Sedevacantist... serious or without any merit?

[icxc_nika]

I should say so. I don’t see how one can acknowledge the validity of a pope and then dispute the validity of the rite he promulgates.
Maria

This is one of the reasons that I started this thread.

I just don’t get it.

At least at Vat I, there were many many objectors to the entire notion of Papal infalibility, yet the RCC withstood the detractors.

But the SV look at Vat II with no authority.

It doesn’t make sense. Gorman, perhaps you can explain this to me…
How is it that no person in a position of authority back at Vat II objected to the transitions that were taking place ?
How can you have dozens of cardinals, and many more bishops and archbishops present, and not a single authoritative person objects to the matters at hand?

SV not only claim that the current pope’s teachings are in error, but the entire mass is worng as well.

Why is it that no one objected at the time?

For as many valid points that Gorman makes, this singular point must be explained to me.

 

[icxc_nika]

Yes, and I was stunned when ThereCanBeOnly1 said, in post #49 on the Mystery of Faith thread, that the Eastern rites don’t have valid formulae of consecration because their formulae don’t conform to that outlined in St. Pius V’s De Defectibus.

Maria

Not to derail my own thread… however this post just makes me laugh.
Of the Eastern Catholic rites that still have some semblance of antiquity and orthodoxy…how is it possible that anyone in the RCC can judge the validity of the oldest form of Eucharistic services?
The Mass has changed so many times, it’s not worth counting ( I’m sure that most of you would disagree, including Gorman, who thinks that it only changed significantly 50 years ago ) however to have a Catholic St. make this proclamation is simply nothing short of wholly imbecilic.
I’ll start a thread in the Eastern forum as to not take away from this thread.

 

[pnewton]

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

There in is the rub with sedevacantism. Proven to whom? Proven by whom? Do we all make up our own mind on what constitutes proof of heresy in the same way every Protestant interprets the Bible for themselves? Every Catholic is supposed to be knowledgable in every writing of Saints, Popes and Councils, interpret it all and come away with the synthesis of whether a pope is true or not?

This is the absurdity of sedevacantism. Professing to be wise, they become fools. In trying to cling to ecclesial authority that ceased with death, they make themselves their own magesterium.

 

[Feanor]

I still want to know if gorman believes in any part of the theory of evolution- or perhaps the world is 6000 years old and the Sun ordits the Earth.

 

[MTD]

How does this square with any of the dozens of anti-popes?
How is this really that different?

It is different. Whenever there was an anti-pope, there was also a true pope existing at the same time. That was because the Church was fulfilling its duty to perpetuate the Petrine succession; she knew that she couldn’t prevail without the rock of Peter and so was solicitous to secure that succession. I don’t understand why the sedevacantists aren’t appointing a new pope; they’re just sitting there, waiting. In practice, it’s heresy.

Who can really claim to be the proper authorities?

No one. And that’s why Bellarmine holds the opinion that a pope cannot become a heretic.

Not to derail my own thread… however this post just makes me laugh.
Of the Eastern Catholic rites that still have some semblance of antiquity and orthodoxy…how is it possible that anyone in the RCC can judge the validity of the oldest form of Eucharistic services?
The Mass has changed so many times, it’s not worth counting ( I’m sure that most of you would disagree, including Gorman, who thinks that it only changed significantly 50 years ago ) however to have a Catholic St. make this proclamation is simply nothing short of wholly imbecilic.
I’ll start a thread in the Eastern forum as to not take away from this thread.

No, I think you misunderstood this. I was pointing out that just as many Catholics today misinterpret the pope’s words concerning EENS, many sedevacantists and their sympathizers misinterpret previous popes’ words. I pointed out the Eastern rite incident with ThereCanBeOnly1 because he thought St. Pius V’s De Defectibus said that the Eastern rites have invalid formulae of consecration when in fact he said the opposite in Quo Primum.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

For as many valid points that Gorman makes, this singular point must be explained to me.

Dear icxc nika,

This is a Catholic forum. You are not a Catholic by admission. It is for you to explain how the Orthodox possess the four marks of the Church.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[icxc_nika]

Dear icxc nika,

This is a Catholic forum. You are not a Catholic by admission. It is for you to explain how the Orthodox possess the four marks of the Church.

