Sedevacantism

[palmas85]

Have they found their own Pope ?

One is a Priest named Pulvermacher who reigns in glory from the new Vatican in Kalispell, Montana. He has his own website, apparently ordained at least one Bishop and a couple of Priests and has issued a lot of papal Bulls. There are at least two others, undoubtedly more, as well, one in Texas if I’m not mistaken and one in Europe somewhere, Switzerland perhaps? There is also one in the Philippines but I won’t even go into that one it as it is just too bizarre for belief.

 

[Marilena]

**It’s the belief in the idea that the Chair of Peter is empty. For instance, there are those who espouse the belief that there has not been a legitimate pope since Pius XII. **I fall into the category pf people who believe that this shows a lack of faith.

one of those groups is the SSPV ( society of saint pius v )

 

[AJV]

One just died recently, a Priest named Pulvermacher who reigned in glory from the new Vatican in Kalispell, Montana. He had his own website, apparently ordained at least one Bishop and a couple of Priests and issued a lot of papal Bulls. There are at least two others, undoubtedly more, as well, one in Texas if I’m not mistaken and one in Europe somewhere, Switzerland perhaps? There is also one in the Philippines but I won’t even go into that one it as it is just too bizarre for belief.

He died? When?

 

[palmas85]

So does this mean that sedevancatists did not exist prior to the Second Vatican Council?

They’ve had them throughout the history of the church, especially during the Middle Ages. They are really nothing more than people who for whatever reason don’t believe that the current Pope, whoever he may be, was either invalidly elected or due to some misconduct, heresy etc, lost the authority to be Pope. Thats it in a nutshell. Overall they are a pretty screwy bunch.

 

[palmas85]

He died? When?

I started looking back and it was his brother who died, also a Priest. Sorry about that. I remembered reading the article but screwed up on who it was. . I apologize for the error, and have corrected the initial post. I always knew I shouldn’t post as soon as I get home from work

 

[st_bernard]

RE:
How many actually, all their life “do all they can to avoid sin”?
What happens [assuming the vast, vast majority) if they *do

sin?

I would think they would have to have perfect contrition in order to have forgiveness without the Sacrament of Penance.

Or, is this an imaginary person to start with?

My guess would be that the the Most Rev. Dr. Butler had thought it out. I notice that even the SSPX print his Shorter Family Catechism and I got these questions and answers out of Christian Warfare which is published and used by the SSPX and others.

Finally:
INVINCIBLE
Incapable of being conquered, overrun, or subjugated.

What is it exactly that they are INVINCIBLE against?
God
Truth
Men
Learning
Believing

What?

The invincibly argument has been around for a long time. I’m not sure exactly when it was first established but its found in many pre-Vatican II publishings.

Primarily I believe one needs to demonstrate invincible ignorance to the necessity of salvation but it is normally used to establish the ‘possibility’ of salvation ‘outside’ the institution of the Catholic Church.

Gratias

 

[paramedicgirl]

One is a Priest named Pulvermacher who reigns in glory from the new Vatican in Kalispell, Montana. He has his own website, apparently ordained at least one Bishop and a couple of Priests and has issued a lot of papal Bulls. There are at least two others, undoubtedly more, as well, one in Texas if I’m not mistaken and one in Europe somewhere, Switzerland perhaps? There is also one in the Philippines but I won’t even go into that one it as it is just too bizarre for belief.

Oh, I used to play ball in Kalispel, Montana. If I had only known the pope was there in his new Vatican.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Okay, the erstwhile “pope” is Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher.
His BROTHER, Father Carl Pulvermacher, was
an SSPX priest who was, rumor has it, deeply embarassed
by Lucien’s papal claim. Father Carl is the Pulvermacher who died recently.

“Pope” Pius XIII (Lucien) is still alive and kicking.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[Genesis315]

So does this mean that sedevancatists did not exist prior to the Second Vatican Council?

Besides the ones in the Middle Ages, there were some (and also some antipopes) in the 20th century, especially the Colinites during the reign of Pius XII. Their anti-pope was Clement XV. His successor is Gregory XVII who “presides” in France.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Besides the ones in the Middle Ages, there were some (and also some antipopes) in the 20th century, especially the Colinites during the reign of Pius XII. Their anti-pope was Clement XV. His successor is Gregory XVII who “presides” in France.

Thanks. I wasn’t sure on the history of it.

 

[fineca]

Since Sedevacantists aren’t in communion with the Pope (since they don’t believe the Pope is Pope) but believe the Catholic Faith, isn’t it right to call Sedevacantism a schism?

Do you know of any good website refuting Sedevacantism? Bob Sungenis has done some job refuting Sedevacantism but in a debate he did quite poorly. I would need to find answers to two objections raised by the SVs:

1. Benedict can’t be Pope since he isn’t a validly ordained bishop since V2 changed the prayer of consecration to the episcopate into something that doesn’t express the form of the sacrament, something similar to what was condemned by Apostolicae Curae in regard to the Anglicans:receive the Holy Spirit.
2. The Church nowadays teaches that the Orthodox are true particular churches and effectively contribute to the salvation of their members by valid sacraments etc., whereas before V2 the Church held them to be outside the Church, in schism, profiting nothing from the sacraments and perishing unless they become united to the Pope. So they contend the Church now officially teaches heresy.

