What's a sedevacantist?

[JKirkLVNV]

Ya know, this is pretty shallow.
It would be the same as me telling you that YOU are represented by Cd. Kasper.​

Neither one holds water & is just a distraction from the action which may be your purpose.

He’s not talking about you, though, TNT. He’s talking about sedevacantists.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Then finish the sentence. If he is found by whom to have deviated from the faith? A conclave of cardinals did not find any of the last popes to have deviated from the faith. Found by whom?

If I cannot reasonably detect heresy, then you are no better able to reasonably detect orthodoxy.

I am totally capable of it. It is those who are sedevacantism who look for heresy where none exists and commit slander in their arrogance and desire for independence.

Ya know, this is pretty shallow.

The second one was no only shallow but funny. The first was, as I said, the logical outcome of the sedevacantist postition.

 

[TNT]

If I cannot reasonably detect heresy, then you are no better able to reasonably detect orthodoxy

.
Quote PNEWTON:
I am totally capable of it. It is those who are sedevacantism who look for heresy where none exists and commit slander in their arrogance and desire for independence.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. My My.
You can detect a Yes, but no one can detect a No.
You can detect on, but no one can detect off.
You can detect forward, but no one can detect reverse.
You can detect up, but no one can detect down.
You can detect in, but no one can detect out.

Of course, the truth is my point:
IF you are “totally capable of it.” Then So am I or others even more astute, able to detect heresy in the very same fashion & to the same degree.

BTW:
" desire for independence" is pure nonsense with no basis even in fiction.
And, name calling don’t cut it either.
Finally,
I have NEVER slandered anyone on this Forum.
So, unless you can find otherwise, I’m rebuking your accusation publicly as a SLANDER.
Guilty of what you accuse others.​

All my examples or offerings have been authentic quotes, given as much in context as any adversary needs.

 

[pnewton]

.
Quote PNEWTON:
I am totally capable of it. It is those who are sedevacantism who look for heresy where none exists and commit slander in their arrogance and desire for independence.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. My My.
You can detect a Yes, but no one can detect a No.
You can detect on, but no one can detect off.
You can detect forward, but no one can detect reverse.
You can detect up, but no one can detect down.
You can detect in, but no one can detect out.

Of course, the truth is my point:
IF you are “totally capable of it.” Then So am I able to detect heresy in the very same fashion & to the same degree.

Getting a little tempermental, are we. Thus is the path when we let each believer choose their own way. I have no doubt that we both could detect heresy if we ever had a pope who, say, denied the Trinity, the deity or humanity of Christ, etc. You can say I am arrogant, but I never thought I knew more than the whole conclave of Cardinals. So, you see, I am neither the pot, the kettle or self-appointed pope.

I am also not a sedevacantist, but I will stand against those who slander my Holy Father by calling him a heretic.

 

[TNT]

Getting a little tempermental, are we.

No, you SLANDERED me by including me in your “commit slander” post.
One is by definition tempermental when they go off calling others unsupported names.

Thus is the path when we let each believer choose their own way. I have no doubt that we both could detect heresy if we ever had a pope who, say, denied the Trinity, the deity or humanity of Christ, etc.
That’s it?? In the entirety? They can only do 2 acts that you could detect?
Heretics are notorious for disguising their heresy. They just don’t come out one day and blather a fundamental denial.

You can say I am arrogant, but I never thought I knew more than the whole conclave of Cardinals.
Ah,
Cd Kasper is a cardinal. He’s fully orthodox?
Weren’t you the one who “had no idea what he meant” when it was clear as the full daylight what he said?

So, you see, I am neither the pot, the kettle…
Of course you are the pot calling name at the kettle.

or self-appointed pope.
Another slander remark. Just can’t be civil.

I am also not a sedevacantist, but I will stand against those who slander my Holy Father by calling him a heretic.
Well then, Do you hold any Bp. or Cd. heretical, any at all? Not a single one?
Can’t detect any heresy in what any of them preach?
They’re each & every one orthodox?

 

[TNT]

**Re:
** Weren’t you the one who “had no idea what he meant” when it was clear as the full daylight what he said?​

Nope, it was itsjustdave1988

 

[pnewton]

No, you SLANDERED me by including me in your “commit slander” post.

I wasn’t talking about you, but sedevacantist, as I clearly stated. After all, sedevacantism is the topic of this thread not TNT. Also, I do know there is more than two things one can be heretical in. That is why I inserted the word “say” as in, “for example”. If one can not even read these threads accurately, how can we be expected to wade through libraries of Church documents better than the conclaves that elected our popes?

 

[pnewton]

No, you SLANDERED me by including me in your “commit slander” post.

