Why do sedevacantists not believe the current Pope is true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kellie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sir Knight - I wouldn’t use the Chick publication at all as a source on them. Since he’s inaccurate in all of his other publications, how could he not be wrong about the masons?

In any event, I’d agree that they’re a scary organization. In most cities, though, masons tend to congregate and party till their brains fall out and drive little cars while wearing fezzes.

They’ve always struck me as absurd.
–Ann
 
40.png
Sparky:
Sir Knight - I wouldn’t use the Chick publication at all as a source on them.
–Ann
Click to expand...
Who is Chick? I have seen his name mentioned before.
 
40.png
Mandi:
Who is Chick? I have seen his name mentioned before.
Click to expand...
You can read this series from Catholic Answers for a pretty detailed review of Mr. Chick and his world:

catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts.asp.

I never thought I would see a Jack Chick link noted on a CA Forum as a reference :bigyikes: . I guess you should never say never.

I would be hesitant to give credibility to anything that Mr. Chick has to say.
 
Smack Daddy:
The best thing to do is just ignore their sophisticated arguments, and trust Jesus. He said the gates of hell would not prevail again the Church, and I take him at his world.
Click to expand...
Amen, brother. :amen:
 
40.png
OhioBob:
I would be hesitant to give credibility to anything that Mr. Chick has to say.
Click to expand...
It did not take much reading to make me sorry I made you post any information on him. :bigyikes: But thank you anyway!
 
40.png
kellie:
So if one Pope is a heretic, the rest that follow aren’t correct successors? Is that due to who voted for the next Pope when one dies? Sorry, I don’t know the procedure for electing a new Pope.
Click to expand...
If a pope is a heretic (and please note that the sedevacantists have yet to prove that any of the popes they reject ever fell into heresy) then what? Who has the authority to declare a pope a heretic? This topic has been discussed at greate length in the other thread I mentioned above.

It does not follow that all subsequent popes would be invalid successors, otherwise we could never have another valid pope! If that were the case then we better drop to our knees immediately because it’s time for the Second Coming!! A new, valid, pope can be elected in accordance with the universal laws of the Church. I have tried to explain this fully in the following post.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=31767&postcount=202
 
Joe Omlor:
  1. Law. According to church law, public defection from the Catholic faith automatically deprives a person of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold. Theologians and canonists such as St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez, Torquemada, and Wernz and Vidal maintain, without compromising the doctrine of papal infallibility, that even a pope may himself become a heretic and thus lose the pontificate. (Some of. these authors also maintain that a pope can become a schismatic.) This possibility is recognized even by an authoritative commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon “Law”.
“Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy, or schism. If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicized manner, he would break communion, and according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto. (c. 194 §1, 211). Since no one can judge the pope (c.1404) no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election.” (James A. Corridan et al. editors, The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America [New York: Paulist 1985], c. 333.)
Click to expand...
Once again, the opionions of theologians, canonists, and even “classical” canonists cannot substitute for the authoritative teaching of the Church’s hierarchy. Even if their position is completely correct, they themselves admit, according to your post, that how one would go about declaring a pope to be a heretic or schismatic has yet to be defined by the authority of the Church.

The problem with the sedevacantist movement is that they have passed judgment on popes and even ecumenical councils without having the authority to do so. They cite the very resources that you have mentioned to defend themselves but those very resources point out that they cannot do any such thing. They seem to feel that they don’t have to wait for the Church to authoritatively define if such a thing is possible or how it would be done in regard to the pope himself. This represents an entirely new teaching that has been introduced by them after Vatican II. Ironically, it is they who assert that Vatican II and the last four popes have changed the teaching of the Church. Additionally, their claims that the teaching of Vatican II and the last four popes are heretical or somehow represent a departure from the traditional teaching of the Church in matters of Faith andmorals are all too easily shown to be completely wrong.

Until they can show the heresy of Vatican II and the last four popes and how they are justified in making such a judgment outside of the authority of the Church and the pope, it is they who have publicly defected from the Catholic faith. It is the bishops and priests of the sedevacantist movement who have automatically deprived themselves of their ecclesiastical offices.
 
