What's a sedevacantist?

[rescath]

There are several flavors of sedevacantism.

Implied in all of them is the following syllogism:

Major: Popes cannot teach error.
Minor: John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II (name your post-Conciliar pope – some sedevacantists go back to Pius X, some exclude John XXIII from the list, but the actual list of names accidental to the logical form of the argument)
Conclusion: Therefore, John XXIII, Paul VI (same named in minor above) cannot have been true popes.

Sedevacantists – like many of the conservative so-called “neo Catholics” – hold to an absolutist position on the major, with the former maintaining a modus tollens form of the syllogism, the latter taking a modus ponens angle. They believe that nearly every utterance beyond statements of a pope as a private theologian are guaranteed infallible by the Holy Spirit.

Some sedevacantists focus on the personal heresy of the persons holding the See of St. Peter, and others focus on the magisterial argument I outlined above; yet even the former have the magisterial argument at least implied in their feeling the need to find a reason why the popes cannot have been legitimate.

Following the theologian Father Guerard DeLauriers, many sedevacantists hold to a distionction between someone being formally the pope and someone being materially a pope – the formaliter vs. materialiter group, the chief practical consequence of this line of thinking being that this group – unlike some sedevacantists – would never believe that the remaining true Catholics could have their own conclave to elect a true pope.

 

[rescath]

Maria, not all theologians held to the theory of papa haereticus ipso facto depositus. There was the competing papa haereticus deponendus.

Problem with papa haereticus ipso facto depositus is the establishement of the factum of heresy to a sufficient degree as to establish the dogmatic fact of a non-papacy. In other words, the identity of a pope is a dogmatic fact which must be founded upon the certainty of faith, and that certainty of faith cannot rest upon the opinions of even many people but only upon the authority of the Universal Church.

On the other hand one must be clear that with the papa haereticus deponendus school the deposition in question is declaratory and does not EFFECT deposition.

Consequently, I believe the best opinion to be papa haereticus formaliter ipso facto depositus, materialiter auctoritate Ecclesiastica deponendus.

 

[gorman64]

rescath:

There are several flavors of sedevacantism.

Implied in all of them is the following syllogism:

Major: Popes cannot teach error.
Minor: John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II (name your post-Conciliar pope – some sedevacantists go back to Pius X, some exclude John XXIII from the list, but the actual list of names accidental to the logical form of the argument)
Conclusion: Therefore, John XXIII, Paul VI (same named in minor above) cannot have been true popes.

Dear rescath:

1. Who thinks Pius X was a heretic?
2. Explain for us then, what kind of errors popes can teach. Please support your answer with some approved sources.

Sedevacantists – like many of the conservative so-called “neo Catholics” – hold to an absolutist position on the major, with the former maintaining a modus tollens form of the syllogism, the latter taking a modus ponens angle. They believe that nearly every utterance beyond statements of a pope as a private theologian are guaranteed infallible by the Holy Spirit.

Well, this is simply not true. We hold the position of the Church.

Do you deny the indefectibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Church in Her Ordinary Magisterium?

If you believe that only ex cathedra pronouncements need be believed…that is heretical. Pius IX makes this very clear in Tuas Libenter.

And here is Pope Pius IX, the great anti-liberal, adding to this defense of the ordinary magisterium:

“But when we treat of **that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience **so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.” (From “Tuas libenter”).

Please go and look up some serious theology books from before Vatican II and come back and tell us what you find. Because the infallibility of the Church in her disciplinary provisions is certainly one of those “theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.”

continued…

 

[gorman64]

Cardinal Manning, one of the key fathers at the Council in 1870, explains how misguided this interpretation is:

“In a word, the whole magisterium or doctrinal authority of the Pontiff as the supreme Doctor of all Christians, is included in this definition of his infallibility. And also all legislative or judicial acts, so far as they are inseparably connected with his doctrinal authority; as for instance, all judgments, sentences, and decisions, which contain the motives of such acts as derived from faith and morals. Under this will come the laws of discipline, canonization of the saints, approbation of Religious Orders, of devotions, and the like; all of which intrinsically contain the truths and principles of faith, morals and piety. The definition, then, does not limit the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority.” (From, “The Vatican Council and its Definitions”).

