Sedevacantism

[Andreas_Hofer]

I’ve got a question that leaves aside the specifics of any sedevacantist argument, namely that, if the Apostolic See can truly become vacant in the manner the sedevacantists claim (ipso facto upon the pope espousing heresy), how could we ever know if we had a true pope? Wouldn’t the practical implication be basically the same as if papal infallibility did not exist.

I suppose one might argue that we can simpy consult the Tradition and judge a pope’s teaching against this. But the sedevacantist argument taken to its fullest extremes removes any and all confidence in an extraordinary magisterium, making it much more difficult to discern the ordinary magisterium. For instance, let’s say Linus was actually a heretic when he was elected (/acclaimed/proclaimed) pope. In fact, it is quite possible that the Romans just kept electing men who were heretics to the papacy. These men, since they ipso facto couldn’t wield papal authority, would make it impossible for ecumenical councils to bind the whole Church, since these require union with the pontiff, whose would not have been filled at the time. Any official teachings of popes might be suspect.

Let’s take Pope St. Stephen and his conflict with St. Cyprian of Carthage over non-Catholic baptism. If St. Stephen were a heretic upon his appointment this would be automatically null and void, meaning it would be perfectly possible for him to teach heresy since he was not, in fact, pope. Any popes who follow in this heretical teaching, despite amassing a long “tradition” in its favor, are really just continuing a long line of anti-papal (i.e., of anti-popes) magisterial teaching, which we can disregard. All of the bishops we rely on as doctors may not have really been bishops (because they automatically forfeited office upon espousing some sort of heresy and thus forfeited their participation in the magisterium). Where does it all end? How can you identify teachings of the magisterium when any and every piece of it very well could have been null and void stemming from a very early apostasy of the Church?

Is that characterization extreme? Sure. But do I think claiming any and every prelate, the pope included, ipso facto loses jurisdiction upon becoming a heretic leads there? Yes. The extreme example is probably such as to run afoul of the overall indefectability of the Church, but how does one draw a line between what is too extreme and what is not? After all, any and every ex cathedra pronouncement might simply be undermined by denying the legitimacy of a particular pope’s papacy. The same with any council, just impugn the orthodoxy of the pope who ratified its canons and decrees. It could devolve into a personal religion just as quickly as sola Scriptura.

 

[st_bernard]

I’ve got a question that leaves aside the specifics of any sedevacantist argument, namely that, if the Apostolic See can truly become vacant in the manner the sedevacantists claim (ipso facto upon the pope espousing heresy), how could we ever know if we had a true pope? Wouldn’t the practical implication be basically the same as if papal infallibility did not exist.

I suppose one might argue that we can simpy consult the Tradition and judge a pope’s teaching against this. But the sedevacantist argument taken to its fullest extremes removes any and all confidence in an extraordinary magisterium, making it much more difficult to discern the ordinary magisterium. For instance, let’s say Linus was actually a heretic when he was elected (/acclaimed/proclaimed) pope. In fact, it is quite possible that the Romans just kept electing men who were heretics to the papacy. These men, since they ipso facto couldn’t wield papal authority, would make it impossible for ecumenical councils to bind the whole Church, since these require union with the pontiff, whose would not have been filled at the time. Any official teachings of popes might be suspect.

Let’s take Pope St. Stephen and his conflict with St. Cyprian of Carthage over non-Catholic baptism. If St. Stephen were a heretic upon his appointment this would be automatically null and void, meaning it would be perfectly possible for him to teach heresy since he was not, in fact, pope. Any popes who follow in this heretical teaching, despite amassing a long “tradition” in its favor, are really just continuing a long line of anti-papal (i.e., of anti-popes) magisterial teaching, which we can disregard. All of the bishops we rely on as doctors may not have really been bishops (because they automatically forfeited office upon espousing some sort of heresy and thus forfeited their participation in the magisterium). Where does it all end? How can you identify teachings of the magisterium when any and every piece of it very well could have been null and void stemming from a very early apostasy of the Church?

Is that characterization extreme? Sure. But do I think claiming any and every prelate, the pope included, ipso facto loses jurisdiction upon becoming a heretic leads there? Yes. The extreme example is probably such as to run afoul of the overall indefectability of the Church, but how does one draw a line between what is too extreme and what is not? After all, any and every ex cathedra pronouncement might simply be undermined by denying the legitimacy of a particular pope’s papacy. The same with any council, just impugn the orthodoxy of the pope who ratified its canons and decrees. It could devolve into a personal religion just as quickly as sola Scriptura.

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Best point you’ve made so far.

Gratias

 

[gorman64]

Best point you’ve made so far.

Consider the following:

From the CE:

The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

From Christ’s Church, Monsignor G. Van Noort S.T.D.:

Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions – opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to an error in a matter already defined. The more probable and respectful opinion, followed by Suarez, Bellarmine and many others, holds that just as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so too he never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papal heresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself or at least by a subsequent decision of an ecumenical council, would by divine law a forfeit his jurisdiction. Obviously a man could not continue to be the head of the Church if he ceased to be even a member of the Church.

From St. Robert Bellarmine:

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics * are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner , as we have already proved."*

 

[TNT]

I’ve got a question that leaves aside the specifics of any sedevacantist argument, namely that, if the Apostolic See can truly become vacant in the manner the sedevacantists claim (ipso facto upon the pope espousing heresy), how could we ever know if we had a true pope? Wouldn’t the practical implication be basically the same as if papal infallibility did not exist.

I suppose one might argue that we can simpy consult the Tradition and judge a pope’s teaching against this. But the sedevacantist argument taken to its fullest extremes removes any and all confidence in an extraordinary magisterium, making it much more difficult to discern the ordinary magisterium. For instance, let’s say Linus was actually a heretic when he was elected (/acclaimed/proclaimed) pope. In fact, it is quite possible that the Romans just kept electing men who were heretics to the papacy. These men, since they ipso facto couldn’t wield papal authority, would make it impossible for ecumenical councils to bind the whole Church, since these require union with the pontiff, whose would not have been filled at the time. Any official teachings of popes might be suspect.

Let’s take Pope St. Stephen and his conflict with St. Cyprian of Carthage over non-Catholic baptism…
…

**To the contrary:
May I propose that your example is actually a Pope’s example of supporting his decision, not from a “new understanding” of Church doctrine, but relying on Tradition. That is, he is a Traditionalist & on this controversy, Cyprian is the Liberal or modernist of that time. Cyprian, on this point would have been an example of a VATII theologian or worse:
The controversy on rebaptism is especially connected with the names of Pope St. Stephen and of St. Cyprian of Carthage. The latter was the main champion of the practice of rebaptizing. The pope, however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded that heretics on entering the Church should receive only the imposition of hands in paenitentiam. In this celebrated controversy it is to noted that Pope Stephen declares that he is upholding the primitive custom when he declares for the validity of baptism conferred by heretics.

Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be “a human and unlawful tradition”. Neither Cyprian, however, nor his zealous abettor, Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate” says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the saints and of all the faithful. St. Augustine believes that the custom of not rebaptizing is an Apostolic tradition, and St. Vincent of Lérins declares that the Synod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against the Divine Law (canonem), against the rule of the universal Church, and against the customs and institutions of the ancients. By Pope Stephen’s decision, he continues, antiquity was retained and novelty was destroyed (retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas). It is true that the so-called Apostolic Canons (xlv and xlvi) speak of the non-validity of baptism conferred by heretics, but Döllinger says that these canons are comparatively recent, and De Marca points out that St. Cyprian would have appealed to them had they been in existence before the controversy. Pope St. Stephen, therefore, upheld a doctrine already ancient in the third century when he declared against the rebaptism of heretics, and decided that the sacrament was not to be repeated because its first administration had been valid, This has been the law of the Church ever since.
See NewAdvent Site
**

 

[Digitonomy]

I believe that Jason Hurd brought up the subject of religious liberty…not you. We were discussing it before you arrived here.

I see that now. Nonetheless, I still see no debate about Dignitatis Humanae prior to my post, so I hardly think it’s fair to exclude it as a source, on the grounds that it was the topic of the debate.

gorman64:

So why do you think that Denzinger was edited to omit the sections from Quanta Cura?

I don’t feel knowledgeable enough to discuss these points.

gorman64:

And also, do you understand that you can’t simply quote Digitatis Humanae to prove that the Church did not break with the teaching of Quanta Cura?

I make no contention about any change in Church teaching. I merely insist the Church has taught that religious freedom is a right.

 

[gorman64]

I don’t feel knowledgeable enough to discuss these points.

I make no contention about any change in Church teaching. I merely insist the Church has taught that religious freedom is a right.

So, not being knowledgeable enough to address Quanta Cura…but knowledgeable enough to state that The Church has always taught that religious freedom is a right?

Quanta Cura teaches that religious liberty is far from a right…it refers to Gregory XVI…who called it “insanity” and “the liberty of perdition”; from Quanta Cura:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”

 

[Digitonomy]

"Digitonomy:

I don’t feel knowledgeable enough to discuss these points.

I make no contention about any change in Church teaching. I merely insist the Church has taught that religious freedom is a right.

So, not being knowledgeable enough to address Quanta Cura…but knowledgeable enough to state that The Church has always taught that religious freedom is a right?

You need to read more carefully. The word “always” was not found in any of my posts in this thread, until now.

 

[gorman64]

I make no contention about any change in Church teaching. I merely insist the Church has taught that religious freedom is a right.

You need to read more carefully. The word “always” was not found in any of my posts in this thread, until now.

I have read your posts very carefully…that’s why I said always. I assumed that you would try to maintain that the Church has always taught this…or it is a legitimate development and then show why you think that is the case.

What is your position on Quanta Cura and the Denzinger numbers 1688-1690 (1954 edition)?

You may want to refer as well, before you answer, to Denzinger 1800 :

Denz. 1800 (1954 edition)

The true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed]. For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 3]. “Therefore…let the understanding, the knowledge, and the wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be soley in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding”[1]

[1] Instruction of St. Vincent of Lerin, n. 28 [ML 50, 668 (c. 23)].

 

[Digitonomy]

What is your position on Quanta Cura and the Denzinger numbers 1688-1690 (1954 edition)?

My position is that I know little about them. I am not qualified at present to debate such details. I am, however, qualified to observe that the answer to your question Did the Church ever teach that religious freedom is a right? is found in a very straightforward way in Dignitatis Humanae, and the answer is yes. That is all I have set out to do.

How that jives with previous Church teaching, and all the qualifiers and conditions and extrapolations that may apply - that is the debate you are trying to have. However, you must find a more worthy opponent than a bantamweight like myself.

 

[gorman64]

Did the Church ever teach this or was it condemned as an error?

Yes, the Church has taught that religious freedom is a right.

Ok, now did the Church ever condemn religious liberty as an error? If you can read DH then you can read Quanta Cura as well…right? If you choose not to…then why?

 

[Digitonomy]

If you can read DH then you can read Quanta Cura as well…right?

In both cases, a more thorough and fair analysis would take more time and effort.

gorman64:

If you choose not to…then why?

Lack of interest at this time.

 

[Thursday1]

gorman64,
Do you believe that Benedict XVI is a valid successor of St. Peter? I am merely curious if you are playing devil’s advocate, or if you truly believe what you are arguing.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[st_bernard]

gorman64,
Do you believe that Benedict XVI is a valid successor of St. Peter? I am merely curious if you are playing devil’s advocate, or if you truly believe what you are arguing.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

I believe waht gorman64 is establishing is the grounds to, at least, admit that such a position isn’t without merit.

I have spent the last week debating with Eastern Orthodox concerning Original Sin and frankly one could argue that since Vatican II the Western Church has taken strides to embrace what appears to be a more Eastern Orthodox Theological Perspective moving the Western Church to a more Eastern Perspective. It is clear to me that such is a more liberal interpretation of the Faith and frankly I can see the Sedevacantist and SSPX rationale due to this movement within the teachings of the Western Church.

Gratias

 

[gorman64]

Yes, thank you st. bernard.

I am not playing “devil’s advocate”. I hear the charge quite often that sedevacantists do not really believe what they argue for…that is mistaken, I believe, although I will admit that many sedevacantists have not fully grasped the implications of their position. The implications seem to be the latest and most effective argument against their position…an argument which is only effective because it really relies on a lack of a strong Faith in Christ’s promise. The Church cannot fail…and the truth can never be Her enemy.

 

[ctos]

I do not fully understand sedevacantism. I am not a sedevacantist. I think the key thing to remember is that sedevacantism is an opinion about the status of the Seat, and that a sedevacantist is not an outcast by virtue of his opinion. There have been some very confusing times in the history of the Church, and it is not beyond the pale to question the status of the Seat. The problem, or error if you like, creeps in when a sedevacantist becomes convinced that everyone else must also be a sedevacantist or they are not Catholic. When they ‘break communion’ they become schismatic.

Here is a summary of the sedevacantist point of view.
sedevacantist.org/sedebrief.html

The “sede” Position in Brief
A short, systematic outline of the history and doctrine supporting the “sede” thesis.

1. Heresy is defined as a pertinacious doubt or denial of something required to be held with divine and catholic faith.
2. “Vatican II” and its “popes” have taught, adhered to, acted in accordance with, or failed to condemn a plethora of heresies, including religious liberty, universal salvation, the efficacy of non-Catholics sects for salvation, the blasphemy that Jews & Muslims worship the One True God, the evolution of dogma, etc. They have also destroyed the faith of tens of millions, and Karol Wojtyla (“John Paul II”) describes this whole process as a “new Pentecost.” In other words, he thinks it is good, and wants the Holy Ghost to take the blame (“credit”).
3. There are various undoubtedly genuine prophecies relating to our time (or a time like ours) which predict the loss of faith at Rome, the use of the See by Antichrist, the mass apostasy, the disappearance of the perpetual sacrifice, etc.
4. It is the constant tradition of Holy Church that manifest (i.e. “public”) heresy results in the radical incapacity of a man to hold the papacy.
5. History provides a number of examples of popes (or “popes”) who were claimed to have fallen into at least material heresy, and the reaction of good Catholics each time was to threaten to withdraw from communion with them, and in the more outstanding cases work towards convoking an imperfect council for the “deposition” of the apparent heretic. The significant examples include Liberius, Honorius (after his death), Pascal II, John XXII, Alexander VI, Paul VI, and John Paul II.
6. There is no case in history where a “pope” has apparently been a manifest heretic and did not produce this reaction in some portion of the clergy and laity (the faithful).
7. These members of the faithful have included many saints.
8. The theological basis for this reaction has been established perfectly by many theologians and canonists, with the outstanding example being St. Robert Bellarmine, who has harmonised or criticised all of the opinions to produce the locus classicus on the subject. Given that his works have received the highest possible approbation by the Church - he has been named a Doctor (i.e. “Teacher”) of the Universal Church - it is perfectly legitimate, nay praiseworthy in the highest degree, for Catholics to be taught by him in all matters of sacred doctrine.

 

[ctos]

… and the remainder …

1. Furthermore, there are only three or four theologians known to have held that a heretic could become or remain pope, and none of those are Doctors of the Church.
2. Furthermore, there is the bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus, which legislates that if a heretic is elected pope the election is completely null and void, and cannot be convalidated in any way. Once again, this bull proves the radical incompatibility of the papacy and the person of a heretic. If this was not the case, the faulty election could be repaired by acclamation or subsequent “convalidation” by the Sacred College.
3. It is contrary to right reason to insist that individual members of the faithful have no right to draw the concrete conclusion of a vacant see through heresy, prior to a declaration by Holy Church. This is proved by a reductio ad absurdum - if this were the case, then no action could be legitimately taken to remove such a “papal” heretic and then replace him. This is because a pope cannot be judged by any man, since judging belongs by divine right only to superiors, and the pope has no superior. Hence any proceedings which were founded on any basis other than the evident vacancy of the Holy See would be contrary to divine law and thus null and void. This is also proved by the authority of Wernz and Vidal, cited elsewhere on this Web site, who maintain that those who dispute the legitimacy of a given pontiff are not to be counted schismatics.
4. This judgement of vacancy made by an individual is valid and sufficient in its sphere. It can be and should be a judgement of moral certainty, based on the relevant clear principles of theology and divine law, as embodied in the writings of the approved teachers of Holy Church, and also in her canon law. These principles include the nature of Holy Church as a visible society of those who, among other things, outwardly profess the true faith. Also relevant is the presumption under divine law (and hence canon law) of guilt for heresy (in the external forum) until and unless the contrary is proved. (This principle is no different in its fundamental nature from the presumption which provides perfectly sufficient support for the validity of all sacraments, including the Thuc and Lefebvre lines of Orders and all marriages). This principle is also clearly implied in St. Robert Bellarmine’s assessment of the case of Liberius, in which he states that Liberius was actually innocent and yet rightly presumed guilty. It is also clearly enunciated in Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae, in which the Holy Father laid down that only God judges what remains internal, while men judge externals.
5. Given the above, it is the right and responsibility of all of the faithful, as it lies within their competence, to form a view on this question, and it is the additional responsibility of the clergy to act upon the conclusion reached.

Perhaps it may now be clear why it is an absolute outrage that so-called “sedevacantists” are treated as schismatics and denounced as enemies of Holy Church.

John Lane
Perth, Western Australia.
November 4, 1998
Feast of St. Charles Borromeo
Amended May 16, 1999
Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension.

I think it is important always to maintain peace and brothership with all Catholics, except those in name only who manifestly reject a dogmatic teaching of the Church. Whether the Seat is empty is not in that category.