Yours,

Gorman

Answering the question with a question.
Please start by addressing my point first.

The reason I started this thread is to learn more about the SV arguments and points of view.

The purpose is not to discuss the differnces btw the RCC and the Ortho. church, there are far better forums for those discussions.

So please explain so that I might learn.

 

[litllulu]

I am so confused! What is sedevectacist? Who are these people, and what does that mean to us Roman Catholics. I saw something on the AAA forum about these people. As I understand, these are people who do not accept the authority of the pope? And they are incorrect on their assumptions according to the apologists here?

 

[MTD]

I am so confused! What is sedevectacist? Who are these people, and what does that mean to us Roman Catholics. I saw something on the AAA forum about these people. As I understand, these are people who do not accept the authority of the pope? And they are incorrect on their assumptions according to the apologists here?

Well, it’s not so much that they don’t accept the authority of the pope as that they don’t believe the current pope is a valid pope. The term sedevacantist comes from sede vacante, which is Latin for “empty seat.” In other words, sedevacantists believe that the papal seat is empty–that there is no pope right now.

Sedevacantism is incorrect according to me. It is also incorrect according to the Catholic apologists who run this forum. However, sedevacantists are allowed on these forums and are permitted to discuss sedevacantism on the Traditional Catholicism forum. So that’s what we’re doing here.

Maria

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave:

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

According to Divine Law, a heretic after sufficient admonishment is to be avoided. Canon law prescribes in more detail how this precept of Divine law is to be accomplished.

Yet you and I both know that Ecclesiastical Law can never be harmful or dangerous to the faith (cf. Pius VI, *Auctorem Fidei, *78), and as such can never be contrary to Divine Law. Thus, canon law prescribes how we are to determine the fact of heresy, which necessarily requires pertinacity to be criminal. The prescribed process for determining pertinacity as described by canon law is indeed in conformity with Divine Law.

There is no dichotomy between 1917 canon law and Divine law, right? They go together in order to determine if one is culpable for the crime of heresy. The manner in which the 1917 canon law does so ought to be followed to determine whether a cardinal governed by the law is indeed deemed a heretic. To insist otherwise is to suggest canon law is contrary to Divine law, which it cannot be.

Thus, it remains true to Divine law that, 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).

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?

If Roncalli was suspectus de haeresi, then he retains his membership in the Church, and his office.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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:

Yours,

Gorman

This was not meant as an argument against those who actually hold the position - it was part of an attempt to build toward a conclusion. In other words, “what are possible ways in which this might be meant? Well, here’s one we can all agree is wrong…”

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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.

I think Dave’s comments lend further clarity by introducing the distinction between a heretic becoming pope and a pope becoming a heretic. My comments have been mainly directed at the latter. However, my insistence on the manifest heresy of an individual also not being subject merely to personal interpretation would aim at candidates as well, which I think Dave handles well in pointing to guidelines to determine this.

 

[MTD]

This post is meant as a correction to my post #92. Gorman was kind enough, God bless him, to privately point out a couple errors I made in that post.

I said:

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.

The first error was rather unintentional. I implied that Bellarmine holds that a pertinacious heretic is not pope only if proven pertinacious by the proper authorities; in reality, however, Bellarmine says a pertinacious heretic is not pope regardless of whether or not he is recognized as a pertinacious heretic.

The second error I really have no excuse for. I said it’s theological opinion that a formal heretic is by nature outside the Church and thus can have no jursidiction within the Church whereas it’s actually theologically certain. What’s theological opinion (and this is where I got confused) is that a heretic-pope loses jurisdiction.

So my post should read:

“If he is proven a pertinacious heretic by the proper authorities, he would not then be pope because a formal heretic, as Bellarmine shows, 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. However, I will point out that while the reasoning that a heretic can have no jurisdiction in the Church is theologically certain, it is nevertheless only theological opinion that a heretic-pope has no jurisdiction. Regardless, that theological opinion is most weighty and is supported by more theologians than the opposite opinion.”

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Answering the question with a question.

