Author Topic: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?  (Read 1422 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XavierSem

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1826
  • Reputation: +214/-383
  • Gender: Male
  • Mary Refuge of Holy Love, Teach Us Your Holy Love.
Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
« on: July 27, 2020, 08:24:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • An article on Sede-Vacantism in One Peter Five with the objection to sedevacantism now familiar to Cathinfo readers. With all the Bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII having passed, is the Catholic Church reduced to a non-Apostolic Church without a formally Apostolic Hierarchy and without any Ordinary Jurisdiction? The two objections (1) the Church can exist even without Ordinary Jurisdiction, and (2) can the "appointments" of a Heretical Anti-Pope confer authority? are considered. The first is precluded by the definition of formal Apostolicity, beside a statement in Vatican I. The second is excluded from Cum Ex - the one document on a heretical Pontiff - and a statement by Fr. Gueranger that heretics without mission cannot appoint others to positions of authority.

    From: https://onepeterfive.com/sedevacantists-church-without-pope/

    Recently, an event of significance for sedevacantists came to pass. The last bishop consecrated to be appointed to office in 1958 — i.e., during the reign of Pope Pius XII — finally passed into eternity. That this is so can also be verified at the Catholic Hierarchy website and the updated lists at Wikipedia.

    The most senior living bishop (sort the Wiki list by Consecrated Bishop) is now His Excellency Bishop Eloy Tato Losado of Spain. Consecrated bishop on July 25, 1960, about 60 years ago, during the reign of Pope John XXIII, this bishop was appointed to office and received his authority from that pope.

    Why is all this of consequence for sedevacantists? Because many sedevacantists hold that Pope Pius XII was the last pope and that the See of St. Peter has been vacant since then, for almost 62 years.

    Point I: Apostolic Succession Requires Ordinary Jurisdiction.

    It is a common misconception that episcopal orders alone are sufficient for apostolic succession. In point of fact, both episcopal orders and ordinary jurisdiction (actual succession to an episcopal see) are necessary for apostolic succession. In the old manuals and theology books, the power of orders is sometimes referred to as the “matter” or material element of apostolic succession, while the power of jurisdiction is the form or formal element in a man’s succession to episcopal authority.

    Quote
    The apostolic succession can be defined as: the public, legitimate, solemn and never interrupted elevation [suffectio] of persons in the place of the Apostles to govern and nourish the Church. (Cercia, I, p. 223) Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it. (Herrmann, Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Institutiones, n. 282.)
    Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of “bishop,” or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. – The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. – What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. – This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked. (Christ’s Church, Monsignor G Van Noort, Vol. II, pg. 152)
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Point II: Ordinary Jurisdiction Comes by Papal Appointment.

    How does ordinary jurisdiction come to the bishops? The “last pope” of the sedevacantists, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, helpfully answers:
    [/font][/size]

    Quote
    Jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: “… As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”[13] 40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity. (Ad Apostolorum Principis, 1958)
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Rev. Fr. Stanislaus Woywod, in his commentary on the Old Code of Canon Law, confirms:[/font][/size]

    Quote
    210. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by Divine law over the individual churches, which they govern with ordinary authority under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. They are freely appointed by the Pope. If some college has received the right to elect the bishop, Canon 321 shall be observed, which requires the absolute majority of votes of all those who have the right to vote. (Canon 329.)
    213. Every candidate to the episcopate, even those elected, presented or designated by the civil government, needs the canonical provision or institution in order to be the lawful bishop of a vacant diocese. The only one to institute a bishop is the Roman Pontiff. (Canon 332.)
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Point III: Ordinary Jurisdiction Cannot Cease in the Whole Church.

    This is a logical consequence of the two points discussed above. It follows as a syllogism also:
    Major: The Church cannot cease to be apostolic (as we profess in the Creed).
    Minor: But ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for apostolicity (as proved above).
    Conclusion: Hence, ordinary jurisdiction cannot cease in the whole Church.


    As the Church of Christ cannot cease to be apostolic, so she cannot cease to have at least some bishops who are formal and full successors of the apostles. In this way, she retains the note of apostolicity as a permanent mark by which she can be distinguished from all breakaway sects.

    Point IV: Therefore, the See of St. Peter Cannot Be Vacant Indefinitely.

