I will do us all the favor of Refuting this:
By Fr. James Wathen, May 1, 2005
Now that we have a new Pope, there are those who have done their research and concluded and pronounced that "We have no pope." We call these people "Sedevacantists," because they hereby say that the Chair of St. Peter is still vacant. Presumably, they will do us the unsolicited service of informing us of the arrival of a pope whom they have validated.
Of course, just as soon as we know. :)This great division among "Traditionalists" is truly lamentable, and unhealthy, but, evidently, there is no helping it.
Well, divisions do serve to illustrate who is wheat and who is chaff, so hopefully some good will come out of the ability to distinguish between the two.Argument is useless. For this reason, here, I am not speaking to Sedevacantists, but to those who feel some urgency, some need or obligation, to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the new Pope, Benedict XVI, is a legitimate successor of St. Peter.
I think I will respond anyway.The theology of the matter is so clear and simple that it is rather surprising that this division exists at all.
Maybe that's a HINT that it is not clear or simple genius... I have made an effort in the book, "Who Shall Ascend?," to lay this theology out in an orderly fashion, but evidently my effort was unsuccessful. This is not altogether inexplicable, because, after all, it is a theological matter, a matter of both moral theology and Canon Law, which most people are not schooled in and have no need to be schooled in, because, in the present instance, they really do not need to know the arguments for and against the legitimacy of the present Pope. The matter really does not concern them practically, even if they wish to concern themselves with it theoretically, a truth I cannot state emphatically enough.
There are some people who it does not concern, and that is legitimate because they have had n reason to suspect up til now. That has no bearing on the TRUTH of the ACTUAL circuмstances however.Here I wish to abbreviate what is said in the pages of the aforesaid book.
Prima sedes a nemine judicatur
This is Canon 1556, which I failed to quote in my book, though I did state the fact of the law and the ecclesiastical admonition. These words mean:
"The First Chair is judged by no one;" which means that none of the pope's subjects are allowed to judge the status of him who sits on the Throne of St. Peter. We may judge his theology and his public acts, as we are bound to judge the beliefs and ideas of everyone with whom we come into serious contact; but we may not judge whether he is the legitimate pope. Sedevacantists claim to be very expert about Canon 181, but Canon 1556 has somehow eluded them.
FALSE. This is a fallacious argument. First he says that the Pope can be judged by no one. Here he PRESUMES the existence of a true Pope. Then he says this canon seems to elude Sedevacantists. Well, no kidding, because we believe the man in the pointy hat at Rome is NOT the Pope! So what does this prove other than this author has the ability to contradict himself in his VERY FIRST argument?! I should make it clear that Sedevacantists ARE aware of this passage and adhere to it whole-heartedly...when applicable. However, due to the ACTIONS and the TEACHINGS of the anti-popes at Rome, this canon does not apply to them: for they are false and undeserving.I should be able to stop right here, because a good Catholic should be satisfied with this directive. Holy Mother Church tells her children, "The legitimacy of the pope is not your concern; it is the concern of Christ only, because, He alone has authority over the pope, and He has the power to solve any problems that may arise from his being illegitimate, should the case ever occur."
SO in other words, he thinks a good Catholic cannot know the truth of the matter, and the best thing is for him to sit down and shut up. I wonder what he would do if he ever stopped and READ cuм Ex by Pope Paul IV:
"We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these...even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering)."But HOW I ask you can any layman (being among "all persons" the Pope is enumerating above) KNOW to withdraw his obedience from a heretical pope, cardinal or bishop without INVESTIGATING the issue? THerefore, the investigation of such issues is not only commendable, but necessary to be able to fulfill Pope Paul IV's scenario of laity breaking with an heretical Pope. How else do they know than by asking about it?!
Also, he tries to use a veiled ad hominem "a GOOD Catholic..."A sensible Catholic should be able to deduce from this directive that the legitimacy (or lack of it) of the pope does not bear on his religious obligations, that his religious obligations are no different whether the pope is legal or illegal, that concern about the matter is a distraction from his relationship to Christ and the Church, a source of spiritual disquiet.