Until they can show the heresy of Vatican II and the last four popes and how they are justified in making such a judgment outside of the authority of the Church and the pope, it is they who have publicly defected from the Catholic faith. It is the bishops and priests of the sedevacantist movement who have automatically deprived themselves of their ecclesiastical offices

See the last few posts on the other thread Would I be welcome here… IF?

Joe
 
Joe Omlor:
See the last few posts on the other thread Would I be welcome here… IF?
Click to expand...
Just did and you still haven’t proven a thing; especially in regard to how you justify declaring John Paul II a heretic or apostate outside of the authority of the Church. Only a pope can declare a bishop to be a heretic or apostate and no one has the authority to judge the pope. These points are part of the traditional teaching and law of the Church going back to her foundations.
 
i agree with all thos reasons–but the short answer is they are ****
 
40.png
catholicboi79:
i agree with all thos reasons–but the short answer is they are ****
Click to expand...
How very charitable and instructive of you! Thank you for adding so much value to the discussion.

Are you attending Summer School this year?
Joe
 
Joe Omlor:
How very charitable and instructive of you! Thank you for adding so much value to the discussion.

Are you attending Summer School this year?
Joe
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
 
The sedevacantists make three basic assertions regarding the last four popes not being valid. Some of these assertions have been posted on this forum and others are on their own web sites. Let’s take a close look at these assertions to see if they can stand up to reason and the Faith. To make this easier to discuss, I will limit my comments to the validity of John Paul II with the understanding that these also apply to John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul I.

1: Some sedevacantists assert that John Paul II was a heretic/apostate prior to his election as pope so that election is invalid. The teaching of the Church is that only the authority of the Church can declare someone to be a heretic or apostate (in regard to apostacy, a person can also declare themselves to be apostate). If you consider someone to be a heretic you cannot declare them to be so, you must bring them before the authority of the Church. You must accept the Church’s decision on the matter. Only a bishop can declare someone to be a heretic or apostate. In the case of a bishop, only a pope can declare him to be a heretic or apostate. What bishop declared John Paul II to be a heretic or apostate prior to his episcopal ordination? The sedevacantists have not shown one such declaration. What about after he was ordained a bishop? What pope declared him to be a heretic or apostate prior to his election as pope? Once again, the sedevacantists have not shown such a declaration.

2: Some sedevacantists assert that, even if his election to the papacy was valid, John Paul II has fallen into heresy/apostacy since and is therefore no longer pope. They have cited numerous theologians, canonists, and even Saints on this matter and I concede that it is a teaching of the Church that a pope can lose the papacy through apostacy. However, common point in all of the citations they have given on this matter is that no one knows how such a judgment could be made against a pope. Why is this? Because the authoritative Magesterium of the Church has yet to define such a process and it is only the Magesterium that can do so. Therefore, all opinion on this matter are just that; OPINIONS. This is true regardless of the impressiveness of the source; be it canonist, theologian, Saint, or even Doctors of the Church. In the case of Saints and Doctors of the Church, we need to give their teachings serious consideration, but this also applies when they teach that their propositions are only to be accepted to the extent that they conform to the authoritative teaching of the Church.

3: Some sedevacantists assert that individual bishops, or even individual Catholics, can render such a judgment about a pope on their own and even that they cannot be considered schismatic for doing so. In making this last assertion, they are introducing a completely new teaching that has not existed in the Church before. Every example they have cited in defense of this assertion depends on an accusation of heresy/apostacy made by someone with the authority to make such an accusation or on an accusation made by a cardinal involved in a papal election that the election was invalid. They have failed to present even one example of an accusation. They have failed to name even one cardinal involved in any of the last four papal elections that has claimed that one of those elections was invalid.

In these threads, we who disagree with the sedevacantist have raised the issues I have presented here several times. Instead of addressing any of these issues, they just make new accusations or repeat old ones that have already been refuted. Numerous posts have been made showing how they have taken texts out of context. They have not been able to refute these posts but they continue to make their accusations about these texts. All requests that they present authoritative teaching supporting their views have been answered with quotes from Saints, theologians, and canonists; many of these quotes actually refute their claims.

