Sedevacantist... serious or without any merit?

[Andreas_Hofer]

BTW - an interregnum so long that the Church loses all her licit cardinals does not pose an insuperable problem. Election by the College of Cardinals is not a necessary, inherent element of the papacy, as our history readily attests. It is, rather, an element of positive law, and the cessation of the College of Cardinals through superannuation or death would certainly entail an emergency situation dispensing us from its conditions. The Church could fall back on other means of appointment - perhaps those who elected Pius XIII or Michael felt they were doing just this. I know acclamation had its day in our history (the people basically just decide and probably start shouting “Make Bob bishop! Yeah, Bob, he’s our man! Bob is the new bishop!” I’ve never quite understood this but I’m pretty sure it’s been used) and I know but can’t remember that there’s been at least one other mechanism considered a valid way to choose a pope.

 

[gorman64]

I don’t think the charge of heresy pans out because I think the principle is such as to vitiate the protection granted the Church by papal infallibility. Why? Well, let’s say the charge is that a heretic, even a secret one, cannot be pope. If being a secret heretic were an impediment to being pope we would have absolutely no way of knowing whether a single “pope’s” actions and teachings had actually been part of the papal magisterium. Papal infallibility doesn’t do us much good if we have absolutely no guarantee that the person we believe to be pope actually is.

Dear Andreas,

This is a red herring because nobody thinks that occult heretics are non-members of the Church, and it is membership in the Church which governs the capacity to possess an office in Her. This is entirely clear from Bellarmine (and Van Noort and every other manualist for that matter) and therefore it is difficult to see why it has been brought up. If you are suggesting that sedevacantists think that occult heretics could not be popes then it really constitutes a straw man argument. But you couldn’t really think that – because you couldn’t quote any serious sedevacantist writer saying something so grossly incorrect.

Bellarmine sums it up:

"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."*

Yours,

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

If we modify the claim, however, to say that manifest heretics cannot be pope, I don’t really know if we’re doing that much better. Sure, it has gained some ground because now we at least have to have heard the pope attesting to his heresy - but do we have anyone competent of actually judging the pope? There is no authority in the Church that can pass judgment on a sitting pontiff (he can always appeal to the pope - who would be himself), though so what is to be done. We could say we don’t need an official condemnation, but then we seem to be at the point where it is up to individuals to decide whether or not the pope is a heretic, in which case papal infallibility appears again to be of no avail, since those who disagree with the pope can simply side-step it by accusing him of heresy.

Dear Andreas:

A public heretic is not a member of the Church. He is also ipso facto excommunicated. The first fact is a matter of divine law. The second fact is a matter of ecclesiastical law. St. Pius X (and afterwards Pius XII) altered only the ecclesiastical law. This is very simple and obvious, and it seems to me that the only way one could be confused about it is if one were familiar with only one or two documents, so that the significance of them was not fully grasped, or if one were incapable of distinguishing between divine and ecclesiastical law.

St. Robert Bellarmine has already answered this objection, as follows:

“There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”

I regard these comments as sufficient proof of the SV position. However, as an additional proof, one could try and find a manualist or canonist who teaches that it is not divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy. It would be particularly interesting to find one who wrote after St. Pius X issued his legislation, with a view to noting any citation of that legislation. It appears that no canonist or theologian thought that St. Pius X (or Pius XII) had made it possible for a public heretic or any other non-Catholic to be validly elected pope. Indeed, all of the ones I have seen state the exact opposite…that it is a matter of divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

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

Hi Maria, Thank you for your response. Another question, can a Catholic have deep respect and hold in high esteem another religion such as Hinduism and Islam, or any other religion that rejects the Holy Trinity and Divinity of our Lord+ Jesus+?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

And yet there is no “proper authority” that can judge the pope because he is the ultimate court of appeals. An ecumenical council cannot sit in judgment on a pope because it only acts authoritatively when done in communion with him - do we really expect an errant pope to condemn himself? The curia can’t condemn the pope for the same reason of its authority being tied to his. Bishops have no extraordinary authority, which leaves us only with the ordinary magisterium, but that magisterium does not produce “authoritative documents” of the sort that produce binding sentences against individuals.

And this is why the sedevacantists can’t argue that we have true popes who just preach and discipline in a bad way - the evil wrought by the recent popes is, in their eyes, sufficient to prove they were not popes. But this is where I think sedevacantism stands or falls. We need a way to tell whether a person is really pope. I think there would be legitimate grounds for doubting an individual’s claim to the papacy, but I don’t think heresy is one of them (St. Robert’s opinion notwithstanding).