A BOAT LOAD of lies. A lay person has the OBLIGATION to withdraw from a heretical Pope, Cardinal, or Bishop, as Pope Paul IV declared above in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. And not only THAT, but the faithful have the right to OUST the usurper through secular force! Pope Paul IV continues on saying:
"To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they [the faithful] shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated [the heretical and invalid Pope or Cardinals]; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circuмstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.Therefore, to the extent that it is possible, for the sake of his peace of mind and attention to his own spiritual welfare, the sensible Catholic should resolve to stay as far away from Sedevacantists and their writings as possible. Furthermore, any Catholic who feels bound and determined to pursue this matter, no matter what the Church says, is neither sensible, nor pious, nor humble, no matter how well-intentioned he credits himself with being. Neither is he seriously desirous of growing in virtue and loving union with Christ; instead, he wants something to distract him from his prayers and pursuit of spiritual intimacy.
Now this is simply poisonous. IN one fell swoop he not only seeks to destroy the motives of those who seek the truth, but he also seeks to UNDERMINE the clear and manifest teaching of both the Popes and unanimous teachings of the theologians who taught that a heretical pope is to be deposed. This has the Newchurch fingerprints ALL OVER IT. It is clearly a disinformation campaign this guy is starting.The main argument of the Sedevacantists is that an heretical pope has incurred the censure of excommunication. By excommunication, he has been expelled from the Church. As a non-Catholic, it is impossible for him to be the head of the Catholic Church. He may, therefore, occupy the Chair of St. Peter, but he most certainly does not have his authority. He can rightly be called a "usurper."
That is certainly an ASPECT of it, but like all the simpletons who THINK they know the sedevacantist arguments, they only get it half right, of course...
The REAL argument goes something like this:
There are three (sometimes four) aspects at work:
1. The Personal Heresy of these "Catholic" prelates both before and after their "election"
2. The FACT that public heresy, for a cleric, carries with it the LOSS OF OFFICE in ADDITION TO Excommunication.
3. The FACT that Vatican II TAUGHT heretical matter in its official docuмents in multiple places (this touches on both the Pope who convened it, and the bishops who fully adhered to it, in terms of accepting it and making it part of their own personal heresy)
4. For the Sedeimpedist, there is also the 1958 conclave, where there is a mountain of consistent circuмstantial evidence to suggest that Cardinal Gieuseppe Siri was elected Pope and took the name Gregory XVII. For these people, personal heresy becomes secondary, this FACT ALONE invalidates ALL the Novus Ordo bishops from John XXIII down to Benny.I do not know why it is so difficult to impart the idea that the word, "excommunication" does not mean expulsion. It is impossible for anyone for any reason to be expelled from the Church; the indelible mark of Baptism makes it so.Excommunication means that the individual who has received this censure is, by reason of some specific sin, rendered incapable of participating in the communal life of the Church, and forbidden to try to do so. He may not, therefore, act as usher, sing in the choir, be a witness at a marriage, etc. Due to this censure, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to exercise whatever office he may hold, whether he be a pope, a bishop, a pastor, or whatever. Whether the individual actually loses his office, depends upon what kind of sin he committed and what the law says about this censurable infraction.
This is true so far, no real objections.What is important in this context is that it is not the business of the ordinary Catholic priest or lay person, or anyone who has no authority over such an individual to concern himself with his legal status. No matter what is the said individual's status, the religious obligations of his subjects are in no way altered thereby.
Once again, this goes back to his FIRST ARGUMENT. IN normal times, the faithful would not be poking into every tin little detail, but unfortunately, the faithful can recognize the voice of the Shepherd, and we cry, "Wolf!"The next is a key point: Sedevacantists say that it is necessary to know whether the pope and the bishops are "in office" or "out of office" that we may know whether we are bound to obey them. If the pope is not the pope, we do not have to obey him, we do not, therefore, have to accept the New Mass, and all the other changes in the Church, which have been introduced since the Second Vatican Council. If they hold their offices legitimately, then we must obey them. Since they do not, we are in no way bound. We can therefore ignore them and their commands and procedures and do the things which legitimate popes and bishops of the past have imposed upon us.
Exactly. Good job. However, waiting for the other shoe to drop...This position is altogether wrong. The reason we do not have to accept the changes wrought by the Conciliar Popes (of whom Pope Benedict XVI most certainly will prove to be one) is not that the lawgivers are illegitimate, but that THERE ARE NO LEGAL LAWS which bind us to do so, and, these individuals, legitimate or illegitimate, have neither the authority nor the power to require us by law to abandon the traditional beliefs and practices of our holy religion.