Dear nika:

What I posted was a series of statements. I have no questions for you.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[litllulu]

Well, it’s not so much that they don’t accept the authority of the pope as that they don’t believe the current pope is a valid pope. The term sedevacantist comes from sede vacante, which is Latin for “empty seat.” In other words, sedevacantists believe that the papal seat is empty–that there is no pope right now.

Sedevacantism is incorrect according to me. It is also incorrect according to the Catholic apologists who run this forum. However, sedevacantists are allowed on these forums and are permitted to discuss sedevacantism on the Traditional Catholicism forum. So that’s what we’re doing here.

Maria

Pardon my ignorance, but what does being in schism with the church have to do with “Traditional Catholicism?” I consider myself to be a very traditional catholic. I don’t want people to associate “Traditional Catholicism” with “sedevacantist”. What are the rest of us who don’t beleive in this theology? Are supposed to be called “Nontraditional Catholics?” I always attributed that with liberal dissenters.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

It depends on what you mean by respect and esteem; it also depends on what the respect and esteem is directed to.

Maria

Respect of the Islamic Faith and High Esteem for Muslim Belief. Indebted to the Qur’an. I do not think it is any clearer than that. Please try not to elude the question as it is crystal clear.

 

[pnewton]

Pardon my ignorance, but what does being in schism with the church have to do with “Traditional Catholicism?”

It is really a whole different issue. Yet when this forum was opened, sedevacanitism was allowed free reign in it. “Why” can only be answered by those in charge. (but I bet there is a conspiracy somewhere.)

 

[litllulu]

It is really a whole different issue. Yet when this forum was opened, sedevacanitism was allowed free reign in it. “Why” can only be answered by those in charge. (but I bet there is a conspiracy somewhere.)

Maybe I misuderstood the point of the previous poster. I assumed that he meant the “Traditional Catholicism forum” was produced for the Sedevacantists.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

There in is the rub with sedevacantism. Proven to whom? Proven by whom? Do we all make up our own mind on what constitutes proof of heresy in the same way every Protestant interprets the Bible for themselves? Every Catholic is supposed to be knowledgable in every writing of Saints, Popes and Councils, interpret it all and come away with the synthesis of whether a pope is true or not?

This is the absurdity of sedevacantism. Professing to be wise, they become fools. In trying to cling to ecclesial authority that ceased with death, they make themselves their own magesterium.

Your dilemma is easy for me to explain to you. Let me attempt to clarify this trivial subject for you. If you deny the divinity of Christ+ and the Holy Trinity+, especially as a pontiff, that is anti-Christian, is it not? What is the point of being Christian? I am not talking about absurdity but of PURE LOGIC. This is the Catholic Faith. Let me ask you another simple question, if the pope denies Christ+ as divine and part of the Holy Trinity+, should all also deny it?

 

[MTD]

Pardon my ignorance, but what does being in schism with the church have to do with “Traditional Catholicism?”

Well, many traditionalists are also sedevacantist.

I consider myself to be a very traditional catholic. I don’t want people to associate “Traditional Catholicism” with “sedevacantist”.

Unfortunately, when you say that you are a traditionalist, most non-traditionalists will immediately wonder if you are also a sedevacantist.

What are the rest of us who don’t beleive in this theology? Are supposed to be called “Nontraditional Catholics?” I always attributed that with liberal dissenters.

There are some on this forum who disagree with my distinction in terminology, but this is how I think of it. Those who are attached to the TLM are traditionalists. Within the traditionalist group there are three main groups: those who are fully in union with Pope Benedict XVI (these are the real traditionalists, IMHO), those who recognize his validity but not his authority (SSPX and sympathizers, sometimes called radical traditionalists or ultra-traditionalists), and those who do not recognize his validity (sedevacantists). Non-traditionalists are those who are not attached to the TLM. IMHO, it is possible to be traditional and yet not a traditionalist. The reason is because the term traditional refers to one who adheres to one or more traditions whereas the term traditionalist refers to one who adheres to a particular tradition, the Traditional Latin Mass. I too consider myself traditional, but not a traditionalist since I don’t exclusively attend the TLM.

Maria