    This point follows from points 1 to 3. If ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity can be transmitted only through the successors of St. Peter, and formal apostolicity cannot cease to exist in the whole Church, it necessarily follows that there must be perpetual successors of St. Peter until the end of time — as also defined dogma precisely says. The Petrine succession and the apostolic succession are intimately connected. Only a successor of St. Peter can “make” a successor to the apostles in the formal and full sense, by appointment to office conferring authority on him.

    Point V: Therefore, it is heretical, and contrary to St. Peter’s perpetual successors, to hold to indefinite sedevacantism. It is necessary to renounce the error and to come out of it.

    The Church cannot exist without the pope and without the powers he himself has communicated to others (like the bishops and cardinals) for the time of the vacant see.[/font][/size]

    Quote
    Objection: The successor of St. Peter in the Primacy is like the foundation without which the Church cannot exist. But without the Roman Pontiff, when the see is vacant, the Church exists. Therefore, the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter in the Primacy.
    I distinguish the major: The successor of St. Peter in the Primacy is like the primary foundation, principle and by his own right, without which the Church cannot exist, denied; he is like a secondary foundation, ministerial and with a vicarious right, I subdistinguish: without which [i.e., without a pope] and without his exigency together with the actual power arranged by him for the time of the vacant See, the Church cannot exist, conceded; without which, but with the exigency together with the actual power arranged for the time of the vacant See, the Church cannot exist, denied.” (Salaverri, Joachim S.J.; Nicolau, Michaele, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 1B, 1955, Book 1, Chapter 3, Art. III)
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Thus, the Church cannot exist indefinitely once those bishops appointed by the last pope die. The Church exists only so long as the powers already communicated by the last pope remain.

    An objection and its answer: “Does supplied jurisdiction save the day for sedevacantism?” No.

    Not in the case of preserving apostolicity, for we have already seen ordinary jurisdiction (jurisdiction as a habitual power, as attached to a see or office) is necessary for formal apostolicity. Even an excommunicated priest may sometimes be supplied jurisdiction in a tacit and transient manner — however, this is not the equivalent of the Church conferring a permanent mission on him. The former does not equate to ordinary jurisdiction, but is only jurisdiction supplied for the act.

    Supplied jurisdiction is referred to by canonists as a “delegatio a iure,” a delegation operative by the law itself. It is, basically, a tacit and transient delegation that comes from the Church — the Church here meaning the local bishop, the whole teaching Church, or the Roman pontiff himself.

    So, even if jurisdiction is supplied to the sede bishops, that doesn’t make them successors to the apostles. Neither therefore does it preserve the apostolic indefectibility of the teaching Church.

    Another objection: Would papal jurisdiction be supplied to the “heretic anti-pope (HAP) for his appointments?” Not so. For Cum Ex – the one document on a heretical pontiff in Church history, which the earlier sedevacantists especially appealed to — explicitly says that those “appointed” by a heretic lack all authority. Those apparently “appointed” by heretics are not appointed at all [1].

    Hence, if it is true that all the popes of the last 62 years have all been heretics, it necessarily follows that all their appointments are invalid, and the Church has defected and lost her formal apostolicity.
    Conversely, if it is impossible that the Catholic Church defects and loses apostolicity, it follows that the popes doing the appointing to continue the succession must necessarily have been true popes.

    Perhaps It Is Time to Come Home to Mother Church?

    Sedevacantists deserve at least the same charity and courtesy shown to Protestants. Perhaps many sedevacantists are only in a material schism, earnestly not intending to be in schism.

    But it is impossible to deny that sedevacantism, objectively and as such, constitutes a grave error. The simplest way to see this is to ask, “(1) How long can an interregnum last? (2) Is an interregnum indefinitely extended (e.g., 100-plus years) even possible?” Clearly not. There surely is a limit.

    If saying an indefinite vacancy of St. Peter’s throne is possible, then the dogma that St. Peter must have perpetual successors in the primacy over the Church is a meaningless formula. Conversely, if that dogma actually means something, it means that the Church cannot be without popes forever.

