Why Don’t “Traditional Extremists” Convert To Eastern Orthodoxy?

[JSRG]

CathBoy1:

Also I get that they (SV) claim that they are carrying on the RCC of before Vatican II, but simply by denying Vatican II they also deny their belief in Vatican I, it logically follows that any Catholic that denies Vatican I ratifies the EO pov (weather intentionally or not) as I’ve shown in an above post.
It seems to me that if the SV’s stand back and take an honest look at themselves, they belong with the EO because they’ve only proven the EO pov correct.

No, SVs regard Vatican II as having been no council at all. They do not deny Vatican I (which, as I have said elsewhere in these forums, was never officially ended, only interrupted), they just regard V2 as a “bogus council”, “robber council”, and possibly other florid expressions. SVs would not find much more of a home in EO than they would in the post-V2 Church to which they object. SVs regard themselves as simply Catholics maintaining the Faith and continuing what of the Church they can under the circumstances. Given enough time, SV could become “its own critter” (and may already have crossed that Rubicon), similar to what the Old Catholics are, but not EO. Totally different from EO.

It’s true that sedevacantists in practice aren’t particularly much like the Orthodox (outside of the positions where Orthodoxy crosses over with Catholicism anyway), but the point CathBoy1 seemed to be making was that their assertions would more logically lead towards Orthodoxy.

The underlying logic of sedevacantism is that the popes after Vatican II have formally taught things that were declared heretical by previous popes and/or councils and that therefore they can’t be actual popes because popes can’t do that according to Vatican I. Let us, for the sake of this, suppose that’s true: The post-council popes have formally taught heresy, and this is stated to be impossible by Vatican I. The most plausible and logical conclusion from that would be that it disproves Catholicism itself. One doesn’t necessarily have to become Orthodox as a result, you could become Protestant or leave Christianity altogether, but Orthodoxy is the closest theologically to Catholicism–and their main reason for departure was rejection of papal primacy, which is (if the sedevacantist arguments are correct) something you have to reject anyway.

Sedevacantists, however, stop short of that logical conclusion and instead adopt the rather incoherent idea that it means all of the popes after Pius XII are fake popes (I think some consider John XXIII to be real but that’s splitting hairs). That was CathBoy1’s point, if they took an honest look at themselves, they’d become Eastern Orthodox (or some other non-Catholic group) because that’s where their conclusions–if one takes them as true–far more logically lead.

 

[Jbrady]

CMRI, SSPV, Catholic Restoration and definitely SSPX (no, they’re not sedevacantist) I believe would all be in alignment to return.

You do realize that those groups hate each other as much, if not more, than they hate “modernists”. They will never unite.

And as for SSPX, they have become comfortable being their own sect, and nothing could entice them to return to Rome. Ever. If it didn’t happen under Fellay and Benedict, then it will never happen at all.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And, as a quid pro quo so to speak, why don’t progressive extremists —you know, the ones who support women priests, contraception, abortion, universalism, etc and spare no pains to express how the Church needs to change— just convert to Episcopalianism?

In fairness, many of them do. The pro-women priest and pro-gay marriage contingents especially.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The most plausible and logical conclusion from that would be that it disproves Catholicism itself.

It is not only logical conclusion, and whether it is or is not most plausible depends on the person. Some like to believe that current “Popes” are Anti-Popes and hence Vatican I was right- because it spoke about real Popes. Anti-Popes do not hold power hence it’s alright. Hence Papal Primacy applies but only to real Popes. Uncanonically elected Popes, Popes elected when someone already held Papacy or Popes who lost their office thanks to manifest heresy (all sedevacantist positions I know) are Anti-Popes, so they can be in error. I wouldn’t say that most logical option actually exists in this scenario. One can reject Papacy or reject current Popes. Both are somewhat similar on scale of being plausible, at least in my view. Actually, since Sedevacantists are staunch defenders of Papacy, they mostly see their view as completely opposed to Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is even more wrong for them than it is for Catholic Church.

 

[Hume]

Easy question to answer - radtrads still hold to papal supremacy rather than primacy and the Orthodox don’t.

 

[CathBoy1]

Their argument is that when Paul VI signed the documents that they believe contained heresy, he was not a true pope at that time because it would be impossible for a true pope to define heresy as true Catholic teaching.

