What's a sedevacantist?

[MTD]

This post is in response to rescath’s post #69.

While a Council must be ecumenical in order to define doctrine or enact discipline binding upon the whole Church, a Council, albeit non-ecumenical, would adequately reflect the sensus fidelium in terms of establishing the fact of manifest heresy.

Well, you can’t really get around the fact that as long as a pope retains jurisdiction, he has the power to disperse any council. So it’s a practical impossibility for a council to convene since the pope still has jurisdiction and so any dispersion by him is binding.

So what would be your alternative proposal, that Fathers Cekada and Pulvermacher can recognize heresy and render it somehow objectively manifest? What if they’re wrong? What happens if others disagree and don’t believe that something is heresy? It’s manifest to some and not manifest to others? Father Cekada says there’s heresy; I say there isn’t. So what’s the objective state of the matter?

That’s the unfortunate predicament of the Church in a time of crisis. Everyone must be open to the truth and act in good faith. It’s like the Western Schism; Sts. Vincent Ferrer and Colette were still Catholics, and saints, even though they professed obedience to an anti-pope. St. Colette even founded her Order under the approval of that anti-pope! That pope had no jurisdiction; but will that be held against her in the Day of Judgment? No.

So which of you is right with regard to your assessment of manifest heresy: you or the sedevacantists?

Well, of course I think I’m right. But I don’t for that matter regard him as a schismatic, properly speaking, nor does he, me.

Maria

 

[MTD]

Dave,

It may be common theological opinion that a pope cannot become a heretic, but it is more than common theological opinion that a heretic cannot become pope.

Maria

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes. This is a theological opinion which St. Robert offers in refutation to Cardinal Cajetan’s contrary opinion.

This opinion should be understood in context of what St. Robert Bellarmine also wrote elsewhere in *De Romano Pontifice., *in which he ***also teaches that the most common and probable opinion is: ***“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].

The above quote from St. Robert Bellarmine was 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).

So, from St. Robert’s perpective it is most probable that the Pope CANNOT pertinaciously believe something contrary to the faith, but if he could, than contary to Cardinal Cajetan’s view, he would automatically cease to be pope.

To get back to the “What’s a sedevacantist?” question…

A sedevacantist either believes there there is currently no validly elected pope, either because Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was never the duly elected pope, or after having been duly elected, they believe he did indeed pertinaciously manifest heretical doctrine contrary to the faith. To have the latter view, the sedevacantist would have to reject what St. Robert called “most common and probable” theological opinion, cited in the official relatio of the First Vatican Council…not a very “traditionalist” approach. To have the former view, the sedevacantist would have to satisfactorily explain why it is not historic fact that the Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is the duly elected pope.

So are sedevacantists heretics or schismatics or what, precisely? If one of the marks of being a Catholic is being in communion with the Bishop of Rome and they refuse to acknoweldge the legitimate Bishop of Rome/Pope, can they be said to still be Catholic?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

So are sedevacantists heretics or schismatics or what, precisely? If one of the marks of being a Catholic is being in communion with the Bishop of Rome and they refuse to acknoweldge the legitimate Bishop of Rome/Pope, can they be said to still be Catholic?

I don’t think being a Sedevacantists in and of itself would make a person a heretic. And I don’t even know if they would necessarily be mortally guilty of the sin of schism.

This is my opinion: This is a confusing day for Catholics and we have had some Popes do and teach some very suspect things. Were these Pope heretics? I don’t know. If they were, then the Sedavacantists are right. If not, then the Sedevacantists have drawn a rash conclusion, but not really a baseless conclusion.

I mean think about it, John Paul II actually prayed that John the Baptist would bless and protect Islam - a false religion!

At Assisi, he invited representatives of assorted false religions to Assisi, and provided a separate room for each false religion to commit an act of false worship, which is a mortal sin.

Did John Paul II have the faith? The Sedevacantists conclude that he did not. God knows the answer.

 

[MTD]

So are sedevacantists heretics or schismatics or what, precisely? If one of the marks of being a Catholic is being in communion with the Bishop of Rome and they refuse to acknoweldge the legitimate Bishop of Rome/Pope, can they be said to still be Catholic?