    Dom Prosper Guéranger writes how those who lost the Faith were unable to transmit the mission to others: “By God’s permission, the sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, were defiled by heresy; they became chairs of pestilence; and having corrupted the faith they received from Rome, they could not transmit to others the mission they themselves had forfeited. Sad indeed was the ruin of such pillars as these! Peter’s hand had placed them in the Church. They had merited the love and veneration of men; but they fell; and their fall gave one more proof of the solidity of that edifice, which Christ Himself had built on Peter.”

    Finally, sedevacantism really comes from a form of despair, fear, and worry that “it’s all over.”

    Why should we worry when God is with us? Why should we despair when the Immaculata has promised us that, through the pope and bishops’ consecration of Russia, the Immaculate Heart will triumph, Russia will be converted, and a period of peace will be given to the world? How do we know that God may not act mightily in Pope Francis’s life? If we are Christians, we dare not say that that is impossible, but let us jointly pray, work, and sacrifice for that to come about. How do we know that God may not, after Pope Francis, give us a sovereign pontiff strong in the Catholic faith? To those who believe, all things are possible. If we pray, fast, work, and ask, the Lord will never fail us.

    In conclusion, since sedevacantism is now known to be a harmful error, if any has adhered to it in the past, the time is now to come out of it and re-experience the glorious liberty of the children of God, by living in Catholic communion with the universal Church.[/font][/size]


    [1] Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio: “[E]ach and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone[.]”
    "Take my advice and every day in Mass ask God to make you a great Saint"-St. Leonard. Go for Holy Mass every day to receive the Holy Body and Precious Blood of God. Do never skip Holy Mass for even one single day, if you want to become a Saint, as the Saints tell us, we should all aspire to become.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1515
    • Reputation: +947/-465
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #1 on: July 27, 2020, 09:01:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • XavierSem never tires of recycling old arguments that have been addressed by sedes many times before.  He is blind.

    Here's something new: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1845

    And something that has been around for a while: https://romeward.com/articles/239749895/a-valid-papal-election-without-cardinals


    Online Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1405
    • Reputation: +362/-271
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #2 on: July 27, 2020, 09:03:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Finally, sedevacantism really comes from a form of despair, fear, and worry that “it’s all over.”

    Catholics pray: Lord come soon!

    The 1P5-author seems to be stuck to this world. He thinks of despair, fear, and worry, given the idea that it could all be over soon. He should meditate Holy Scripture.

    The saints are crying "with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" (Rev 6)
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6947
    • Reputation: +5297/-1878
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #3 on: July 27, 2020, 09:04:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • An article on Sede-Vacantism in One Peter Five with the objection to sedevacantism now familiar to Cathinfo readers. With all the Bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII having passed, is the Catholic Church reduced to a non-Apostolic Church without a formally Apostolic Hierarchy and without any Ordinary Jurisdiction? The two objections (1) the Church can exist even without Ordinary Jurisdiction, and (2) can the "appointments" of a Heretical Anti-Pope confer authority? are considered. The first is precluded by the definition of formal Apostolicity, beside a statement in Vatican I. The second is excluded from Cum Ex - the one document on a heretical Pontiff - and a statement by Fr. Gueranger that heretics without mission cannot appoint others to positions of authority.

    From: https://onepeterfive.com/sedevacantists-church-without-pope/

    Recently, an event of significance for sedevacantists came to pass. The last bishop consecrated to be appointed to office in 1958 — i.e., during the reign of Pope Pius XII — finally passed into eternity. That this is so can also be verified at the Catholic Hierarchy website and the updated lists at Wikipedia.

    The most senior living bishop (sort the Wiki list by Consecrated Bishop) is now His Excellency Bishop Eloy Tato Losado of Spain. Consecrated bishop on July 25, 1960, about 60 years ago, during the reign of Pope John XXIII, this bishop was appointed to office and received his authority from that pope.

    Why is all this of consequence for sedevacantists? Because many sedevacantists hold that Pope Pius XII was the last pope and that the See of St. Peter has been vacant since then, for almost 62 years.

    Point I: Apostolic Succession Requires Ordinary Jurisdiction.

    It is a common misconception that episcopal orders alone are sufficient for apostolic succession. In point of fact, both episcopal orders and ordinary jurisdiction (actual succession to an episcopal see) are necessary for apostolic succession. In the old manuals and theology books, the power of orders is sometimes referred to as the “matter” or material element of apostolic succession, while the power of jurisdiction is the form or formal element in a man’s succession to episcopal authority.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Point II: Ordinary Jurisdiction Comes by Papal Appointment.