"This spirit began in Germany. It says: ‘I believe everything which the Church has defined. I believe all dogmas; everything which has been defined by a General Council.’ This sounds a large and generous profession of faith; but they forget that whatsoever was revealed on the Day of Pentecost to the Apostles, and by the Apostles preached to the nations of the world, and has descended in the full stream of universal belief and constant tradition, though it has never been defined, is still matter of Divine faith. Thus there are truths of faith which have never been defined because they have never been contradicted. They are not defined because they have not been denied. The definition of the truth is the fortification of the Church against the assaults of unbelief. Some of the greatest truths of revelation are to this day undefined. The infallibility of the Church has never been defined. The infallibility of the Head of the Church was only defined the other day. But the infallibility of the Church, for which every Catholic would lay down his life, has never been defined until now; the infallibility of the Church is at this moment where the infallibility of the Pope was this time last year; an undefined point of Christian revelation, believed by the Christian world, but not yet put in the form of a definition. When, therefore, men said they would only believe dogmas, and definitions by General Councils, they implied, without knowing it, that they would not believe in the infallibility of the Church. (From, “Four Great Evils of the Day”.)

Yours,

Gorman

 

[MTD]

Maria, not all theologians held to the theory of papa haereticus ipso facto depositus. There was the competing papa haereticus deponendus.

Yes, I am aware of that. My posts were directed at the misinterpretation of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that says even a manifest heretic can become pope. Theologians are divided on whether a pope-become-heretic loses jurisdiction, but I don’t believe they are divided on whether a manifest heretic is valid matter for the papacy. In other words, I believe they all hold it is impossible for a manifest heretic to become pope.

Maria

 

[rescath]

Yes, I am aware of that. My posts were directed at the misinterpretation of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that says even a manifest heretic can become pope. Theologians are divided on whether a pope-become-heretic loses jurisdiction, but I don’t believe they are divided on whether a manifest heretic is valid matter for the papacy. In other words, I believe they all hold it is impossible for a manifest heretic to become pope.

Maria

Your’e right, Maria. I believe that (if I recall the name) Cum ex apostolatus made that explicitly clear.

I think that where I launched off into my point was with the thought that there might be some room for interpretating the term “manifest”. How does “pertinacity” for example, necessary for formal heresy, become “manifest”? That’s a bit unclear to me.

 

[rescath]

Hi, gorman64,

I’ll respond to you when I am able. Perhaps it’s not worth it. You’re probably not going to be convinced by anything I have to say, and I have no personal axe to grind. It’s getting late (by my standards) and I’m getting sleepy.

I’m posting as a former sedevacantist myself. Try not to get too bent out of shape; please don’t let sedevacantism disturb your peace of soul. I know whereof I speak, since I see my former self in the tone of some of your words.

Peace, gorman64, and God bless you.

 

[MTD]

I think that where I launched off into my point was with the thought that there might be some room for interpretating the term “manifest”. How does “pertinacity” for example, necessary for formal heresy, become “manifest”? That’s a bit unclear to me.

Well, I’m not perfectly clear on that either. One instance in which I think it cannot be denied that a person is pertinacious is when he directly tells us he knows what he believes is contrary to de fide doctrine. This a scenario I’ve used before to another forum member which shows pertinacity in heresy can be known by external indicators:

If a Catholic comes up to you and says that he doesn’t believe the Blessed Mother was assumed into heaven, would you be so rash as to assume that he didn’t really believe that? No, of course not; you’d take his word for it. However, you wouldn’t think of him as a heretic until you find out if he realizes that he’s holding a belief contrary to dogma. So you’d logically proceed to say to him, “But the assumption of the Blessed Mother is a dogma of the Church, so how can you be Catholic and not believe it?” Let’s say the person says, “Yes, I know that, but it’s not in the Bible, so it has no foundation.” Would you then be so rash as to assume that he didn’t really realize that it was against de fide doctrine? No, of course not; you’d take his word for it.