A heretic denies or doubts a doctrine proposed by the Church as divinely revealed. Thus heresy is out of the question since sedevacantism does not deny any de fide doctrine.

A schismatic refuses communion with and submission to the Holy Father; incidentally, it is also schism to refuse communion with other Catholics.

But as with heresy, the sin of schism is not imputed to one acting in good faith. Thus, while sedevacantists are in material schism, all those who are acting in good faith (being sincere and invincibly ignorant) are not properly schismatics for they sincerely believe there is no pope to express allegiance to.

A very good example of this type of situation is the Great Western Schism. Many Catholics, including saints such as Sts. Vincent Ferrer and Colette, expressed allegiance to an anti-pope, yet they were still Catholic, were they not? They were invincibly ignorant of the true pope and so were in material schism but were not properly schismatics because if they had only known who the true pope was, they would have expressed allegiance to him. The key factor here is good faith.

Maria

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t think being a Sedevacantists in and of itself would make a person a heretic. And I don’t even know if they would necessarily be mortally guilty of the sin of schism.

This is my opinion: This is a confusing day for Catholics and we have had some Popes do and teach some very suspect things. Were these Pope heretics? I don’t know. If they were, then the Sedavacantists are right. If not, then the Sedevacantists have drawn a rash conclusion, but not really a baseless conclusion.

I mean think about it, John Paul II actually prayed that John the Baptist would bless and protect Islam - a false religion!

At Assisi, he invited representatives of assorted false religions to Assisi, and provided a separate room for each false religion to commit an act of false worship, which is a mortal sin.

Did John Paul II have the faith? The Sedevacantists conclude that he did not. God knows the answer.

But according to St. Robert Bellarmine via Dave,

“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].

As for Assisi, I’m uneasy about that, but did John Paul provide them with rooms to worship or simply provide them with rooms? Because by that reasoning, would not any pope who permitted Jews, for instance, to worship or have a synagogue in any part of the Papal States be guilty of the same mortal sin?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

But according to St. Robert Bellarmine via Dave,

“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].

If that was a dogma, and if the Sedevacantists claimed that a duly elected Pope later fell into error and lost his office, then yes, Sedevacantism would be a heresy.

But the quote from St. Robert Bellarmine is not a de fide dogma. In fact, he says that, in his opinion, it can merely be believed as “probable”.

And I don’t think the Sedevacantist claim that the recent Popes were true Popes who later fell into heresy and lost their office. I think they claim that they were heretics before being elected, and thus were never true Popes to begin with.

So the quote really doesn’t apply to the Sedevacantists at all.

As for Assisi, I’m uneasy about that, but did John Paul provide them with rooms to worship

or simply provide them with rooms?

They met in one location for part of the event. Then they were each provided a room to commit their act of false worship. And when the Jews complained about the crucifixes, the Pope agreed to remove all of them; and the ones that could not be removed were covered. We wouldn’t want to offend the Jews, you know.

Because by that reasoning, would not any pope who permitted Jews, for instance, to worship or have a synagogue in any part of the Papal States be guilty of the same mortal sin?

Tolerating false religions is one thing. Promoting and encouraging them is another. The Church does allow for the toleration of false forms of worship. It is not the ideal, but it is allowed. So, if the Papal State allowed the Jews to build a synagogue, and the Pope permitted it, it would not be a sin since merely tolerating false worship is allowed by the Church.

 

[MTD]

JKirk,

There is also the aspect of a heretic becoming pope. That quote from St. Robert only covers a true pope becoming a heretic subsequent to his accession to the papacy, and it is only theological opinion.

But it is not just theological opinion that a heretic cannot validly become pope, for no theologian holds that a heretic can become pope. And this also is relevant to the sedevacantist argument, for it is believed by some that Pope John Paul II was a heretic before he became pope.

Maria

 

[MMLJ]

So are sedevacantists heretics or schismatics or what, precisely? If one of the marks of being a Catholic is being in communion with the Bishop of Rome and they refuse to acknoweldge the legitimate Bishop of Rome/Pope, can they be said to still be Catholic?