    How does ordinary jurisdiction come to the bishops? The “last pope” of the sedevacantists, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, helpfully answers:
    [/font][/size]
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Rev. Fr. Stanislaus Woywod, in his commentary on the Old Code of Canon Law, confirms:[/font][/size]
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Point III: Ordinary Jurisdiction Cannot Cease in the Whole Church.

    This is a logical consequence of the two points discussed above. It follows as a syllogism also:
    Major: The Church cannot cease to be apostolic (as we profess in the Creed).
    Minor: But ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for apostolicity (as proved above).
    Conclusion: Hence, ordinary jurisdiction cannot cease in the whole Church.


    As the Church of Christ cannot cease to be apostolic, so she cannot cease to have at least some bishops who are formal and full successors of the apostles. In this way, she retains the note of apostolicity as a permanent mark by which she can be distinguished from all breakaway sects.

    Point IV: Therefore, the See of St. Peter Cannot Be Vacant Indefinitely.

    This point follows from points 1 to 3. If ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity can be transmitted only through the successors of St. Peter, and formal apostolicity cannot cease to exist in the whole Church, it necessarily follows that there must be perpetual successors of St. Peter until the end of time — as also defined dogma precisely says. The Petrine succession and the apostolic succession are intimately connected. Only a successor of St. Peter can “make” a successor to the apostles in the formal and full sense, by appointment to office conferring authority on him.

    Point V: Therefore, it is heretical, and contrary to St. Peter’s perpetual successors, to hold to indefinite sedevacantism. It is necessary to renounce the error and to come out of it.

    The Church cannot exist without the pope and without the powers he himself has communicated to others (like the bishops and cardinals) for the time of the vacant see.[/font][/size]
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Thus, the Church cannot exist indefinitely once those bishops appointed by the last pope die. The Church exists only so long as the powers already communicated by the last pope remain.

    An objection and its answer: “Does supplied jurisdiction save the day for sedevacantism?” No.

    Not in the case of preserving apostolicity, for we have already seen ordinary jurisdiction (jurisdiction as a habitual power, as attached to a see or office) is necessary for formal apostolicity. Even an excommunicated priest may sometimes be supplied jurisdiction in a tacit and transient manner — however, this is not the equivalent of the Church conferring a permanent mission on him. The former does not equate to ordinary jurisdiction, but is only jurisdiction supplied for the act.

    Supplied jurisdiction is referred to by canonists as a “delegatio a iure,” a delegation operative by the law itself. It is, basically, a tacit and transient delegation that comes from the Church — the Church here meaning the local bishop, the whole teaching Church, or the Roman pontiff himself.

    So, even if jurisdiction is supplied to the sede bishops, that doesn’t make them successors to the apostles. Neither therefore does it preserve the apostolic indefectibility of the teaching Church.

    Another objection: Would papal jurisdiction be supplied to the “heretic anti-pope (HAP) for his appointments?” Not so. For Cum Ex – the one document on a heretical pontiff in Church history, which the earlier sedevacantists especially appealed to — explicitly says that those “appointed” by a heretic lack all authority. Those apparently “appointed” by heretics are not appointed at all [1].

    Hence, if it is true that all the popes of the last 62 years have all been heretics, it necessarily follows that all their appointments are invalid, and the Church has defected and lost her formal apostolicity.
    Conversely, if it is impossible that the Catholic Church defects and loses apostolicity, it follows that the popes doing the appointing to continue the succession must necessarily have been true popes.

    Perhaps It Is Time to Come Home to Mother Church?

    Sedevacantists deserve at least the same charity and courtesy shown to Protestants. Perhaps many sedevacantists are only in a material schism, earnestly not intending to be in schism.

    But it is impossible to deny that sedevacantism, objectively and as such, constitutes a grave error. The simplest way to see this is to ask, “(1) How long can an interregnum last? (2) Is an interregnum indefinitely extended (e.g., 100-plus years) even possible?” Clearly not. There surely is a limit.