I don’t think the charge of heresy pans out because I think the principle is such as to vitiate the protection granted the Church by papal infallibility. Why? Well, let’s say the charge is that a heretic, even a secret one, cannot be pope. If being a secret heretic were an impediment to being pope we would have absolutely no way of knowing whether a single “pope’s” actions and teachings had actually been part of the papal magisterium. Papal infallibility doesn’t do us much good if we have absolutely no guarantee that the person we believe to be pope actually is.

If we modify the claim, however, to say that manifest heretics cannot be pope, I don’t really know if we’re doing that much better. Sure, it has gained some ground because now we at least have to have heard the pope attesting to his heresy - but do we have anyone competent of actually judging the pope? There is no authority in the Church that can pass judgment on a sitting pontiff (he can always appeal to the pope - who would be himself), though so what is to be done. We could say we don’t need an official condemnation, but then we seem to be at the point where it is up to individuals to decide whether or not the pope is a heretic, in which case papal infallibility appears again to be of no avail, since those who disagree with the pope can simply side-step it by accusing him of heresy.

Can a Catholic have deep respect and hold in high esteem another religion such as Hinduism and Islam, or any other religion that rejects the Holy Trinity and Divinity of our Lord+ Jesus+?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

One of my favorite Bishops (an auxiliary at the time) Bishop David Foley once told me “there are no liberals or conservatives- there are Catholics and non-Catholics.”

I agree there are Catholics and non-Catholics.And you must figure out what it is you are.
Can a Catholic have deep respect and hold in high esteem another religion such as Hinduism and Islam, or any other religion that rejects the Holy Trinity and Divinity of our Lord+ Jesus+?

 

[BobP123]

You can put me in any camp you like. The truth is sedevacanists and SSPX supporters are in error and not in communion with God’s Church.

One of my favorite Bishops (an auxiliary at the time) Bishop David Foley once told me “there are no liberals or conservatives- there are Catholics and non-Catholics.”

By the way I think Pope Michael was elected via a telephone conclave! I think there is another nut case in South America or somewhere.

And the rest of us who attend an episcopally-approved TLM and, in most cases, second-class status? [Edited by Moderator]

 

[Feanor]

I agree there are Catholics and non-Catholics.
Can a Catholic have deep respect and hold in high esteem another religion such as Hinduism and Islam, or any other religion that rejects the Holy Trinity and Divinity of our Lord+ Jesus+?

Well John Paul II did and Benedict does- we see this in his explanation of the whole Islam matter. I don’t know the exact quote but he describes Islam positively and specifically states that they worship “the One True God.” This is good and differentiates our intelligent and sophisticated pontiff from many evangelicals who don’t even think that Muslims are worshiping the same God we are.

That aside non-catholics and non-christians are seen as really missing the boat. But as for me- give me an educated Jew, Buddist, or Muslim before a right wing evangelical any day!

 

[gorman64]

Well John Paul II did and Benedict does- we see this in his explanation of the whole Islam matter. I don’t know the exact quote but he describes Islam positively and specifically states that they worship “the One True God.” This is good and differentiates our intelligent and sophisticated pontiff from many evangelicals who don’t even think that Muslims are worshiping the same God we are.

That aside non-catholics and non-christians are seen as really missing the boat. But as for me- give me an educated Jew, Buddist, or Muslim before a right wing evangelical any day!

Dear Feanor,

How do you reconcile what you said with the following:

From Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

1. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

 

[Feanor]

Dear Gorman,

I am pragmatic in my faith- to be honest I don’t really know or think much about documents written by Popes before I was born. I mean I know Pius XII wasn’t the absolute zenith of the papacy. I choose to listen to the comments of the Great John Paul II and my current Pope who appear to have an even-handed and sensible approach.

Yet non-Christians are certainly lacking a sound understanding of God’s love and His role in our lives I do feel that Christ died also for non-Christians and I know that the Church NOW makes no statement of who is damned.

 

[gorman64]

Dear Gorman,

I am pragmatic in my faith- to be honest I don’t really know or think much about documents written by Popes before I was born. I mean I know Pius XII wasn’t the absolute zenith of the papacy. I choose to listen to the comments of the Great John Paul II and my current Pope who appear to have an even-handed and sensible approach.

Yest non-Christians are certainly lacking a sound understanding of God’s love and His role in our lives I do feel that Christ died also for non-Christians and I know that the Church NOW makes no statement of who is damned.

Dear Feanor,

Thou hast said it. And for those who have eyes to see what you wrote…I rest my case.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[Feanor]

I don’t get it- it seems I am lacking in some understanding of this issue. I do know that both John Paul II and Benedict did and do believe there is SOME value in non-catholic and non-christian religions.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ok.
2 questions.
Is it possible for a pope to be a heretic or even apostate when elected?

1917 canon law prescribes the process for determining “pertinacity,” which is necessary before one can be canonically excommunicated for heresy.