If you have answers or links to answers, I’d be extremely grateful!

 

[gorman64]

1. The Church nowadays teaches that the Orthodox are true particular churches and effectively contribute to the salvation of their members by valid sacraments etc., whereas before V2 the Church held them to be outside the Church, in schism, profiting nothing from the sacraments and perishing unless they become united to the Pope. So they contend the Church now officially teaches heresy.

If I am not mistaken, after Vatican I, the eastern schismatics became heretics due to the definitions made in that Council (if they held their same position with regard to the papacy). If they have valid orders, then their sacraments would be valid due to their use of the proper rite. The idea of baptism outside the Church is also interesting…if proper matter, form, and intention are used, it is valid…but the sacrament still belongs to the Church…the fact that a protestant baptises validly does not mean that his heretical church is a particular church or even contains “elements of sanctification”.

Protestants have been validly baptising for hundreds of years…did the Church just not notice this until recently?

Gorman

 

[Windmill]

Some thoughts on sedevacantism and the indeffectibility of the Church (some summaries taken from a talk by Michael Davies)…

God willed that his grace flow to mankind after Christ’s death through a visible body, the Catholic Church. God didn’t have to do it this way, but he chose to. This cooperation between man and god is a mystery. It’s mission is to save the whole of mankind without distinction of time, race, etc…

Though it is a divinely ordained organization, it is a human organization. It needs rules and regulations by which it must abide. You must have members capable of being directed to an end, and an authority capable of directing them to that end. If this church ever changed in its essential constitution , (that is, in its nature) it would cease to exist, and then the promises Christ left with his church regarding indefectibility would be wrong, and then Christ would be proven wrong, and therefore, not the Son of God. Christ founded this church on Peter, and promised the gates of hell would not prevail. He said he would guide the church into all truth. when we hear the pope speak, we hear the words of Christ.

There are three essential parts of the church’s divine constitution:

1. Teaching authority - Until the second coming, the Catholic Church will continue to teach the truths entrusted to it by Christ. No pope will ever require the faithful to believe anything contrary to the Gospel. This doesn’t mean that everything a pope says will be correct (eg. Pope John XXII said there was no particular judgment, but theologians showed him he was wrong, and he changed his mind). However, if a Pope teaches something is true and that we must believe it, we can be confident, with absolute certainty, that it is true by virtue of Christ’s promise. This is a great advantage over Protestants who must, ultimately, rely on their own personal interpretation of scripture. It is a grace from God.

 

[Windmill]

…
2) Sanctification: Left to ourselves, none of us could live up to the Ten Commandments, but God gave us the sacraments through the Church to help us live up to those truths. They also enable us to fulfill our solemn duty of worshipping God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. There could never be a time when HMC could offer her members invalid rites or invalid Masses. If a sacramental is promulgated by the visible head of the Church, the Pope, it is undoubtedly valid. To say otherwise would say that the church is offering its members something that is invalid or will harm the members. To say that is to admit the church has failed in her divine constitution, and therefore, never existed from the beginning and Christ was not God (because he lied to Peter).

1. Jurisdiction: Christ gave the Apostles the authority to rule over His faithful (He who listens to you listens to me, etc…). Though not all shepherds have been faithful, the promise is to the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ - not each and every pastor of souls. Now, the Church is visible, and it is hierarchical. This Body can be seen to be that which Christ founded. Its visible head is the Pope, with bishops, then priests, then the lay faithful below. It’s not a bunch of bible study groups. The authority of a cleric is not derived from the votes of church elders or congregants (like in Presbyterian or Baptist groups, respectively). His authority is from God, and that authority goes downward from pope, to bishop, to parish priest.

The Church, as a whole, can never fail in any of these three pillars of its original constitution. Individuals, even entire countries, can fall away, but there will still be a visible Church through which God will lead His faithful. That Body must continually exist, as divinely established, in its visible, hierarchically-governed nature.

Now, Sedevacantists say that there is no pope, and that they and those who agree with them are the True Church. This is nonsense, because the church is hierarchical with a pope at the top. Are they going to “vote” on a pope? They can’t because they have no authority to do so. Popes must be the bishop of Rome, and he becomes pope because he is elected by the parish priests of Rome (Cardinals are assigned a parish in Rome upon their installation as Cardinal. These “parish priests” elect a new pope when the old one dies. By virtue of that election, the newly installed Bishop of Rome IS POPE). Even Lefebrve said that the visible nature of the Church is critical, and that the idea of the Church not having a pope, and not having the means of electing a new pope that is immediately recognizable by the faithful is totally impossible.