The problem follows if they truly believe in papal infallibility, and Paul VI was the pope(objective historical fact), and Vatican II was an RC ecumenical council called by a pope (objective historical fact) (ecumenical council+pope=infallible), then they must believe that the documents that they believe contained heresy, could by their belief not contain heresy.

Their problem is they want it both ways and you can’t have it both ways on a subject such as papal infallibility either he is infallible or he is not, they only believe in papal infallibility until a pope comes along and then infallibly declares something that they disagree with.

Hence the problem with papal infallibility, tbh I have my own struggles with it and IF, big IF here, I ever came to the conclusion that it (papal infallibility) was wrong I would step back and take an objective look at myself and admit that I am not a Roman Catholic, I would then have to decide which I believed was the true faith either EOC or OOC, I surely wouldn’t go make up my own branch of fake RC as did Old Catholics and SV’s, this is part of the reason I asked the original question.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Your right groups such as Sedevacntists don’t believe that Vatican II declared any form of dogma, instead they believe that John XXIII & Paul VI through Vatican II created an entirely new religion, and as such Paul VI ceased being Pope and the Chair of Peter remains empty since all popes since Paul VI belong to this supposed “new religion” of Paul VI.

Here’s the problem that they create with their schismatic view:

They accept and believe Vatican I, and so accept and believe in Papal Infallibility and the Supremacy of the Pontificate, if this is true they then must admit that the Supreme Pontiff (John XXIII & Paul VI) has the power not only call for an ecumenical council (Vatican II) but also ratify it (making Vatican II infallible as are all ecumenical councils). By denying Vatican II, they in turn deny the supremacy and infallibility of the papacy, by denying Vatican II they themselves deny a:

ROMAN CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.

While the Sedevacantists reject the Pope out-rite, which is ridiculous and to subjective; the SSPX does however does not. It should be noted, that, Pope Paul VI Himself just after the council on January 12, 1966 said:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”

In short, there are many people who accept the Pope (not Sedevacantists) but who say that the council contains error, and whether or not they are right or wrong, these people are not questioning the infallibility of the Pope or the Church. The Church and the Pope must intend to use their Infallibility in order to do so, and in this case, as the Pope of that Council made clear, this was not the intention at this Council (unlike in the other 20 councils).

 

[Bataar]

Bataar:

Their argument is that when Paul VI signed the documents that they believe contained heresy, he was not a true pope at that time because it would be impossible for a true pope to define heresy as true Catholic teaching.

The problem follows if they truly believe in papal infallibility, and Paul VI was the pope(objective historical fact), and Vatican II was an RC ecumenical council called by a pope (objective historical fact) (ecumenical council+pope=infallible), then they must believe that the documents that they believe contained heresy, could by their belief not contain heresy.

Their problem is they want it both ways and you can’t have it both ways on a subject such as papal infallibility either he is infallible or he is not, they only believe in papal infallibility until a pope comes along and then infallibly declares something that they disagree with.

Hence the problem with papal infallibility, tbh I have my own struggles with it and IF, big IF here, I ever came to the conclusion that it (papal infallibility) was wrong I would step back and take an objective look at myself and admit that I am not a Roman Catholic, I would then have to decide which I believed was the true faith either EOC or OOC, I surely wouldn’t go make up my own branch of fake RC as did Old Catholics and SV’s, this is part of the reason I asked the original question.

According to doctors of the church, including St. Robert Bellarmine, a pope can lose the papacy.

Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church”. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The problem follows if they truly believe in papal infallibility, and Paul VI was the pope(objective historical fact)

According to them, Paul VI was not the Pope. There is Pope Siri Thesis (and if true, would make Paul VI Anti-Pope)… there is heresy theory where Pope would lose Papacy based on already-condemned heresy.

 

[CathBoy1]

The underlying logic of sedevacantism is that the popes after Vatican II have formally taught things that were declared heretical by previous popes and/or councils and that therefore they can’t be actual popes because popes can’t do that according to Vatican I. Let us, for the sake of this, suppose that’s true: The post-council popes have formally taught heresy, and this is stated to be impossible by Vatican I. The most plausible and logical conclusion from that would be that it disproves Catholicism itself. One doesn’t necessarily have to become Orthodox as a result, you could become Protestant or leave Christianity altogether, but Orthodoxy is the closest theologically to Catholicism–and their main reason for departure was rejection of papal primacy, which is (if the sedevacantist arguments are correct) something you have to reject anyway.

