Sedevacantism, all told, seems to be the least likely solution to the crisis. :) For any difficulty that can be alleged to a contrary position, there are more than one that can be demonstrated for the sedevacantist position. For the record, I incline to the FSSP view myself. Here are four dilemmas for the sedevacantist position, which we haven't even scraped the surface of yet.
1:
The indefectibility of the Roman Church: This is taught by Pope St.Agatho ("this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error ... from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself") and Pope St.Gregory VII ("the Roman Church has never erred and never will err till the end of time, the Scripture bearing witness"). If this is the case, it could be said that sedevacantism stems from a loss of faith in the divine promise.
2:
The loss of ordinary jurisdiction: All Bishops consecrated without explicit Papal approval cannot exercise ordinary jurisdiction. This is well known, and I'll back it up if need be. So, practically nobody has ordinary jurisdiction today, only supplied jurisdiction can be claimed for matters relating to the sacraments. This has been the case for 53 years. So not only can no one can say who is subject to whom, or whom should everyone rally around and be in communion with, but this creates still greater problems which brings me to my next point.
3:
The absence of a principle of unity: If "independent" Bishop A splits from "independent" Bishop B, who is in schism from the Church and who remains in communion with her? No one can say, because it's not just a matter of an interregnum here, but like I said, a wholesale rejection of communion with the Roman Church itself which always maintains ordinary power over every other Church ("by divine ordinance" - Vatican I). This absence of a visible principle of unity also makes it impossible to tell who is in schism from whom and who is not. Ordinarily, anyone who separates from the Pope and the Bishops subject to him or someone who separates from Rome in an interregnum are identified to be in schism.
4:
Conclavism: Continuing, we see for example that after Pope Liberius was declared deposed, very soon after Felix II was elected. This is only logical. In fact, most of the sedevacantists of yesterday are the conclavists of today. If it is recognized with absolute and infallible certainity, as is being claimed here, that "the Pope is not the Pope", then the logical and immediate thing to do is diligently elect a new Pope, not wait indefinitely, nor even less speculate there may be another unknown Pope somewhere else (especially someone who would have died by now, any Cardinals appointed in pectore being unable to function as such anyway), and especially for others when it is anyway known there are no more Cardinals now if the last 5 Popes have been invalid. This would also help address the problems of jurisdiction created and all that were mentioned above. So that begs the question, if sedevacantism was true yesterday, why isn't conclavism true today? Or why aren't you electing new Popes or subjecting yourself to one such already elected?
5.
Marks: Needless to say, sedevacantism does not depict any of the marks of the Church, especially unity (much less "Catholic unity and unconquerable stability" - Vatican I), usually and predictably splintering into any number of sects not infrequently at variance with each other and often wrapped in internecine and unprofitable conflicts.
This is not to pick on them, I understand many, even home-aloners are probably trying to do their best. But it remains a fact that sedevacantists cannot in any way show themselves to possess all the necessary and exclusive marks of the true Church, and it can even be said that these necessary marks indeed disqualify them from laying any claim to it.
In light of all this, truly insurmountable *dilemmas* I would think, the *difficulties* faced by traditional groups which remain more or less in communion with the Pope pale to utter insignificance.
Katholikos, let me reply to what you said.
Nishant, the problem here is that "may have" isn't good enough.
I said what I did in response to something specific that SJB had said. I'm not denying what you said about this, but I was giving an example of a "maneuver" or "legal defense" that the definition he provided referrred to.
But before we even come to investigating Pope Benedict XVI personally, the more important premise, the major of the whole thesis ("everyone must absolutely make that determination in case a Pope appears to have fallen into heresy") must be solidly established first, so harping about the minor ("the Pope appears to have fallen into heresy") does not prove anything without that.
If instead of the major premise, something like "every member of the Catholic faithful is free to defend the Pope from the charge of being a heretic even if he is wrong" of course without embracing the heresy in question himself is true, then the whole dogmatic sedevacantist thesis collapses. This I believe is what St.Maximus did.
We must look at what theologians have said about the matter, for they were extremely well-learned in these things. In particular, I would be interested in reading about the disputations at the First Vatican Council regarding the case of Pope Honorius I.
St.Robert is generally held to be mistaken in good faith about the historical facts on this point. He was concerned about those who used such incidents to deny the Pope's authority which he rightly defended. They did this all the way up to the First Vatican Council. But after it was once and for all decided by the Church, there was no danger in saying that Honorius was a heretic so long as the dogma indirectly involved, of Papal infallibility as such, is not denied. The Catholic Encyclopedia, a publication a 100 years ago, after the Council plainly says Honorius was certainly a heretic and Catholics need not defend him from that charge now.
That's nice, but that doesn't make it a dogma, to deny which would be heresy and thus make the denier a non-Catholic.
It could be argued that the doctrine in question was already universally taught by the ordinary Magisterium infallibly and so could not be called into question obstinately without the forfeiture of membership in the Church. That is why it was in a profession of Faith.
You've been reading too much John Salza. :-) No inferior can issue a canonically valid warning.
Not a canonically valid one, no, as I said in this thread long ago. :) But one that the situation and the supreme law of the Church nonetheless urgently demands, yes.
Those in competent positions who can act in the name of the Church must make the binding determination. Those who are not cannot make the determination then usurp that authority by pretending it to be binding and then finally and fancifully declare themselves alone the Church for doing so. That is the real "ridiculous mess" your article speaks of and the whole situation turns out to be quite amusing.
Yes, but you're leaving out the fact that moral imputability is sometimes presumed, so that the burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove that he was not morally imputable.
Yes any person especially a Pope would be entitled to rebut the presumption and I would argue as the SSPX website says, "socially as regards loss of office etc it must be proven, not presumed". In the absence of this chance for the person in question to defend himself from specific charges, one can hold the presumption as an opinion, not rashly treat it as a sort of infallibly certain superdogma in the light of which all else is to be judged, in my opinion, and wait to see if that presumption can be acted upon to go to the extent of judicial proof. I would go back to the historical example, and say Cardinal Orsini made the presumption, and because the Pope changed his mind and accepted the rebuke of the Cardinal, the presumption was relaxed.
One would first have to establish with certitude the facts surrounding Pope Liberius.
Haha. I think this is the real shifting of the burden of proof. It comes down to this, in the reading of history that even most Catholic theologians before Vatican II subscribed to, there are no precedents from which the dogmatic sedevacantism position can be deduced, and many that seem to render it implausible.
Of course we can go back and forth about history ad nauseam with nothing "established with certitude" unless we are willing to admit the majority opinion of theologians as determinative. I think on Pope Liberius, Honorius and Pope John XXII, I am in line with what Catholic theologians say, the Catholic Encyclopedia says and the Holy Office said.
Moreover, if it is even possibly true (i.e. a permissible reading of history) that Honorius was a heretic and Maximus who died defending him is a Saint not a heretic, dogmatic sedevacantism is necessarily false.
So when all of this is considered, sedevacantism especially of the dogmatic variety becomes the least likely position and so other options must be considered within the pale of the Church and under Pope Benedict XVI.
Topic: Archbishop Thuc - Consecrations (Read 32080 times)