So I really think the determination of pertinacity in any person who outwardly professes belief in heresy needs to be done on a case by case basis.

Exactly what type of certainty is required before one can come to the conclusion that another is a heretic I’m not sure. I know that for me personally, there could be absolutely no doubt in my mind before I could hold that a papal claimant is a heretic. I do not believe sedevacantists always hold themselves to this certainty; I think they tend to rely on indicators, that while strong, are not certain.

Maria

 

[bear06]

I’m posting as a former sedevacantist myself. Try not to get too bent out of shape; please don’t let sedevacantism disturb your peace of soul. I know whereof I speak, since I see my former self in the tone of some of your words.

I’m very interested as to what made you become a “former sedevacantist”. If I missed the story, sorry. Thanks.

 

[rescath]

Well, I’m not perfectly clear on that either. One instance in which I think it cannot be denied that a person is pertinacious is when he directly tells us he knows what he believes is contrary to de fide doctrine. This a scenario I’ve used before to another forum member which shows pertinacity in heresy can be known by external indicators:

So I really think the determination of pertinacity in any person who outwardly professes belief in heresy needs to be done on a case by case basis.

Exactly what type of certainty is required before one can come to the conclusion that another is a heretic I’m not sure. I know that for me personally, there could be absolutely no doubt in my mind before I could hold that a papal claimant is a heretic. I do not believe sedevacantists always hold themselves to this certainty; I think they tend to rely on indicators, that while strong, are not certain.

Maria

And I believe that there’s a much higher standard when it comes to the papacy for establishing heresy, because the identity of the pope must be known with certainty of faith (it’s what’s known as a dogmatic fact), and that cannot come from an individual’s private judgment regard the state of a person’s heresy.

We cannot rely upon “uncertain” indicators when it comes to something as grave as the papacy (see the wrings of John of St. Thomas).

Even in the “papa haereticus ipso facto depositus” definition, there’s generally appended the phrase “sine ulla alteriora declaratione” (without any OTHER declaration). But there MUST be a declaration based upon the infallible authority of the Church (probably from a General Council) to establish the “factum” of heresy in the phrase “ipso facto depositus”. That’s why I abandoned my sedevacantist beliefs.

Until the heresy becomes manifest to this degree in the external forum, the Church would supply jurisdiction in the very manner you discussed earlier.

Sedevacantists typically gloss over the term “manifest” in the St. Robert Bellarmine formula without due attention to it – and it’s absolutely critical to define and understand when a heresy becomes “manifest” and manifest enough to strip someone of jurisdiction in the external forum.

 

[rescath]

I’m very interested as to what made you become a “former sedevacantist”. If I missed the story, sorry. Thanks.

My response to Maria in the previous post pretty much explains it – to make a very long story short. I can give you more details when I have the time (perhaps this evening).

 

[MTD]

Even in the “papa haereticus ipso facto depositus” definition, there’s generally appended the phrase “sine ulla alteriora declaratione” (without any OTHER declaration). But there MUST be a declaration based upon the infallible authority of the Church (probably from a General Council) to establish the “factum” of heresy in the phrase “ipso facto depositus”. That’s why I abandoned my sedevacantist beliefs.

Until the heresy becomes manifest to this degree in the external forum, the Church would supply jurisdiction in the very manner you discussed earlier.

Very interesting point. However, in such a case would not a council be depriving a pope of jurisdiction? But no one can judge the pope, right?

Are you saying that the council establishes the fact of heresy, which in turn makes the heresy manifest? Or that the council merely confirms the manifest nature of the heresy?