I wasn’t talking about you, but sedevacantist, as I clearly stated. After all, sedevacantism is the topic of this thread not TNT. Also, I do know there is more than two things one can be heretical in. That is why I inserted the word “say” as in, “for example”. If one can not even read these threads accurately, how can we be expected to wade through libraries of Church documents better than the conclaves that elected our popes?

The rest of your post I will decline to respond to as being off topic.

 

[pnewton]

No, you SLANDERED me by including me in your “commit slander” post.

I wasn’t talking about you, but sedevacantist, as I clearly stated. After all, sedevacantism is the topic of this thread not TNT. Also, I do know there is more than two things one can be heretical in. That is why I inserted the word “say” as in, “for example”. If one can not even read these threads accurately, how can we be expected to wade through libraries of Church documents better than the conclaves that elected our popes?

The rest of your post I will decline to respond to as being off topic.

 

[pnewton]

No, you SLANDERED me by including me in your “commit slander” post.

I wasn’t talking about you, but sedevacantist, as I clearly stated. After all, sedevacantism is the topic of this thread not TNT. Also, I do know there is more than two things one can be heretical in. That is why I inserted the word “say” as in, “for example”. If one can not even read these threads accurately, how can we be expected to wade through libraries of Church documents better than the conclaves that elected our popes?

The rest of your post I will decline to respond to as being off topic.

 

[TNT]

**Re:
** Weren’t you the one who “had no idea what he meant” when it was clear as the full daylight what he said?​

Nope, it was itsjustdave1988

 

[TNT]

I do know there is more than two things one can be heretical in

Good. Then you could in fact detect a whole variety of heretical propositions or advocacies.
Well, then there is no reason NOT to think that a devout & studied sedevacantist could likewise detect on a similar variety as well.
So, if it was one of those many that you could detect, would it make any difference WHO it was making the heretical proposal? Of course not. The proposal stands heretical no matter the station of the person making it.
The same heretical proposal from a priest, laity, or even a pope or Cd. would be equally detectable.​

The next step then would be to locate an heretical proposal and see if you can detect it as orthodoxy or heretical, regardless of who proposed it.

to be continued…

 

[TLMassAcolyte]

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.

This is what is called Sedeprivationism, they believe that there is no sede vacante because the men fill the role of potential popes, and if they renounce their errors and return to Catholicism they will attain the fulness of the papacy. I think the SSPV or at least some of it’s priests are Sedeprivationists.

: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!

I could never understand this theory dosn’t the man not become pope until he accepts? It is wrong of these people to associate Cardinal Siri with this theory.He died in full communion with the Church. Didn’t the leader of the Institute of Christ the King, Monsignor Wach receive his formation from Cardinal Siri, and he is one of the most faithful men in the traditional movement to the Holy Father.

 

[DL82]

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

1. **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:

(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;
(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;

is the blue, eye-popping, tongue-hanging-out smiley in the original document of 1559? I might start reading more Church history if they used smileys to make it interesting. Is that what’s meant by an illuminated manuscript?

In all seriousness though, isn’t this kind of document more about rooting out historical heresies once the Church has been able to establish them by general consensus through the Holy Spirit moving in the whole body of believers and through reasoned argument and by searching the Scriptures, rather than about one group of people deciding they don’t think the Pope made the right choice and going off on their own? I’m sure Paul IV didn’t intend that to happen when he wrote this document, because he wrote it to the Church, the whole Church and its’ hierarchy, not to any old rabble of dissenters, right?

 

[pnewton]

Well, then there is no reason NOT to think that a devout & studied sedevacantist could likewise detect on a similar variety as well.

Yes. There is a reason. It is simple enough that we all can understand the danger.

In Protestant churches, devout and studied theologians will come up with mutually contradictory doctrines. Their devotion or intellegence is not in question, yet one will believe in baptismal regeneration, one will deny it; one will believe salvation can be lost, the next deny it, etc. Obviously, in at one case, a devout and learned Bible scholar is dead wrong.

Now multipy the above scenario by thousands of volumes which should be perused.Yes, I have reason to doubt whether a devout and studied sedevacantist should be making such claims.

One must not reject Church authority, even if one accepts the Bible (Protestant). One must not reject Church authority, even if one accepts the Bible and Tradition (sedevacantist).

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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?

Because the post Vatican II Popes have all taught things that were officially condemned as errors by previous Popes. One example is religious liberty. Religious liberty was condemned many times by the Church, yet the last several Popes have all taught it and promoted it.

Just a quick explanation of why religious libert was condemned: Our rights, or “liberties” flow from, and are connected with, our duties, while our duties correspond to the Rights of God.

Since our rights come from God, man can never have a right to violate what God commands.

Now, false religions are a violation of the first commandment (see any Catechism). Therefore claiming that a person has a right to practice a false religion means that God, who has forbidden violations of the first commandment, has also given man a “right” to do so. That is a contradiction.

