Author Topic: Argument Against Sedevacantism: Lying Popes vs. Heretics (Read 795 times)

pickoverthecliff · « **on:** December 02, 2013, 05:16:50 AM »

Hi all!

I was wondering if this argument has been put forth before against sesedevacantism or if any similar reasoning has been used.

Basically, there is a major difference between a heretic and a liar. What if popes since Vatican 2 have been liars who have taught heresies, but have NOT BEEN heretics! A person who teaches heresy is not a heretic by logical necessity. This is the difference between delusion (false belief, analoguously like heresy in this example) and between knowing the truth and deliberately choosing to lie. Someone who's a heretic delusionally believes in heresy against the Catholic faith. Yet, a pope who would choose to lie and spread heresies, would not be a heretic himself IF he didn't believe the lies he is spreading, and thus is still a Catholic and does not become a heretic by divine law. It is also possible that these popes have taught heresy without knowing, but this hypothesis is unlikely given the many years in seminary and experience which should give popes a clear understanding of the faith.

Note that, even with the SSPX, they were not excommunicated for rejecting Vatican 2, but basically got set up for a sting operation where, as I understand, they were given permission to consecrate bishops and the permission was denied at the last minute. Unfortunately, that is technically schismatic. My fear is that the popes, like Satan, really do still have the power and are trying to technically default traditionalists into schism. Is there any way out of this reasoning I have put forth? I don't believe I have stumbled upon it on any sedevacantist website.

See, now, it seems sedevacantists were trying to use the opposite tactic of arguing that popes since Vatican 2 have legally defaulted themselves through heresy. But if the popes were "merely" liars, they would not be excommunicated. The Holy Ghost would not protect against the sins of the individual conspirator, but could have preserved the papacy in this way. No ex cathedra statement has been made, as far as I'm aware, by post-V2 popes which contradicts tradition (though there has been a lot of contradiction of tradition going around!).

I did a quick search of those sins which incur latae sententiae excommunication; lying is not one of them. "Spirit of Vatican 2" heresies might be the "mortalest" of mortal sins, but could the popes have gotten away with not personally believing them, acting as hypocritical false shepherds who preach heresies yet retain their Catholicism? There is a difference between losing the state of sanctifying grace, and losing membership in the Church, though both may be closely related. Having an abortion is a mortal sin that automatically incurs excommunication. Yet big lies may be mortal sins, as in this example, but do not appear to give excommunication. Your thoughts on this angle or related reasonings?

P.S. One last analogy. Satan is like an "internet troll", he is "a liar, and the father thereof". A picture was posted online of a fat guy who became fit and went tanning, before/after picture. First picture his tattoo was on the left shoulder, second it was on the right shoulder. Internet trolls commented on the picture that it was a fake, and then delusional (heretical) people followed in on their cue. But those who realized the truth understood that the reason the tattoo switched was because the second picture was a self-shot in a mirror, while the first was a picture taken of him by someone else. Optics of a mirror switches the image around, so it was a real image. The internet trolls knew better, but were disseminating disinformation (which would be Satan-like on a serious issue). It was playfully done, but obvious that they knew better and that some were deceived.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2013, 06:50:57 AM »

This is the material/formal heresy argument re-packaged.

I don't know what you mean by someone who's "delusionally an heretic." I've come to discover that in almost all instances, when theologians refer to heretics, they refer to public manifest heretics (one who meets the requirements for what we call formal heresy and whose heresies are public) unless noted otherwise. People who don't meet the requirement to fall into this category aren't different kinds of heretics (with the exception of occult heretics, who are still different than manifest public ones), and they are innocent of the crime of heresy due to their ignorance. A young child who doesn't know the facts of life may believe Christ was brought to Our Blessed Mother by a stork, and then once this child learns the facts of life he may for a time believe Our Lady had a natural birth. If he is unaware of what the Church actually teaches on a given topic, he cannot be guilty of heresy for believing contrary to what She teaches on that given topic, because he lacks the quality of pertinacity which is required for one's heresy to be "formal"). He materially holds a heresy, but he is not a "material heretic." That term should be avoided.

It is true that a person who teaches heresy may not necessarily be an heretic, and it is also true that charity obliges us to assume the best intentions of a person until proven otherwise. Heresy is almost one of a kind in that by it's commission, not only does one fall into mortal sin and become cut off from God's grace ( thereby being resigned to Hell pending repentance) but it furthermore severs one's membership in Christ's Church, and also serves as forfeiture of any office held within it. So we are right to proceed carefully, cautiously and charitably when coming to a private judgement on the matter, since the effects which necessarily follow from one being

Our obligation to charity understood, we are not required to withhold a private judgement on this matter (Denz 1105). Canonist Dom Augustine teaches "Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man (Commentary, V8, 335)." If nearly a decade's worth of traditional seminary is not enough to convince a reasonable man, then I don't know what possibly could be. We arrive at a situation of gnosticism, where no man can be expected to believe and hold the truth once it is presented to him. But this is entirely false. Our Lord, who could never err, did not think it to be true-- He gave the Apostles the great commission to go out and teach all nations, baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

In a nutshell, the distinction you are trying to make between being a liar and being an heretic is the same as the distinction that people have tried to make between being a formal heretic (public/manifest) and someone materially holding a heresy. Such a distinction exists, the issue is whether or not it can be made in the case of a given conciliar pontiff in favor of him simply materially holding to heresy. The problem you will have to overcome is one I have already noted, that you are advocating ignorance for men who have spent most of their adult life around the faith. I don't see how a person could possibly claim ignorance in such an instance. Every single one of them, and for every single one of their heresies? It seems preposterous.