Just to make my own position perfectly clear, my opinion is that John Paul II has had many profound failings as pope that have led to confusion and error among the faithful. These include acts that contradict his own teaching and an inconsistency in the use of his papal authority. He is, nonetheless, the successor of Peter. My opinion in regard to his failings is just that; MY OPINION.
 
40.png
kellie:
Can someone please tell me why some people don’t believe the Pope should be in the Seat of Peter?

Love Kellie
Click to expand...
It is not a case of them not believing that " the Pope should be in the Seat of Peter" but that sedevacantists do not believe JP2 is a true pontiff, due to his heresy and apostasy.

Where did you hear of sedevacantism, do you attend SSPX?
 
Here’s
Click to expand...
a good explanation, from these schismatics’ viewpoint.
They are not schismatic…

**Here are quotes from separate Catholic manuals that plainly say such people are NOT to be considered schismatic who **
judge a man not to be pope.

“Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey
the Roman Pontiff **because they consider his person to be suspect or **
doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation…” - Wernz-Vidal:
Ius Canonicum, Vol vii, n. 398

“Nor is there any schism if…one suspects the person of the pope or the
validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a
state.” - Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics,
CUA, 1948, p.2

“Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff
on the grounds that he has solidly founded ‘probabiliter’] doubts
concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and
Palao].” - de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8
 
Joe Omlor:
Here are quotes from separate Catholic manuals that plainly say such people are NOT to be considered schismatic who judge a man not to be pope.
Click to expand...
Sorry Joe,

This claim was clearly addressed in the other thread (Would I be welcome here… IF?) and you are taking these texts out of context. We CAN consider you to be schismatic because you have failed to meet the requirements set forth in those combined documents necessary to justify such doubt.
 
I can’t see why so many Catholics find sedevacantism to be unreasonable. If the True Faith exists in merely one layperson then there lies the Church and the gates of hell have not prevailed. It seems many opponents of the sede position can reconcile having a visible hierarchical structure professing a defective faith as not contradicting the doctrine of Indefectibility (a Divine Law/Dogma), yet find it an insurmountable stumbling block to acknowledge that there could be an extended period of time when the Catholic Church is inbetween reigning popes.

Perhaps they see the method of electing the next pope to be the barrier. It isn’t one, even though the current law (that is, the one in effect at the time of the last valid Pontiff) states the method of election involves cardinals, this is merely an ecclesiastical law which is in no way binding if impossible to conform to. The sedevacantist position is the only one which poses no real contradiction to the dogma of Indefectibility. As it is impossible for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (which includes the official teachings of the Vicar of Christ) to promulgate anything which is erroneous in matters of faith and morals or harmful to souls. And if you do the homework, you will find that JP2 et.al. have done this.
 
40.png
Schmuck:
I can’t see why so many Catholics find sedevacantism to be unreasonable. If the True Faith exists in merely one layperson then there lies the Church and the gates of hell have not prevailed. It seems many opponents of the sede position can reconcile having a visible hierarchical structure professing a defective faith as not contradicting the doctrine of Indefectibility (a Divine Law/Dogma), yet find it an insurmountable stumbling block to acknowledge that there could be an extended period of time when the Catholic Church is inbetween reigning popes.
Click to expand...
The problem with your position is that Christ did not establish a church consisting of only laypeople. He is the one who established the Apostles as the first bishops and the authority of the Church and that authority is ONLY passed on through succession in ordination. ONLY a bishop can ordain because ordination merely passes on a gift given. You cannot give what you do not yourself posess.

The problem with having an extended period of time between reigning popes is based not on our own discomfort, but on the Church’s own teaching about the purpose of the papacy. One of the purposes of the papacy is to avoid all occasion of schism by providing the one person who is infallibly protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit Himself! This is the source of our assurance of our faith and without it we become no more that Protestants who claim to be able to assert that their teachings are true based on their personal interpretation of the Scripture. Ulitmately, this position is self-refuting. I have addressed the implications of the sedevacantist position (what would it mean if they were right) in the thread titled “Would I be welcome here… IF?”

Whether or not JPII has, in fact, promulgated error has been addressed at length on that thread and every example the sedevacantist have provided to show that he has has been easily refuted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top