar popes as antipopes, did you ever reconsider the truth of the doctrine itself? That maybe the Orthodox were right after all? I feel for you guys. I can obviously see that Vatican 2 switched gears but sedevacantism seems so far from the Faith of the Early Fathers. Instead of moving foward towards sedevacantism, I’m inclined to move backwards to Orthodoxy.

Please remember that I’m not trying to insult anybody or anything. I am genuinely curious as to whether you have considered this.