I can see the former, for it merely elevates the level of who can recognize manifest heresy; instead of the heresy being manifest to reasonable people, it must be manifest to a council. In other words, it does not seem to violate the principle that a superior cannot be judged by an inferior.

However, I cannot see the latter because it implies that the Church supplies jurisdiction until the council determines the heresy. That implies judgment of the pope because the pope still has jurisdiction at the time of the council and depends on the council to deprive him of it, seeing that he didn’t lose it by the manifest nature of the heresy itself. Not only that, but it is impossible for the Church to supply jurisdiction in such a case because a manifest heretic loses jurisdiction by Divine law; the Church can only supply jurisdiction in regards to ecclesiastical law.

So the difference between the former and the latter is that the former keeps in mind that the jurisdiction is lost by the manifestation of heresy whereas the latter doesn’t. The former defines what is meant by manifest; in other words, it says that manifest means the heresy and pertinacity must be manifest to a council rather than just to private individuals. The latter says that the heretic doesn’t lose jurisdiction by the manifest nature of the heresy but by the decision of a council that deprives him of supplied jurisdiction. However, not only is such supplied jurisdiction impossible, but also no one can judge the pope as long as he has jurisdiction. Judgment of the pope is different from the recognition of the manifest heresy of a pope.

Sedevacantists typically gloss over the term “manifest” in the St. Robert Bellarmine formula without due attention to it – and it’s absolutely critical to define and understand when a heresy becomes “manifest” and manifest enough to strip someone of jurisdiction in the external forum.

I think the greatest difficulty is that theologians are rather silent on what manifest means; is it manifest to private individuals or must it be manifest to a council? *Manifest *means externally expressed. But external expression definitely has degrees.

An argument my younger brother likes to use with pro-abortionists goes along the lines of: “Okay, so you think that abortion should be legal until the baby becomes human. At what point does it become human? One week? Why not six days, 23 hours, 59 minutes? Why not six days and 23 hours? Why not 6 days? I mean, how do you know exactly when life begins?” It’s an argument used to show that it’s utterly ridiculous to define when life begins (if one refuses to trace it to conception), for there would be a grey area. But there can’t be a grey area in a life or death issue; just like the hunter can’t shoot a tree because a person might be behind it, an abortion cannot be performed on the basis that life begins one week (or any other time frame) from conception because it’s uncertain when life begins, once one no longer accepts conception as the beginning of life.

And I think this is similar to the manifest heretic pope issue; there is a grey area on how manifest he must be. To me, saying that it must be manifest to reasonable people is vague, for who determines that it’s manifest enough to reasonable people? Yourself? But what if you’re below or above average intelligence and see things most reasonable people wouldn’t see? Are you supposed to hold your tongue and accept his papacy just because you’re an insightful theologian or psychologist who sees more than most reasonable people? How does this come into the picture?

Maria

 

[rescath]

Very interesting point. However, in such a case would not a council be depriving a pope of jurisdiction? But no one can judge the pope, right?

Are you saying that the council establishes the fact of heresy, which in turn makes the heresy manifest?

Yes – for the reasons which you explained later in your post.

The former defines what is meant by manifest; in other words, it says that manifest means the heresy and pertinacity must be manifest to a council rather than just to private individuals.

Yes, and to private individuals VIA the Church’s authority exercised in the Council. After all, dogmatic facts such as the identity of a pope must be known with the certainty of faith and therefore cannot be subjected to private judgment (as what has happened with sedevacantism – one of the main reasons I abandoned the position). That would undermine all Church authority. So, for example, let’s say I’m a Catholic living at the time of Vatican I. I believe that the dogma of infallibility is in fact heretical. Consequently, I can simply declare it heretical a posteriori and the pope teaching it to have been deprived of his authority, thus making him capable of delivering such a heretical teaching. There’s no dogmatic teaching of the Church that couldn’t be rejected through this mode of reasoning. I’ts an argumentum ad absurdum against sedevacantism.

I think the greatest difficulty is that theologians are rather silent on what manifest means; is it manifest to private individuals or must it be manifest to a council? *Manifest *means externally expressed. But external expression definitely has degrees.