Just one more quick point: Some people think that when the Church condemns religious liberty, that it means all people should be forced to convert to the Catholic Church. That is not what the Church teaches. It teaches that man has no right to belong to a false religion, but that it is often necessary for the state to tolerate false religioun in order to prevent a greater evil.

The principle of toleration, by which the Church or the State merely tolerates an evil is quite different than claiming that people have a right to commit the evil.

For more information on this subject, read Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Libertas, which is available online. In that encyclical, the Pope condemned the false “modern liberties” and explained very clearly the Catholic position. It is an excellent read, and very necessary for us living in this day of liberalism.

Here is a link to Libertas: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

is the blue, eye-popping, tongue-hanging-out smiley - - in the original document of 1559?

I think it is in the Latin original.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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…

This apostolic constitution was not binding during Pius XII papacy. Instead, the Apostolic Constitution of Pius XII called Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (December 8, 1945), was in force.

It states, “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” (VAS 34). Which means that during the election, any ecclesiastical impediment would be suspended so that they may vote in the papal election, or be elected pope.

That you think the apostolic constitution of Paul IV was an ex cathedra papal act which defined electoral norms as though it was a de fide dogma is just bizzare.

 

[MTD]

Just a minute here, Dave. I think you might be misunderstanding Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

I’ll start by stating the obvious. Heretics belong in two classes: occult and manifest. An occult heretic is one whose wrong belief and pertinacious will are secret/unknown. A manifest heretic is one whose wrong belief and pertinacious will are public/known.

Secondly, let’s take a look at a couple quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.:

“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.”

“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.”

Third, here are a couple quotes from the CE:

" The sentence on the obstinate heretic is invariably excommunication. He is separated from the company of the faithful, delivered up ‘to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Corinthians 5:5)."

“In principle, therefore, excommunication entails the loss of jurisdiction both in foro externo and in foro interno and renders null all acts accomplished without the necessary jurisdiction. However, for the general good of society, the Church maintains jurisdiction, despite occult excommunication, and supplies it for acts performed by the tolerati. But as the vitandi are known to be such, this merciful remedy cannot be applied to them except in certain cases of extreme necessity, when jurisdiction is said to be “supplied” by the Church.”

And this brings me to the following observations outlined in my next post…

Maria*

 

[MTD]

(…continued from my last post)

An occult heretic, though internally separated from the Church by reason of his pertinacious wrong belief, is still a member of the Church because his heresy is secret and thus he is externally united with the Church. As a true heretic, he incurs latae sententiae excommunication; however, although one of the effects of excommunication is loss of jurisdiction, an occult heretic does not lose jurisdiction because the Church supplies necessary jurisdiction in the case of occult excommunication. Therefore, because of external/public union with the Church, an occult heretic retains jurisdiction.

A manifest heretic is not only internally separated from the Church by reason of his pertinacious wrong belief but also externally separated by public manifestation of his wrong belief and pertinacious will; therefore he is not a member of the Church in any way. He also incurs latae sententiae excommunication; however, although one of the effects of excommunication is loss of jurisdiction, the manifest heretic does not lose jurisdiction primarily through excommunication, which is by ecclesiastical law, but through non-membership in the Church caused by manifest wrong belief and pertinacious will, which is by Divine law. Thus a manifest heretic loses jurisdiction by both Divine and ecclesiastical law.

It is the wrong belief and pertinacious will themselves which cause the internal separation from the Church; if made manifest/externalized, they also cause external separation. Thus, in the case of manifest heretics, it is the wrong belief and pertinacious will, having been made manifest, which cause loss of membership in the Church, which non-membership in turn causes loss of jurisdiction.

You are saying excommunication is not an impediment to active and passive participation in the conclave. You are correct in that; the Church, being the maker and enforcer of her own laws, has the right to make exceptions to those laws. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty; thus the Church has the authority to waive that penalty in the case of cardinals participating in the conclave.

However, the Church has no power to make exceptions to Divine law. Thus the Church is powerless to make an exception to the Divine law that manifest heretics are cut off from the Church. Therefore a cardinal who is an occult heretic and only suffering from excommunication by the Church has the ability to actively and passively participate in the conclave; he can validly become pope because he is still externally united to the Church and because the excommunication itself is waived. But a cardinal who is a manifest heretic cannot participate because he is laboring not only under the penalty of excommunication by ecclesiastical law but also under being cut off from the Church by Divine law. And the Church has no power to dispense such a cardinal from that Divine law; thus a manifest heretic cannot validly become pope because he is a non-member of the Church according to Divine law.

And this is what I think you may be failing to take into account. It is not the excommunication that prevents manifest heretics from being pope; it is the non-membership in the Church under Divine law which prevents them from being valid matter for the papacy.

Maria