Well, that was somewhat unexpected. He denied the sedevacantist position, but then offered a whole different set of reasons to have to submit to the decrees of the second Vatican council (Latrocineum). While the reasons he offers are GOOD, they in no way invalidate the Sedevacantist position. And they Just reveal, again, the duplicity of the SSPX. Acknowledge the authority, but do not do what they say. Priceless.
"The Council is a great act of the magisterium of the Church, and anyone who adheres to the Council is, by that very fact, recognizing and honoring the magisterium of the Church. This was the first idea that motivated Pope John XXIII to convoke the Council, as he said so well at its opening: "ut iterum magisterium ecclesiasticuм ... affirmaretur." "Our first aim," he said, "in convoking this vast assembly was to reassert the magisterium of the Church." (AAS 54, 1962, 786) Moreover, just because we claim that these men do not have the authority to command us to violate the established laws and customs of the Church, we are not thereby removing ourselves from their authority, we are not disobedient to them, and we are not in a state of schism. Should they govern according to the laws of the Church, we would obey them and their new laws, should they make any.
:rolleyes:
One thing I love about the SSPX, is the emphasis they seem to put on laws and customs. It is NOT ABOUT THAT Primarily! It is about DOCTRINE FIRST! Of course, they cannot admit THAT, because then their sandcastles wash into the sea...We do not have to accept the New Mass, not because the Conciliar Popes have all been illegitimate, but because the Old Mass was established by inviolable law to be the only legal and acceptable Mass of the Roman Rite for all time to come. Just as it is totally impossible for a pope to exempt all Catholics from ever having to go to Mass on Sunday again, just as it is impossible for any pope to exempt all men from entering the Church for salvation, just as it is impossible for any pope to make a woman a priest, it is impossible for any pope to create a "new mass" and bind his subjects to attend it.
Once again, this author is creating false dichotimies. Those are GOOD reasons for not accepting DISCIPLINE and LAW. But, once again, our primary concern is DOCTRINE. And apparently, he does not live in reality, because that is EXACTLY what "Pope" Paul VI DID. And he also made CLEAR the theological basis for the new mass, he personally reviewed TWICE the 1969 GIRM, which can be adequately described as the modernist manifesto on the liturgy.What I say of the Mass, I can say of many other things. A legitimate pope cannot nullify valid marriages; he cannot appoint his own successor; he cannot disqualify certain cardinals from their right to participate in the election of his successor; he cannot reduce the number of Sacraments; he cannot change the forms of the Sacraments so as to render them invalid; and so on.
Exactly. But this "Pope" did, now is he legitimate or not?How do we know what things the pope can and cannot legitimately do? We do not have to know. The only thing we have to know is our obligations to Christ as Catholics, all of which have been laid down for us for many centuries, all of which make up the traditional Catholic religion, practically all of which can be found in the catechism.
Wow, so, in the end dear people, he offers NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE against ANY of the Sede arguments! This is amazing! This has GOT to be the single weakest defence of the SSPX I have ever seen. This is FAR weaker than the SSPX Catechism on Sedevacantism, I actually had to put thought into that one! This is unique in that I agree with much that he says in terms of what we are bound to by law: But like I have continually stated, this is not so much about What a Pope can BIND us TO DO. This is about the validity of the POpes themselves. And of Course, he has nothing to say about that. Did you notice how he avoided any doctrinal arguments or ANY reference to canon 188.4, except vaguely and in passing when he said "depending on the kind of sin it is..."
"Sit down, shut up, and read your catechism! That stuff doesn't concern you!"
"But Father, what about when Pope Paul IV said that the faithful are not obliged to render obedience to or acknowledge a heretical pope?"
"What about it"
"Well, how would they know if he was a heretic or not if they were not supposed to inquire into the matter?"
"Father? Father?"
"What?!"
"What about when Paul IV also said the faithful could use the secular government as a means of overthrowing illegitimate Popes and Cardinals?"
"So what?"
"Wouldn't they have to be a rather activist group to make that all happen Father? Would they then be a bunch of lay people distracted from their prayers and devotions? Or is not devotion to the truth one of the higher devotions, father?
"Father????"
Sorry Father, Myth= Busted.Completely refuted.
Topic: "Revisiting Sedevacantism" (Read 20015 times)