Yes, though John of St. Thomas dealt extensively with the issue, very nicely reconciling the papa hereticus ipso facto hereticus vs. papa hereticus deponendus schools.

An argument my younger brother likes to use with pro-abortionists goes along the lines of: "Okay, so you think that abortion should be legal until the baby becomes human. At what point does it become human?

I use the same argument – except that I start with a newborn baby and go backwards. It demonstrates that there’s no demonstrable threshold to interrupt the continuum of life. There’s an unbroken continuum back to conception.

And I think this is similar to the manifest heretic pope issue; there is a grey area on how manifest he must be. To me, saying that it must be manifest to reasonable people is vague, for who determines that it’s manifest enough to reasonable people?

That’s precisely the point. I knew one sedevacantist in particular who proved this out. He argued that Pope Pius IX was not a legitimate pope because of one thing which he personally found heretical in his teachings. I showed him the errors of his ways. Private judgment is prone to error.

In addition, we must remember that we must not merely establish heresy, but FORMAL heresy.

So, for example, let’s say I hear someone making a heretical proposition. Does that make it manifest heresy, just the mere utterance of a heretical proposition in public? Certainly not. That person could have spoken merely out of ignorance. Material heresy does not suffice to separate from the Church. Let’s say I admonish the person, but the person says, “ah, buzz off – I don’t think what I’m saying is heretical. Who are YOU to tell me otherwise?” Does that then make him a manifest heretic? Still no, because the person may still in good faith believe that what he thinks is consistent with Church teaching. He’s be right; who AM I? I do not speak with the Church’s authority. Let’s say I then show him something in a Church document that appears to contradict his proposition. He counters with some tortured (even obviously erroneous) logic about how his proposition can be reconciled with that Church teaching? Is he a manifest heretic at that point? Not yet. Now let’s say the magisterium formally condemns his proposition as heretical. He refuses to accept the decree. NOW he’s certainly a formal heretic. Not only heresy but FORMAL and PERTINACIOUS heresy must be established in the external forum before it’s truly manifest.

Yourself? But what if you’re below or above average intelligence and see things most reasonable people wouldn’t see? Are you supposed to hold your tongue and accept his papacy just because you’re an insightful theologian or psychologist who sees more than most reasonable people? How does this come into the picture?

Absolutely not. You are perfectly entitled to reject and disagree with various propositions as being materially heretical but formal / pertinacous heresy is a different story altogether

 

[TNT]

Oh boy,
It’s gettin obvious that it’s easier to get an annulment from a 25yr marriage with 8 kids than to recognize a heresy!
Such difficulty would then lead to NO one being responsible for being heretical, including any of us because, well, ya really can’t tell fer shur…ever.
I’d have ta say Brigham Young was more catholic than some o this nonsense.
A hersey is judged in the external forum. It has nothing to do with the heretic’s internal disposition, nor does it have anything to do with WHO that person is. That’s all irrelevant.
At least, if they make a heretical statement in the public forum where it can be accessed by the common market, then it is public. If they do not retract it or they continue to reinforce it, they are a manifest heretic. That’s all.
The only possible exception is ignorance which is outside reality or “beyond the pale”, with any upper hierarchy.
Well, they could claim insanity but they never do.

 

[rescath]

Oh boy,
It’s gettin obvious that it’s easier to get an annulment from a 25yr marriage with 8 kids than to recognize a heresy!
Such difficulty would then lead to NO one being responsible for being heretical, including any of us because, well, ya really can’t tell fer shur…ever.
I’d have ta say Brigham Young was more catholic than some o this nonsense.
A hersey is judged in the external forum. It has nothing to do with the heretic’s internal disposition, nor does it have anything to do with WHO that person is. That’s all irrelevant.
At least, if they make a heretical statement in the public forum where it can be accessed by the common market, then it is public. If they do not retract it or they continue to reinforce it, they are a manifest heretic. That’s all.
The only possible exception is ignorance which is outside reality or “beyond the pale”, with any upper hierarchy.
Well, they could claim insanity but they never do.

