M
maria_rose
Guest
What’s are sedevacantists and what is their problem with Rome?
- Status
C
catholicmessage
Guest
A sedevacantist believes that the chair of Peter is empty. They believe that there is no valid pope currently, and that Pope Benedict XVI is an anti-pope.
Many of them believe that there has not been a valid pope since before Vatican II.
Many of them believe that there has not been a valid pope since before Vatican II.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Just to add a few additional details for clarity. The reason the Sedevacantists believe there is not Pope is because they believe the last several Popes were heretics; and many theologians have taught that a heretical Pope would cease being the Pope.
They think the last few Popes were heretics and as such were not real Popes. I don’t think they question the conclaves, or deny that the last Popes were elected; they just believe they were heretics and thus not real Popes.
M
maria_rose
Guest
Thanks for your answers. My next question is : why do they believe the last few popes are heretics? What is their reasoning?
Do they completely reject Vatican II?
G
geezerbob
Guest
Short answer: Pride. They consider themselves to be more Catholic than the pope.Thanks for your answers. My next question is : why do they believe the last few popes are heretics? What is their reasoning?
Do they completely reject Vatican II?
C
Cor_Jesu
Guest
Thanks for your valuable (name removed by moderator)ut, Geezer!They don’t consider the Vatican II popes to be valid popes OR Catholic; so yes, they literally think they are more Catholic than the Pope. Sometimes I don’t blame them.
Seriously though, there are different strands of sedevacantism. Some of them believe that the post-conciliar popes–Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and now Benedict XVI, are legally valid Popes, but are not morally Popes because they are heretics. So, they say, if Benedict XVI renounced his heresy, he would automatically be a pope. Other sedevacantists say that the conclaves were not valid to begin with, so none of these men could be considered valid popes in any way. Some accept John XXIII as pope, others don’t. Many also hold to the “Siri thesis” which holds that Cardinal Siri was elected in two papal conclaves (I’m not sure which) but was prevented from being Pope by some conspiracy, and that he was actually the true Pope until he died. Although there is evidence that Cardinal Siri WAS elected to be pope, technically the Cardinals electing someone in the conclave does not itself make someone the Pope, but their recognition as Pope by the people of the diocese of Rome, and in this case Siri would not have been Pope even if he had been elected initially. It’s all very complicated!
(Whether or not any of these men–the post-conciliar popes–are heretics is itself disputed, and once can believe they are heretics and still valid Popes; the issue for sedevacantists is, can one be a heretic and still be a valid Pope? The sedevacantists so NO, other traditionalists say yes. And even then, there are arguments that they held heretical views but that does not make them heretics, technically).
C
Cor_Jesu
Guest
Yes, one thing they all have in common is that they all COMPLETELY reject Vatican II.Thanks for your answers. My next question is : why do they believe the last few popes are heretics? What is their reasoning?
Do they completely reject Vatican II?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
In actual fact, the man elected becomes Supreme Pontiff, with the fullness of authority over the whole of the Church, the instant he accepts election.
C
childofmary1143
Guest
I would like to know what evidence ANYONE could have about that as **ALL CARDINALS **swear an oath not to reveal what goes on.
T
TNT
Guest
BUT, not without exception, and there lies the rub…
From a Pope named Paul IV…1559 (one o those infallible popes’ ex-cathedra Issues):
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV
- **In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] **that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff,
prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
R
rlg94086
Guest
Does the section I enlarged and italicized have any bearing on your assessment?BUT, not without exception, and there lies the rub…
From a Pope named Paul IV…1559 (one o those infallible popes’ ex-cathedra Issues):
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
- **In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] **that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff,
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
What popes have been heretics, thus rendering them invalid?BUT, not without exception, and there lies the rub…
From a Pope named Paul IV…1559 (one o those infallible popes’ ex-cathedra Issues):
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
- **In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] **that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff,
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
T
TNT
Guest
I don’t force my conclusions on anyone, least of all you.
It ain’t Ecumenical.
However, as already posted elsewhere, a sede holds against the last 5 popes as heretical in word & deed.
P
pnewton
Guest
Ah, there is the rub. Every man for himself in determing this, I reckon. They were occult heretics and only the wisest among us know that they were really no longer truly Catholic. This is the catch-22 of sedevacantism. At least Protestants have an objective Bible that they allow each believer to interpret for themselves.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Well, let’s pretend that we KNOW all of the last five were valid popes (it won’t be a stretch for me, so it won’t even be a matter of humoring me): they were popes from the moment they accepted election, according to Catholic teaching and practice (which was the only point I was trying to make).
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Yes, I know, I shall have to go and get fitted for my own miter. I promise not to anathematize YOU if you promise not to anathematize ME.
T
TNT
Guest
Again:
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV
We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted…
So, the catch 22 is really:
If the Teaching of the Faithful via the Perennial Magisterium is USELESS in determining the most fundamental points as heresy, then there is no value in learning the Faith, is there.
According to your proposal, the Faithful are to be a swirl of mindless zombies being able to detect absolutely nothing regarding their Faith as it ever would pertain to heresy.
If I cannot reasonably detect heresy, then you are no better able to reasonably detect orthodoxy.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, but this guy might: (the logical outcome of sedevacantism through occult heresy as interpreted by each believer)
popemichael.homestead.com/
Then there is this guy from papal productions:
michaelpope.co.uk/
- Status