For those suspected of heresy (suspectus de haeresi), pertinacity is not to be assumed. Instead, “If a person is suspected of heresy, he is to be warned. If the warning is neglected he is to be debarred from legal acts. If he remain recalcitrant for six months longer, he is to be deemed a heretic and incurs the penalty imposed on heretics” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1918 edition, supplemental volume, containing revisions of the articles in canon law according to the Code).

Is it possible for a pope to become a heretic or even apostate?

No. Not according to what St. Robert Bellarmine affirmed as the “most common and probable opinion”, an opinion also cited in the official relatio at the First Vatican Council.

“It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.” De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chapter VI, cited by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen, in the official Relatio on the Proper Sense of the Proposed Doctrine of Papal Infallibility, prior to the vote on Pastor Aeternus (c. July 11, 1870)]

It would be rather UNtraditional to contend otherwise.

The question remains…was Cardinal Roncalli, before the election, suspected of heresy? If so, was he warned? If so, by who? When? Was that warning neglected? If so, was he then debarred from legal acts? If so, by whom? After being debarred, did Roncalli remain recalcitrant for six months? If so, did his superiors therefore deem that he was a heretic and impose the penalty incurred by heretics?

My understanding is that none of the above happened prior to Roncalli’s election. If there is credible evidence to the contrary, it has not been made manifest.

Moreover, according to Cardinal Billot:

“God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election… For the universal acceptance of the Church heals in the root any vitiated election." Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (1927-1929), Vol. I, pp. 612-613].

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Well John Paul II did and Benedict does- we see this in his explanation of the whole Islam matter. I don’t know the exact quote but he describes Islam positively and specifically states that they worship “the One True God.”

The exact quotes of Benedict use the words “Deep Respect” and “indebted to” for and to the religion of Islam.

This is good and differentiates our intelligent and sophisticated pontiff from many evangelicals who don’t even think that Muslims are worshiping the same God we are.

I have to disagree with you and benedict because Islam does not believe in the Holy Trinity and therefore Denies the CHRIST+, as can be cited from the Qur’an:

Muslim Koran (which denies the Divinity of Christ and blasphemes the Holy Trinity). O People of the Book, commit no excesses in your religion; nor say of God anything but the truth. The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him; so believe in God and His Messengers. Say not “Trinity”: desist! It will be better for you: for God is One: Glory be to Him! (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs. (Qur’an 4:171)

They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.**(Qur’an 5:73)
**

Why does the Pontiff have “Deep Respect” for Islamic Faith and “high Esteem” for Muslims and says we are indebted to the Koran?

 

[Feanor]

I choose to agree with Benedict and John Paul II. I do not share the narrow mindedness of Pat Robertson and his ilk.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I choose to agree with Benedict and John Paul II. I do not share the narrow mindedness of Pat Robertson and his ilk.

Thank you for your response. What you have chosen is irrelevent as I can see you chose not to address the documented references. As for benedict and jp2, do you agree with what I have stated of Benedics comments of Islam?

 

[gorman64]

1917 canon law prescribes the process for determining “pertinacity,” which is necessary before one can be canonically excommunicated for heresy.

Dave:

One must differentiate between divine law and human or ecclesiastical law.

St. Robert Bellarmine made it completely clear that it is divine law that no manifest heretic can hold an office in the Church. He wrote:

"those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms."

There are two divine laws here…(1) that manifest heretics are not members of the Church, and (2) that non-members cannot possess ordinary jurisdiction.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[thecoach]

You can put me in any camp you like. The truth is sedevacanists and SSPX supporters are in error and not in communion with God’s Church.

One of my favorite Bishops (an auxiliary at the time) Bishop David Foley once told me “there are no liberals or conservatives- there are Catholics and non-Catholics.”

By the way I think Pope Michael was elected via a telephone conclave! I think there is another nut case in South America or somewhere.

I know of one in Washington, I tink or something, Pope Pius xiii. Their website is a hoot.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dear Feanor,

Thou hast said it. And for those who have eyes to see what you wrote…I rest my case.

Yours,

Gorman

Yes, but that is not remotely typical of the Catholics posting here who disagree very strongly with you or Therecanonlybe1.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dear Gorman,

I am pragmatic in my faith- to be honest I don’t really know or think much about documents written by Popes before I was born. I mean I know Pius XII wasn’t the absolute zenith of the papacy. I choose to listen to the comments of the Great John Paul II and my current Pope who appear to have an even-handed and sensible approach.

Yet non-Christians are certainly lacking a sound understanding of God’s love and His role in our lives I do feel that Christ died also for non-Christians and I know that the Church NOW makes no statement of who is damned.

Feanor:

As Catholics, we must embrace the whole of our tradition, the whole of Scripture, the whole of the magisterium, going back to the first pope (and all the coucils). As much as I reverence and love Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, they are only the 265th and 266th of their line. What the others taught is of no small consequence.