You’re quite mistaken. Heresy needs to be formal and pertinaceous in order to separate someone from the Church. In addition, many of the things which sedevacantists cavalierly declare to be heresy CAN be interpreted in an orthodox manner, depending upon the context, and some things declared heresy by sedevacantists do not pertain to what are strictly dogmas (you can’t be a heretic for denying theological certainties even though you might sin), and other things sedevantists denounce as heresy are quite orthodox, and still other things are not quite clear or ambiguous and require some clarification.

Thanks God that the Church doesn’t through people out as easily as sedevacantists would like to.

 

[TNT]

You’re quite mistaken. Heresy needs to be formal and pertinaceous in order to separate someone from the Church.

That’s already well exposed in my post. Other than wearin a Tuxedo & swingin a ball bat when you announce it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

Hmmmm…the only understanding I presented was that the apostolic constitution of Paul IV is no longer in force, but the electoral norms of Pius XII were in force at the time of John XXIII’s election. Quoting disciplinary norms prior to canon law of Pius X does little to shed light upon the canonical norms in place during Pius XII’s pontificate.

One should note that the 1917 Code of Canon Law, initiated by St. Pius X and promulgated by Benedict XV, changed many of the displinary norms which came before it.

For example, according to the 1918 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, updated to reflect the 1917 CIC:

*For many centuries a multitutde of ecclesiastical laws had been enacted, many of which in the course of time had been abrogated or had fallen int desuetude, while others had become difficult to enforce or less usful for the common good…many of them unknown even to the learned. Pius X, realizing how helpful it would be for the resoration and permanency of Church discipline to end this inconveience, dedided in March 1904, to codify the ecclesiastical laws, abolishin the abrogate dand obsolete enactments, adapting others to the needs of the age, and enacting new ones where expedient. *(pg. 22)

When Pius X promulgated his Apostolic Constitution on the election of the sovereign pontiff (25, Dec 1904), he explicitly “***abrogated *EVERY AND EACH OF THE DECREES AND CONSTITUTIONS which were enacted by all and each of the Roman Pontiffs, even if they had been promulgated by general councils and are part of the code of law.”

Thus, when one cites an abrogated 16th cent. apostolic constitution, it fails to be convincing in determining the electoral norms hundreds of years later.

As for whether Cardinal Roncalli was indeed a pertinacious heretic before the election, that remains to be proven. Obviously, his “heresy” must not have been very “manifest,” because Pius XII and the college of Cardinals and bishops continued to treat him as a Cardinal in good standing before and during the election.

According to the canonical norms, there’s a certain canonical means to determine pertinacity…

“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).

Those merely suspectus de haeresi, according to the code, retained their membership in the Church, and their office.

Moreoever, Cardinals were afforded special priviledges according to the 1917 CIC. “When not expressly mentioned, cardinals are not subject to penal laws, nor are bishops to suspension or inderdict latae sententiae (can. 2227)” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1918 edition, p. 29).

If Cardinal Roncalli was suspected of heresy, by whom? Was he warned? If so by whom? Was he debarred? If so, by whom? Did he remain recalcitrant for six more months then penalized? If so, who penalized him?

Canon law stated with regard to Cardinals:
'Can. 2227.1 Poena nonnisi a Romano Pontifice infligi aut declarari potest in eos de quibus in can. 1557, par. 1. par. 2. Nisi expresse nominentur, S. R. E. Cardinales sub lege poenali non comprehenduntur, nec Episcopi sub poenis latae sententiae suspensionis et interdicti. "

Thus, the sedevacantist argument is so unconvincing its astonishing. Citing a 16th cent. abrogated constitution does not come close to resolving their dubious claims.

 

[pnewton]

Well, they could claim insanity but they never do.

