Sedevacantism, what do you think of it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They’re rebelling against the legitimate authority of the church.
 
I think that the whole Sedevacantist movement is one giant oxymoron.
 
In general, I think it is possible for the Pope to defect from the faith through heresy or apostasy, and therefore from the Church, as it is possible for any of us to. I don’t believe it has happened.

Without even going into the merits of whether certain things are heresy or whether any particular Pope is guilty of it, the alternative offered by modern sedevacantists is itself contrary to the faith.

The First Vatican Council defined that the power of the primacy “must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church” and that the there will be “perpetual successors” in the primacy. Since the Roman primacy is a constituent element of the Church and there is to be a perpetual succession of bishops in the Roman primacy, the Church must retain the primacy either in act (with a living Pope) or in potency (if there is no Pope, the Church retains the power to recognize there is no Pope and to appoint a new one). The Church cannot choose to go without a Pope (this was an error of Hus condemned at the Council of Constance). All historical sedevacantists (ie those that thought the Pope fell out of the Church due to heresy, but still maintained the primacy, from Hippolytus’ to Okham’s group, etc.) even though they were all wrong, all at least sought to restore the primacy to act. Modern sedevacantists, on the other hand, either claim that the Church has lost that power and it can’t be done, or they simply choose not to elect a new one.

Sedevacantism in all its modern forms is clearly lacking in any hierarchical communion, any teaching authority, the primacy in act or potency, and various other constituent elements of the Church that she can never lose–they freely admit that lack these things. The Catholic Church–that society currently governed by Pope Francis–clearly has all these things.

If the Pope were to defect, it would be recognized by the Church, just like in other cases where she recognizes she needs to replace her head (death or resignation). The whole Church would not be deceived in this matter. See my next post for the principles in this regard.

continued…
 
Last edited:
continued from above…

From Hunter’s Outlines of Dogmatic Theology Vol 1:
First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.
Click to expand...
 
Pathway2 said:
How come? what makes them similar?
Click to expand...
Full rejection of the authority of the Pope and the teaching authority of the Pope.

BTW - I want to make one thing clear, because often people mix this up. SSPX priests are NOT sedevacanists. But other groups like SSPV are.
 
I don’t know any sedevacantists in real life. if not for the marvel of the internet, I wouldn’t really be aware of them at all. To me, they suffer the same fate as everyone else who has cut themselves off from the Bishop of Rome, they’re regulated to the annals of obscurity. As someone else as mentioned, they are no better than the protestants.
 
Pathway2 said:
what do think if the subject, are they right or wrong?
Click to expand...
They are wrong and they have put themselves into a state of mortal sin.
I know three conditions must apply for a sin to be mortal. Sedevacantists know what they are doing is a sin of grave matter and they do it anyway. They simply don’t care.
 
Dead wrong. Stacks assumptions and declares things they have no authority to
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top