Imagine the absurdity of saying: “I have witnessed a murder, but cannot testify against the perpetrator because he has not yet been found guilty in a court of law.” Imagine if every witness said this.
It is, therefore, legitimate and necessary, if we are accusing Vatican II of heresy and substantial deviation from Catholicism, to conclude to the heresy of the promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms, with the conclusion that (1) they are public heretics, and therefore outside the Church; (2) they do not intend the objective good of the Catholic Church through the maintenance of its traditional doctrines, disciplines, and liturgy.
On the other hand, if we are not accusing Vatican II and its reforms of heresy and substantial deviation, then why do we have a traditional movement?
- Bp. Donald Sanborn
There a lot of traditional Catholics who don't call themselves sedevacantists that have concluded all of those points.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that these folks even though they don't call themselves sedes actually are? Or are you saying that you don't have to be a sede to come to the above conclusions?
Because I take Bishop Sanborn's meaning as you can judge a pope not to be a pope (ie. "outside o the Church")....and many traditionalists are not willing to take that step because they feel they are judging the pope and only the "court of law" can do that first (ie. the Church). I would suugest that the latter group is the SSPX (if I understand their position correctly).
More or less, yes, I'm saying that traditional Catholics generally fall into the category of what most people consider sedevacantism. I think the apparent aversion to being called a sedevacantist stems from two major things: The (false) impression that ABL was anti-sedevacantist, and the stigma that has been placed on sedevacantism due to people who can barely be called Catholic, such as Richard Ibranyi.
There are traditional Catholics who think ABL was opposed to SVism, and that 'the nine' were expelled for being SV, and that ABL had 'settled' the question of the pope. They think that by opposing sedevacantism, they are carrying on the Archbishop's work. He himself acknowledged that there may be a time where we are obliged to say 'the pope is not the pope' (read: there may be a time to call the man most consider to be pope an antipope). He was a non-sedevacantist, but he was not an anti-sedevacantist.
Furthermore, Catholics show their allegiance to the pope by following his direction. He is the proximate rule of faith. Catholics love him and assent to what he teaches, and not just when he teaches ex cathedra. Some traditional Catholics give Francis, Benedict, John Paul, et al. the title of pope, but they do not treat him as pope. Actions speak louder than words. They do not really consider this man to be pope. If they did, they wouldn't be traditionalists in the modern world :)
I wouldn't say that by recognizing the points laid out by John that a person isn't a sedevacantist, only that they may not make that distinct realization. I also don't think that making that realization is something that MUST be done, though I have found it helpful.
Topic: "Judging" the Pope (Read 3065 times)