I think this has been addressed in earlier posts in this thread by gorman and also post#75.

 

[MMLJ]

So are sedevacantists heretics or schismatics or what, precisely? If one of the marks of being a Catholic is being in communion with the Bishop of Rome and they refuse to acknoweldge the legitimate Bishop of Rome/Pope, can they be said to still be Catholic?

See also thread on manifest heretics, hope this helps

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Tolerating false religions is one thing. Promoting and encouraging them is another. The Church does allow for the toleration of false forms of worship. It is not the ideal, but it is allowed. So, if the Papal State allowed the Jews to build a synagogue, and the Pope permitted it, it would not be a sin since merely tolerating false worship is allowed by the Church.

From the 16th Century until Italy annexed them, the popes exercised very real control over the papal states. As they were absolute monarchs, I don’t think it was merely a question of tolerance.

 

[Genesis315]

So are sedevacantists heretics or schismatics or what, precisely? If one of the marks of being a Catholic is being in communion with the Bishop of Rome and they refuse to acknoweldge the legitimate Bishop of Rome/Pope, can they be said to still be Catholic?

They would be schismatic–at least materially. They would (ironically) be in a similar state to those who followed various antipopes throughout history. Just like the followers of antipopes, they claim submission to the Roman Pontiff, but they aren’t actually in communion with the real Roman Pontiff.

 

[nilofc]

Pray for Holy Obedience.

There was no time that the seat of peter was ever vacant. For to believe in this, is to go against what Jesus said, “…the gates of hell will never prevail upon her”

 

[rescath]

Pray for Holy Obedience.

There was no time that the seat of peter was ever vacant. For to believe in this, is to go against what Jesus said, “…the gates of hell will never prevail upon her”

Well, actually, it’s vacant on average about ever few years or so. And I’m not a sedevacantist.

And with the state of decay in the Church today, the gates of hell have come as close as possible to prevailing without actually having done do.

“And Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist.”

 

[rlg94086]

“And Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist.”

So, are you a Freemason or anti-clerical? Or, were Pope Benedict XV and Pope Leo XIII also not valid popes?

These actions of the Church caused a great deal of confusion in Catholic minds, so that it was compelled to clarify that the original message confided to Maximin and Melanie in 1846 remained approved, and it was only the latter messages, and particularly the 1873 message saying “Rome will lose the faith, and become the seat of the Antichrist” that was banned. In October 1912, Albert Lepidi, Master of the Sacred Palace in a public statement in reply to a query by Cardinal Lucon affirmed that the original message of 1846 remained approved.

Once again, during the Pontificate of Pope Benedict XV, the Church was compelled to address the issue. Benedict XV issued an Admonitum (formal Papal warning) recognizing the many different versions of the 1873 secret “in all its diverse forms,” and forbidding the faithful or the clergy to investigate or discuss them without permission from their bishops. The Admonitum further affirmed that the Church’s prohibition issued under Pope Leo XIII issued in 1879 remained binding.

From the beginning, the 1873 message was exploited by anti-clericals and Freemasons to attack Catholics. In 1916, a Dr. Gremillion of Montpelier, France, published a commentary on the 1873 text under the pseudonym of Maraive, which was put on the Index.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Salette

 

[gorman64]

rlg94086:

So, are you a Freemason or anti-clerical? Or, were Pope Benedict XV and Pope Leo XIII also not valid popes?

rescath:

And I’m not a sedevacantist.

Dear rlg94086,

Take his word for it. No one questions Leo XIII or Benedict XV.

If you’re going to try to impugn a sedevacantist…you might want to make sure he’s a sedevacantist first.

Gorman

 

[rlg94086]

The quote rescath provided speaks for itself, so I am only asking the question. If those popes have spoken out against that “vision,” then I don’t see the point of quoting it on a forum.

It doesn’t make sense to “take someone’s word for it,” if they then quote a “vision” condemned by two popes.

Dear rlg94086,

Take his word for it. No one questions Leo XIII or Benedict XV.

If you’re going to try to impugn a sedevacantist…you might want to make sure he’s a sedevacantist first.

Gorman