C
CThomas
Guest
Hi. I’ve been asked to post this question here from the apologetics section. (I had initially asked it there, because the question was relevant to me as a non-Catholic as an apologetic matter to understand the Catholic response to this sort of argument, but I of course defer to the rules of the fora.)
I was hoping someone might help me with something about sedevacantism. I’m thinking at the moment of Gerry Matatics, who has adopted this view. I’m reproducing his nutshell sketch of his arguments below from his site. What puzzles me is why his arguments aren’t susceptible to the argument you hear all the time from Catholic apologists that the individual Christian lacks the “authority” to make these sorts of theological judgments on his own (and hence that each minor premise of his syllogisms cannot be supported). What confuses me is that this just can’t be the whole answer to Matatics, because he is extremely well versed on Catholic doctrine, and does not make elementary mistakes about it. (The man was a professional apologist with the primary Catholic apologetical organization, for crying out loud.) So I guess my question is why aren’t Matatics’s arguments below susceptible to that simple-minded argument?
Here are his syllogisms:
The case for “sedevacantism” can be succinctly stated in three separate syllogistic arguments. Any one of these three arguments is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that Benedict XVI cannot possibly be pope and is as likely a candidate as we’ll perhaps ever see for the prophecy of the “German antipope” of the last days who will lead many astray (see abovementioned anthologies of Catholic prophecies). But the combination of all three composes quite a formidable case. The syllogisms are as follows:
Syllogism #1: No true bishop, no true pope
Syllogism #2: No true orthodoxy, no true pope
Syllogism #3: No true Church, no true pope
An astute observer might notice that the order in which I have presented these syllogisms, moving from the simpler to the more challenging: each of the above three syllogisms demands less material to be surveyed and studied, less of a mental effort, and less of a radical conclusion than the syllogism that follows it.
I was hoping someone might help me with something about sedevacantism. I’m thinking at the moment of Gerry Matatics, who has adopted this view. I’m reproducing his nutshell sketch of his arguments below from his site. What puzzles me is why his arguments aren’t susceptible to the argument you hear all the time from Catholic apologists that the individual Christian lacks the “authority” to make these sorts of theological judgments on his own (and hence that each minor premise of his syllogisms cannot be supported). What confuses me is that this just can’t be the whole answer to Matatics, because he is extremely well versed on Catholic doctrine, and does not make elementary mistakes about it. (The man was a professional apologist with the primary Catholic apologetical organization, for crying out loud.) So I guess my question is why aren’t Matatics’s arguments below susceptible to that simple-minded argument?
Here are his syllogisms:
The case for “sedevacantism” can be succinctly stated in three separate syllogistic arguments. Any one of these three arguments is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that Benedict XVI cannot possibly be pope and is as likely a candidate as we’ll perhaps ever see for the prophecy of the “German antipope” of the last days who will lead many astray (see abovementioned anthologies of Catholic prophecies). But the combination of all three composes quite a formidable case. The syllogisms are as follows:
Syllogism #1: No true bishop, no true pope
- Major premise: A man who is not a validly ordained bishop cannot function as the bishop of Rome, i.e., as the pope. [Note: a non-bishop – even a layman – can be, and sometimes has been, elected to the papacy, but in every case he had to receive the necessary ordination(s) to ascend, however quickly, up through the required ranks of the clergy before he began to reign as pope.]
- Minor premise: But Joseph Ratzinger is not a validly ordained bishop, having received (in May 1977) the demonstrably invalid episcopal ordination rite promulgated in June 1968 by antipope Paul VI. (For a devastating demonstration of the fact that the new rite is invalid, read the brilliant 12-page article by Fr. Anthony Cekada, or at least the less technical two-page summary.
- Conclusion: Therefore Joseph Ratzinger cannot be a true pope.
Syllogism #2: No true orthodoxy, no true pope
- Major premise: A manifest heretic cannot be a true pope.
- Minor premise: But Joseph Ratzinger is a manifest heretic, as can be amply demonstrated from his numerous writings and addresses both before and since his “papal” election. (See articles on Ratzinger on traditionalmass.org/, novusordowatch.org/, or mostholyfamilymonastery.com/.)
- Conclusion: Therefore Joseph Ratzinger cannot be a true pope.
Syllogism #3: No true Church, no true pope
- Major premise: A head of a non-Catholic church cannot simultaneously be the head of the Catholic Church, i.e., the pope.
- Minor premise: But Joseph Ratzinger is the head of a non-Catholic Church, namely the Vatican II or postconciliar Church, the non-Catholic nature of whose doctrines, sacraments and worship, and laws can be readily demonstrated by comparing them to the perennial doctrines, sacraments and worship, and laws of the Catholic Church down through the ages. (See articles on above-mentioned websites.)
- Conclusion: Therefore Joseph Ratzinger cannot be the head of the Catholic Church, i.e., the pope.
An astute observer might notice that the order in which I have presented these syllogisms, moving from the simpler to the more challenging: each of the above three syllogisms demands less material to be surveyed and studied, less of a mental effort, and less of a radical conclusion than the syllogism that follows it.