Additionally, as a side note, the idea that the Conciliar Church could "default traditionalism" into schism is not true. If anyone is in schism, it's the Conciliar Church and it's pimps. They are the ones who have abandoned the faith. That is the answer to your question.

pickoverthecliff · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2013, 07:57:43 AM »

Thank you for your response!

A "material heretic" is actually not a heretic at all - it is someone who adheres to heresy without really knowing that they're doing so, or what they're doing is wrong. Maybe like a child thought that Native American spirituality is "cool", and adopted some belief incompatible with his Catholic faith. That would be "material heresy". Formal heresy would be actually holding a belief contrary to the Catholic faith and knowing you're doing so. However, LYING about heresy would allow for the popes to remain Catholic while spewing heretical nonsense. They would not be ignorant of the heresy (material heresy) nor adhere to it (formal heresy), but would be teaching it so as to deceive (lying).

A delusion is a false belief contrary to reality. A heresy is a false belief contrary to divine reality. A lie is a false statement spread when you know the truth. My thought was that perhaps the popes are liars and not delusional heretics. They could say that "there's a fourth person of the Trinity" but not believe the nonsense they're spewing. This would mean that they are not heretics or liars. This was the distinction I thought might be useful to make.

The heretic by divine law is excommunicated automatically. Liars of this sort are "simply" mortal sinners, and would not lose their membership as a Catholic in the Church.

With the SSPX, although Abp. Lefebvre had the right intention, obedience can often have very little limit on reasonableness of the command given. Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac, which was an unreasonable demand. JP2 telling Lefebvre to back off the consecrations was a seemingly unreasonable command given by the Roman Pontiff, and Lefebvre refused to submit to the Roman Pontiff's order, which is the very definition of schism. From a Satanic standpoint, that's a golden legalistic tactic which technically defaulted him as far as I can see. Granted, I think God would probably over-ride Satan's power here, but one never knows. Lefebvre could have backed down on the consecrations and then gotten the power to do so just because he was obedient. But, since he was calling the shots and, granted, reasonably concerned about why the Roman Pontiff was holding things up when he had such good intentions, he kinda started having a schismatic attitude. This SSPX stuff is probably for another thread, but my view is that there are rational/irrational reasons to deny bishops to a society, and either way it's up to the pope (is this a monarchy or what?). Otherwise, it's sede vacante!

Memento · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2013, 08:15:42 AM »

Since I have no expertise on the subject I cannot answer your question with any great philosophical argument but because I am only trying to save my soul, and not stand in authoritative judgment of these men here is what I have to say.

O MY GOD, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.

If docuмents Francis I, Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI wrote were part of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church, they could not be deceptive. If their actions teach heresy through deception, they cannot be acts of the true Catholic hierarchy.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #4 on:** December 02, 2013, 02:56:07 PM »

Quote from: pickoverthecliff

Thank you for your response!

A "material heretic" is actually not a heretic at all - it is someone who adheres to heresy without really knowing that they're doing so, or what they're doing is wrong. Maybe like a child thought that Native American spirituality is "cool", and adopted some belief incompatible with his Catholic faith. That would be "material heresy". Formal heresy would be actually holding a belief contrary to the Catholic faith and knowing you're doing so. However, LYING about heresy would allow for the popes to remain Catholic while spewing heretical nonsense. They would not be ignorant of the heresy (material heresy) nor adhere to it (formal heresy), but would be teaching it so as to deceive (lying).

A delusion is a false belief contrary to reality. A heresy is a false belief contrary to divine reality. A lie is a false statement spread when you know the truth. My thought was that perhaps the popes are liars and not delusional heretics. They could say that "there's a fourth person of the Trinity" but not believe the nonsense they're spewing. This would mean that they are not heretics or liars. This was the distinction I thought might be useful to make.

The heretic by divine law is excommunicated automatically. Liars of this sort are "simply" mortal sinners, and would not lose their membership as a Catholic in the Church.

It is not true that these men would be "saved" from formal heresy if they didn't believe in a given heresy that they teach. Their heresy is manifest by the fact of their public profession of it. If they secretly believed a heresy and kept it to themselves, that is entirely different. If they somehow secretly hold orthodoxy and choose to profess heresy (you do realize how absolutely ridiculous that is, right?) they are still heretics because they have failed to profess the faith. Our membership in the Church is conditional on us professing the faith (among other things). Those who do not profess the faith are not members of the Church.

Quote

With the SSPX, although Abp. Lefebvre had the right intention, obedience can often have very little limit on reasonableness of the command given. Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac, which was an unreasonable demand. JP2 telling Lefebvre to back off the consecrations was a seemingly unreasonable command given by the Roman Pontiff, and Lefebvre refused to submit to the Roman Pontiff's order, which is the very definition of schism. From a Satanic standpoint, that's a golden legalistic tactic which technically defaulted him as far as I can see. Granted, I think God would probably over-ride Satan's power here, but one never knows. Lefebvre could have backed down on the consecrations and then gotten the power to do so just because he was obedient. But, since he was calling the shots and, granted, reasonably concerned about why the Roman Pontiff was holding things up when he had such good intentions, he kinda started having a schismatic attitude. This SSPX stuff is probably for another thread, but my view is that there are rational/irrational reasons to deny bishops to a society, and either way it's up to the pope (is this a monarchy or what?). Otherwise, it's sede vacante!

JPII was an apostate from the Catholic faith. He was the schismatic from the faith, not ABL. It was JPII that refused communion with the faith, not ABL.