 

[Windmill]

…
Now, every theologian agrees that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic, he ceases to be a member of the MBOC, and therefore, is not Pope. However, to be a heretic you must pertinaciously deny a fundamental truth of the Faith that must be believed in Faith (eg. The Resurrection, the Divinity of Christ). You must hold that belief in the face of correction. If a Pope holds a contrary view in secret, he may cease to be a member of the MBOC, but he does not lose his jurisdiction. If the secret becomes public, then a sentence must be pronounced. However, no one person can judge the Pope. They don’t have the authority. What would have to happen is that a group of authoritative members of the hierarchy make a declaratory (“it’s already happened”) sentence that the Pope’s manifest heresy has shown that he has placed himself outside of the Church. The consensus of canon law says that a General Council, or perhaps the cardinals, could make this statement. But not an individual layman.

Something else to remember, a pope is not bound by ecclesiastical law, only by divine law. Since the pope is the highest authority, he can dispense himself from any ecclesial law. For example, Pope Pius X loved snuff, and he would dispense himself from the fasting law before mass and chew snuff during Mass. He was completely entitled to it. Therefore, trying to nail a Pope for a latae sententiae excommunication by his violating canon law is irrelevant. He’s not bound by canon law. A Pope can merit censure, but it can only come from one of his successors. An individual may think the pope is individually asking him to do something immoral, and if he is absolutely convinced of this in his heart, he is bound not to do it. However, he cannot pass sentence on the Pope. This is why we must pray for the Pope.

The norms of the Church (not exceptions, conceded indults from the norm, etc….) that are imposed by the Church are protected by Christ’s promises. So, the official Missal of Paul VI contains nothing harmful or invalid because if it did, the church would have failed.

The logic of sedevacantism is self-refuting and hopeless. We should pray for their return to the fold.

 

[gorman64]

If a Pope holds a contrary view in secret, he may cease to be a member of the MBOC, but he does not lose his jurisdiction.

I believe this is incorrect. Canon 1325 brands as a heretic whoever, while still calling himself a Christian, pertinaciously (i.e. consciously) doubts or denies any de fide truth. Anyone to whom this applies is deemed not to be a Catholic if he manifests externally his heresy. (If it is purely internal (or occult), he has committed a mortal sin against the virtue of faith, but remains within the Church’s communion, and without censure. - Cardinal Billot, op. Cit. pp. 295 et seq.)

 

[gorman64]

Also, a heretic ceases to be a member of the Church by divine law…not ecclesiastical law. A heretic is ipso facto excommunicated by the act of heresy. He has lost his membership in the Church before any declaratory sentence.

A Catholic cannot be a material heretic. He is not invincibly ignorant of the Church’s authority, and any conscious dissent from Her teachings will therefore make him a formal heretic. Material heretics are exclusively those baptised non-Catholics who err in good faith. That is why Dr Ludwig Ott notes that “public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.311)

And in fact Dr Ott’s preferred expression - “heretics who err in good faith” is the one used in the Code of Canon Law (Canon 731), which avoids the potentially misleading term “material heretics”

 

[Windmill]

gorman,

i’m sorry. i may have heard that part wrong in the Davies talk.

despite that, there is the part about no one having the authority to sentence a pope.

also, the part about not having any way to elect a new pope, with all the cardinals now ordained being so ordained under the new rite of ordination, sedevacantists would claim these are no longer bishops, therefore, they cannot elect a pope. to not have a pope, nor a means by which legitimate cardinals can elect a new pope as a visible head of the church, the sedevacantist’s position looks hopeless.

 

[gorman64]

Now, Sedevacantists say that there is no pope, and that they and those who agree with them are the True Church. This is nonsense, because the church is hierarchical with a pope at the top. Are they going to “vote” on a pope? They can’t because they have no authority to do so. Popes must be the bishop of Rome, and he becomes pope because he is elected by the parish priests of Rome (Cardinals are assigned a parish in Rome upon their installation as Cardinal. These “parish priests” elect a new pope when the old one dies. By virtue of that election, the newly installed Bishop of Rome IS POPE). Even Lefebrve said that the visible nature of the Church is critical, and that the idea of the Church not having a pope, and not having the means of electing a new pope that is immediately recognizable by the faithful is totally impossible.

I think it is more accurate to say they hold that these men cannot be true popes. After that there are many different opinions.

If it is true that a heretic who manifests his heresy is excommunicated ipso facto by divine law…before any declaratory sentence…do you think there are any bishops in the world in the past 40 years who have been excommunicated by their very own heresy?

 

[Jeanette_L]

I’ve got to say, as a new convert to the Catholic Church (proudly drawn, converted and received under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI ), this all sounds so…Protestant! I guess you can’t get away from the wiles of the devil no matter where you go! :nope:

It sounds like maybe the safe thing to do when looking for a good, vatican loyal Catholic parish is to look at the bulletins and see what kind of literature they display before you even get into the Mass, huh? And if you find a good parish, stay with it if at all possible! :yup: