Sedevacantist... serious or without any merit?

[MTD]

And now we’re back to the super-interregnum. Where is the Visible Church, Gorman?

I’m not Gorman, and I know I’m notorious for getting between you and Gorman, bear06, but I’m going to say this anyway. It’ll add some spice to this thread, if nothing else.

It appears you think sedevacantists regard themselves as the true Catholic Church and the rest of us as non-Catholics, so to speak. So the sedevacantist Church is some tiny, remote, and hidden sect that claims to be the Catholic Church while the Catholic Church you and I are a part of is an imposter church. (I realize I may be making a rash assumption in regards to what you think, but I’m making that assumption mainly for the sake of the explanation that follows.)

However, I’m inclined to think that’s actually not what they believe (or at least not what Gorman believes). Basically, all who are baptized, consider themselves Catholic, hold the teachings they sincerely believe to be those of the Catholic Church, and are subject to those whom they believe to be the lawful superiors in the Catholic Church are considered Catholic by sedevacantists.

According to sedevacantist reasoning, even if sincere sedevacantists are in the wrong, they are not to be called heretics or schismatics because they sincerely believed their position to be correct. They can be called material heretics/schismatics, but material heretics/schismatics are not in fact cut off from the Church because they lack pertinacity. So they are not true (formal) heretics/schismatics, they say.

The same goes for us non-sedevacantists. I don’t know whether sedevacantists consider you and me material heretics or schismatics, but their reasoning is the same: we are not cut off from the Church because we lack pertinacity in our material heresy/schism.

In conclusion, they believe Gorman, you, and I are all Catholics. We are members of the Visible Church, and so are all sincere and validly ordained bishops and priests, whether sedevacantist or non-sedevacantist.

I may be completely wrong in this analysis, but I thought I’d give it a try anyway.

Maria

 

[guanophore]

It appears you think sedevacantists regard themselves as the true Catholic Church and the rest of us as non-Catholics, so to speak. So the sedevacantist Church is some tiny, remote, and hidden sect that claims to be the Catholic Church while the Catholic Church you and I are a part of is an imposter church. (I realize I may be making a rash assumption in regards to what you think, but I’m making that assumption mainly for the sake of the explanation that follows.)

Yes, this is what I was given to understand by the Sedas

We are members of the Visible Church, and so are all sincere and validly ordained bishops and priests, whether sedevacantist or non-sedevacantist.

I understand that they are not considered heretics because they are sincere. I am not sure if that is the right way to say it, but it falls under the “no fault of their own” I guess. There may be more than one type of SV, but the one’s I met did not consider any ordinations valid after vat II except their own.

 

[MTD]

I understand that they are not considered heretics because they are sincere. I am not sure if that is the right way to say it, but it falls under the “no fault of their own” I guess.

Well, for most sedevacantists it cannot be said to be “through no fault of their own” since they were not born or brought up in sedevacantism; rather, they chose it.

There may be more than one type of SV, but the one’s I met did not consider any ordinations valid after vat II except their own.

I think you might be a little confused here. They may not believe any ordinations valid except those done according to the old Roman Rite, but they do know that a heretical or schismatical bishop can validly ordain as long as he fulfills the requirements of the Church with regards to form, matter, and intent. For example, I’m quite sure they believe the FSSP ordinations to be valid even though the FSSP is in union with Pope Benedict XVI. The big thing with sedevacantists would be whether they regard the new Roman Rite as a valid rite.

Maria

 

[RobedWithLight]

Can I please have some of the Catholics ( and orthodox ) explain to me if the sedevacantists in the Catholic realm have any points that should be taken seriously.

If so, can someone please explain them to me.

This comes on the heels of some of the discussions that have been posted more recently regarding the Popes and having to remain subject to them if one is to be considered a Catholic.

From some of the limited material I have read, they seem to have some valid points regarding the vacancy of the see of Rome.

Thanks for your help!

Actually, sedevacantism has no merit whatsoever. One of the main points raised by these people is that Pope John XXIII was a freemason, which to this day remain unsubstantiated, hence a lie.

The problem was that even granting for the sake of argument that John was a freemason, it would not have legally stopped him from electing a Pope or from being validly elected as Pope, on the basis of Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolis.

None of the Cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.

And even granting that he might not govern licitly, he would however govern validly.

 

[pnewton]

And now we’re back to the super-interregnum. Where is the Visible Church, Gorman?

Great term!!!

And there really is no end to this current interregnum, unless one wants to vote a new pope within the sect. Perhaps Gorman could be his own pope. It only takes a handful of friends.

Despite a dismal turnout, Kennett and Clara Bawden, also David Bawden, (all from St. Mary’s, Kansas); Bob and Diane Hunt (from Hillman, Michigan) and Teresa Benns (from Denver, Colorado) all gathered to elect a Pope in Belvue, Kansas on the morning of July 16, 1990. The man elected was David Bawden, who took the papal name, Michael.

vaticaninexile.com/ChronologicalSummary.html

 

[gorman64]

And there really is no end to this current interregnum, unless one wants to vote a new pope within the sect. Perhaps Gorman could be his own pope. It only takes a handful of friends.

Dear pnewton,

Only you seem to think the above is a possibly good idea…

pnewton:

I almost believe those few antipopes that get their family and friends to elect them pope at least have more internal consistancy than those who just say the chair is vacant and twiddle their thumbs and bemoan the path the Catholic Church has taken. At least they understand the need for a papacy.

I guess you think they are more consistent than Cardinal Franzelin.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[pnewton]

Dear pnewton,

Only you seem to think the above is a possibly good idea…

I do not think it is a good idea. I see it as internally consistent, even if consistently in error. My Church already has the true pope who occupies the Chair of St. Peter.

How would you see the possibility for an end to a decades-long interregnum?

 

[bear06]

So many questions, so few answers.:nope:

 

[MTD]

So many questions, so few answers.:nope:

Well, I answered your Visible Church question…and I’ve a suspicion my answer was pretty accurate.

Maria

 

[bear06]

There are a couple of problems here. One is that I didn’t address the question to you, a non-sedevacantist. The second is that what I believe about Gorman’s beliefs wasn’t entirely accurate and it’s irrelevant anyway since what Gorman believes is the issue. Not what I believe he believes. And, probably not lastly, nobody knows too much about Gorman’s beliefs because he doesn’t really share too much of the specifics. It’s silly to keep going on about what we think he believes. It would be nice to hear him say it but, alas, I think there’s a reason he’s not answering this one. Again, it would be nice if people didn’t try to answer my questions for him because what I’ll likely get if I get anything is a “like she said” response.

Something interesting to note is that even the SSPX believes the sedes deny the Visible Church which I find quite ironic because they essentially do the same thing but deny that they do it.

 

[MTD]

The second is that what I believe about Gorman’s beliefs wasn’t entirely accurate and it’s irrelevant anyway since what Gorman believes is the issue. Not what I believe he believes.

It is relevant because what you believe about Gorman’s beliefs is the basis of your argument that Gorman’s Church is an invisible Church.

It would be nice to hear him say it but, alas, I think there’s a reason he’s not answering this one.

Yes, and I tried to show you why…

Again, it would be nice if people didn’t try to answer my questions for him because what I’ll likely get if I get anything is a “like she said” response.

I’ll try not to do it anymore.

Maria

 

[BobP123]

I do not think it is a good idea. I see it as internally consistent, even if consistently in error. My Church already has the true pope who occupies the Chair of St. Peter.

How would you see the possibility for an end to a decades-long interregnum?

Actually I think YOUR church has TOO many popes sitting in the Chair of St. Peter. We can start with that cardinal west in LALAville and others like him who will do what they want regardless of what Pope Benedict says. Who are the real sedes again?

 

[bear06]

him who will do what they want regardless of what Pope Benedict says

And that’s never happened in the history of the Church before.

 

[gorman64]

There are a couple of problems here. One is that I didn’t address the question to you, a non-sedevacantist.

That’s seems only to be a problem to you, bear06.

The second is that what I believe about Gorman’s beliefs wasn’t entirely accurate and it’s irrelevant anyway since what Gorman believes is the issue. Not what I believe he believes.

I agree that this is irrelevant. I also agree that what you believe I believe is inaccurate.

And, probably not lastly, nobody knows too much about Gorman’s beliefs because he doesn’t really share too much of the specifics. It’s silly to keep going on about what we think he believes. It would be nice to hear him say it but, alas, I think there’s a reason he’s not answering this one.

I don’t believe the Church is invisible. Of course it is visible. Only you seem to be stuck on this invisible Church thing…it is impossible for the Church to become invisible…but it can become obscured…for there to be some uncertainty…you are just having trouble differentiating between the two. But then again, you have already admitted that what you believe that I believe is irrelevant, I believe.

Again, it would be nice if people didn’t try to answer my questions for him because what I’ll likely get if I get anything is a “like she said” response.

It would also be nice if you refrained from telling others what you think I believe…even if you preface it with the fact that it is irrelevant.

Something interesting to note is that even the SSPX believes the sedes deny the Visible Church which I find quite ironic because they essentially do the same thing but deny that they do it.

I don’t think this is the really the case at all.

Archbishop Lefebvre held what amounts to a position which consisted of the least possible number of assertions: “We have the principles of true versus false obedience and we rest our defense on those”.

Of course, Archbishop Lefebvre did not reject the SV position in principle, as indicated in this rather famous declaration in 1976:

“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church…”

This problem has not disappeared…it has become more and more manifest that the Conciliar Church lacks the four marks of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity, that the Catholic Church always necessarily possesses.

From the beginning of this crisis traditional Catholics have raised what can be described as the “ecclesiological problem” - or as Ratzinger put it (in Chile in 1988), “All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people.” Here he echoes the publisher Frank Sheed, who wrote a book in 1967 entitled, quite extraordinarily, “Is It the Same Church?”

Your position, as best I can tell, is to either hold that there is no problem or admit some of the problems and travel from parish to parish looking for orthodoxy. Your position tells us the Church has failed and we, as Catholics, cannot trust Her.

Frankly, I think you and I disagree that there is a real problem. You don’t see it…I do. If that is the case, then we have nothing to discuss…it is a waste of our time.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[guanophore]

T I didn’t address the question to you. Again, it would be nice if people didn’t try to answer my questions for him because what I’ll likely get if I get anything is a “like she said” response.

Then I suggest that you send a private email!

 

[MTD]

Your position tells us the Church has failed and we, as Catholics, cannot trust Her.

I’m afraid your position tell us that the Church has failed. According to Franzelin, the Church has the duty to perpetuate the Petrine succession by appointing a new pope when the previous one resigns/dies. Yet the supposed true Catholic Church has not fulfilled that duty for 50 years and is still doing nothing about it. In practice, that Church is falling for the heresy that the Church can prevail without the rock of Peter.

Maria

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

icxc nika and guanophore,

One little tip: If you really want answers to your questions, make them specific. For example, it’s best not to just ask, “Do the sedevacantist arguments have any merit?” It’s far better to bring up a particular sedevacantist argument you’re having trouble with; otherwise, we can only give you general answers, which may not really address your concern.

Maria

If a pope is a proven heretic must you still be obedient to him?

 

[bear06]

I don’t believe the Church is invisible. Of course it is visible. …you are just having trouble differentiating between the two.

It’s pretty hard to be the beacon on the hill when your beacon is under a bush. I’m having no trouble at all because the Church can’t be obscured and still be the beacon on the hill. The Visible Church doesn’t equal “I see it”.

But then again, you have already admitted that what you believe that I believe is irrelevant, I believe.

I think I said what my guess on what you believe is irrelevant. What I believe is always relevant. This is why I’d like you to lay it out for me. It’s hard to argue that the Church is visible and then turn around and say it’s obscured. It’s rather like the SSPX claiming to be submissive to the Pope when they aren’t being submissive.

It would also be nice if you refrained from telling others what you think I believe…even if you preface it with the fact that it is irrelevant.

Gorman, I’ve been asking the same question for awhile. I don’t think I ever stated what you believe. In fact, I’ve been wanting you to explain your position. The most I can have is a guess and I’m still in that position because, while you said you believe in the Visible Church, you still haven’t explained how you can say this which has always been my question.

I don’t think this is the really the case at all.

Archbishop Lefebvre held what amounts to a position which consisted of the least possible number of assertions: “We have the principles of true versus false obedience and we rest our defense on those”.

Of course, Archbishop Lefebvre did not reject the SV position in principle, as indicated in this rather famous declaration in 1976:

It would seem that you fellow sedes disagree with you:
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1496522/posts

This problem has not disappeared…it has become more and more manifest that the Conciliar Church lacks the four marks of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity, that the Catholic Church always necessarily possesses.

So if the “Conciliar Church” lacks the 4 marks (your thoughts, not mine) then it can’t be the true Church so again, where is the Visible Church? We’re back to the “invisible unless you have super cool glasses” Church.

From the beginning of this crisis traditional Catholics have raised what can be described as the “ecclesiological problem” - or as Ratzinger put it (in Chile in 1988), “All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people.” Here he echoes the publisher Frank Sheed, who wrote a book in 1967 entitled, quite extraordinarily, “Is It the Same Church?”

Now that little snippet is out of context. You could have at least put the next sentence.
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3032

Your position, as best I can tell, is to either hold that there is no problem or admit some of the problems and travel from parish to parish looking for orthodoxy. Your position tells us the Church has failed and we, as Catholics, cannot trust Her.

The Church has not failed us my friend but there are some who failed the Church.

Frankly, I think you and I disagree that there is a real problem.

No, again, my friend. We disagree about what the problem is though.

You don’t see it…I do.

Well, it looks like my guess regarding some of your beliefs was right on target.

 

[MTD]

If a pope is a proven heretic must you still be obedient to him?

If he is proven a pertinacious heretic by the proper authorities, he would not then be pope according to Bellarmine’s theological opinion because a formal heretic is by nature outside the Church and thus can have no jurisdiction in the Church. In such a case, he can claim no obedience from you.

Maria

 

[bear06]

Then I suggest that you send a private email!

I prefaced it with “Gorman”.