Sedevacantists, however, stop short of that logical conclusion and instead adopt the rather incoherent idea that it means all of the popes after Pius XII are fake popes (I think some consider John XXIII to be real but that’s splitting hairs). That was CathBoy1’s point, if they took an honest look at themselves, they’d become Eastern Orthodox (or some other non-Catholic group) because that’s where their conclusions–if one takes them as true–far more logically lead

This.

This is exactly my point.
Sometimes I have a hard time articulating what I’m trying to say, but you have captured exactly the point I was trying to make.
Thanks, peace brother

 

[CathBoy1]

According to doctors of the church, including St. Robert Bellarmine, a pope can lose the papacy.

Correct me if I’m wrong but hadn’t St. Robert Bellarmine already passed away before Vatican I, and is he really speaking about a pope who makes an infallible declaration (ecumenical council+pope=infallible)?

 

[Bataar]

Correct, he died long before then. The believe is basically because of papal infallibility. There are some people who state that Paul VI was a heretic prior to his election and thus his election was invalid anyway, but I’m not looking at that. I’m looking at the idea that Paul VI was a valid pope at the time of his election. What sedevacantists say is that the some of the documents of Vatican II contained manifest heresy. Therefore, it would be impossible for a pope, who speaks with the authority of Christ, to infallibly declare heresy as Catholic teaching. Therefore, the moment he signed them, he would have lost the papacy because, by professing heresy, he would cease to be a member of the church and a person who is not a member of the church cannot hold any office within the church.

 

[Bataar]

I also want to thank everyone on this thread for keeping this discussion civil. I realize this can be a hot topic at times and I’m thankful for being able to have a civil and reasonable discussion here.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Correct me if I’m wrong but hadn’t St. Robert Bellarmine already passed away before Vatican I, and is he really speaking about a pope who makes an infallible declaration (ecumenical council+pope=infallible)?

That just shows how deep Papal Infallibility runs. St. Robert Bellarmine indeed wrote a book defending Papacy and inerrancy of Rome (not specifically, but it is included in the book). St. Robert Bellarmine basically said there are 5 views to whether Pope can or can not lose Papacy by heresy. I don’t remember exact order, but they go like this;

1. Pope can never lose Papacy, even if heretical. (Problem with this is that historical canon Si Papa specifically deals with Pope being deposed for heresy)
2. Pope can never become heretic, not even privately. (Problem is that some Popes surely held private heretical notions but never taught them in their office as Popes)
3. Pope can lose Papacy if he becomes private heretic (problem: how does Church even find private heretic?)
4. Pope can lose Papacy if he becomes public heretic (Problem: who gets to define that Pope is heretical?)
5. Pope can lose Papacy if he becomes public heretic AND Church authorities declare him to be one (hence Pope loses Papacy with public heresy but until he is judged by Church, we are to be obedient to Him).

Interesting is, that some sedevacantist ideas about Baptism of Desire would be in conflict with Bellarmine. They claim those were defined in Ecumenical Councils before Trent. Bellarmine, however, lived after such definition. He would be a manifest heretic by that logic. Taking opinion of manifest heretic (Saint, but still manifest heretic at the time he wrote this) about deposition of Pope does not hold much water. This does not stop him from being Saint even in their view, of course.

I found this video very helpful. Dr. Taylor Marshall is talking with very educated man who translated Bellarmine’s work and is basically expert on him.

 

[CathBoy1]

I also want to thank everyone on this thread for keeping this discussion civil. I realize this can be a hot topic at times and I’m thankful for being able to have a civil and reasonable discussion here.

As the OP I, also would like to thank everyone for keeping the conversation civil.
This topic will soon (sadly) be closed as it is a hot topic, I wish the conversation would continue, perhaps I’ll create a new topic that has similar themes.
Thanks everyone for contributing to the conversation.

God bless.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Thank you for creating it!