The people who are convinced they are Napoleon, George Washington or the Pope seldom realize their own insanity.

This is not the best topic to seek sanity. After all we have one man who thinks he is the pope after being elected by friends. Other groups seem to seem to to subscribed to the III theory: Indefinite Infinite Interregum.

I think you are right in bringing up insanity. As I see more and more into the minds of sedevacantist, it seems like its roots may be more psychological than theological anyway. Like many of the “Me and Jesus” ilk that reject any formal religion, it is easy to read one’s own desires into Scrpiture. How much easier when one rejects authority while accepting centuries of church writings to twist to your beliefs.

 

[MTD]

Yes – for the reasons which you explained later in your post.

However, though I made the concession that there seems to be the possibility of a council being needed to recognize the heresy of a pope before he loses jurisdiction, I have some serious reservations about it.

1. It is the external expression itself and not the recognition thereof that causes non-membership in the church and thus loss of any jurisdiction. A heretic by outwardly expressing his pertinacity in heresy condemns himself. If it were the recognition of the external expression rather than the external expression itself which causes non-membership in the Church, it would not be the heretic who condemns himself but another person, for he would not lose jurisdiction except by someone else’s recognition of his external expression. This contradicts Titus 3:10-11 (“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.”), which says it is not recognition or admonition of heresy which condemns the heretic but his own sin of heresy!

Once we establish this fact, it seems an impossibility for a council to be necessary for a pope to lose jurisdiction, for the necessity of a council to recognize the manifest pertinacity in heresy of a pope says that it is the recognition of the external expression rather than the external expression itself which causes loss of jurisdiction. Not only is this against the teaching of Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and St. Robert Bellarmine, all of whom say it is the heretic himself who causes loss of membership in the Church (and thus loss of jurisdiction), but it also gives a council authority over the pope since it effectively causes his loss of jurisdiction by recognizing his heresy. This is an impossibility, for no one can judge the pope.

1. If a manifest heretic pope does not lose the papcy until a council recognizes his pertinacious heresy, said pope retains jurisdiction up to that time. But according to canon law, only the pope can legally call an ecumenical council. Thus it is a juridical impossibility for a council to convene without the call of the pope. Not only that, but as long as he retains jurisdiction, he has the power to disperse any council, lawfully convened or not. This means it is also a practical impossibility for a council to convene, for at each convention the pope can legally disperse it (since what heretical pope wouldn’t disperse a council convened to decide his heretical status?!).

So, for example, let’s say I’m a Catholic living at the time of Vatican I. I believe that the dogma of infallibility is in fact heretical. Consequently, I can simply declare it heretical a posteriori and the pope teaching it to have been deprived of his authority, thus making him capable of delivering such a heretical teaching. There’s no dogmatic teaching of the Church that couldn’t be rejected through this mode of reasoning. I’ts an argumentum ad absurdum against sedevacantism.

Heresy is the denial or doubt of a doctrine proposed by the Church’s magisterium, whether solemn or ordinary and universal, as divinely revealed. Thus, since the contrary doctrine to papal infallibility was not proposed in that manner as divinely revealed prior to Vatican I, it could not said that papal infallibility was heresy. Thus the Catholic in your example cannot call it heresy; the only thing he can call heresy is doctrine contrary to that proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, which was not the case with the contrary doctrine to papal infallibility. No one can call a pope heretical because he teaches against a common theological opinion or even, for that matter, a theologically certain doctrine (though if he did oppose a theologically certain doctrine, there is much reason to believe he also believes heresy on some point). So the Catholic in your example is not recognizing heresy but defining doctrine himself by saying it is heresy to hold papal infallibility (since the Church herself didn’t say that).

Maria

 

[mark_a]

Short answer: Pride. They consider themselves to be more Catholic than the pope.

So do these holier-than-thou’s have a pope of their own?

And haven’t the last couple of popes been working to appease these people?

Did the dogma’s of the IC or infallibility cause any seda-groups to form in the 1800’s?