    If saying an indefinite vacancy of St. Peter’s throne is possible, then the dogma that St. Peter must have perpetual successors in the primacy over the Church is a meaningless formula. Conversely, if that dogma actually means something, it means that the Church cannot be without popes forever.

    Dom Prosper Guéranger writes how those who lost the Faith were unable to transmit the mission to others: “By God’s permission, the sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, were defiled by heresy; they became chairs of pestilence; and having corrupted the faith they received from Rome, they could not transmit to others the mission they themselves had forfeited. Sad indeed was the ruin of such pillars as these! Peter’s hand had placed them in the Church. They had merited the love and veneration of men; but they fell; and their fall gave one more proof of the solidity of that edifice, which Christ Himself had built on Peter.”

    Finally, sedevacantism really comes from a form of despair, fear, and worry that “it’s all over.”

    Why should we worry when God is with us? Why should we despair when the Immaculata has promised us that, through the pope and bishops’ consecration of Russia, the Immaculate Heart will triumph, Russia will be converted, and a period of peace will be given to the world? How do we know that God may not act mightily in Pope Francis’s life? If we are Christians, we dare not say that that is impossible, but let us jointly pray, work, and sacrifice for that to come about. How do we know that God may not, after Pope Francis, give us a sovereign pontiff strong in the Catholic faith? To those who believe, all things are possible. If we pray, fast, work, and ask, the Lord will never fail us.

    In conclusion, since sedevacantism is now known to be a harmful error, if any has adhered to it in the past, the time is now to come out of it and re-experience the glorious liberty of the children of God, by living in Catholic communion with the universal Church.[/font][/size]


    [1] Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio: “[E]ach and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone[.]”

    I haven’t read the article yet, but right off the bat, I would dispute there could be a Church devoid of ordinary jurisdiction or hierarchy.

    I would have thought that much would be obvious, yet the sedes found a way to make an argument out of it.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1515
    • Reputation: +947/-465
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #4 on: July 27, 2020, 09:20:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I haven’t read the article yet, but right off the bat, I would dispute there could be a Church devoid of ordinary jurisdiction or hierarchy.

    I would have thought that much would be obvious, yet the sedes found a way to make an argument out of it.
    What ordinary is the Resistance submitting to?  If you aren't submitting to an ordinary, how do you justify the necessity of an ordinary?


    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1496
    • Reputation: +585/-726
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #5 on: July 27, 2020, 10:45:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What ordinary is the Resistance submitting to?  If you aren't submitting to an ordinary, how do you justify the necessity of an ordinary?
    You used the word “submitting”! Get ready for Stubborn to chime in.....3....2....1
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6947
    • Reputation: +5297/-1878
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #6 on: July 27, 2020, 11:03:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What ordinary is the Resistance submitting to?  If you aren't submitting to an ordinary, how do you justify the necessity of an ordinary?
    Every ordinary in the world (insofar as what he teaches or commands is consistent with the magisterium).
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline LeDeg

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Reputation: +246/-42
    • Gender: Male
    • I am responsible only to God and history.
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #7 on: July 27, 2020, 11:41:34 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can popes be resisted forever without undermining the necessity of the Petrine ministry?
    "The whole secret of the campaigns unleashed against Europe can be explained in two words: Masonry and Communism... we have to extirpate these two evils from our land." -Franco


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1515
    • Reputation: +947/-465
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #8 on: July 27, 2020, 11:56:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Every ordinary in the world (insofar as what he teaches or commands is consistent with the magisterium).

    You have no clue.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_Saint_Pius_X

    Quote
    In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed that: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."[19] The status of the SSPX was not changed by Benedict in 2009. This has to some extent been superseded with regard to the exercise by SSPX ministers of ministry within the Catholic Church, but not as regards the canonical status of the society as viewed by the Holy See.

    On 20 November 2016, Pope Francis personally extended for priests of the society, until further provisions are made, the faculty by which "those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins", a faculty he had already granted for the duration of the 2015–16 Jubilee Year.[20] Confession, along with marriage, requires the granting of the required faculty for validity: "The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution" (Code of Canon Law 966.1).[21]

    That's the SSPX situation.  The Resistance situation is such that the pope you recognize doesn't even think you are Catholic.  Bishop Williamson is excommunicated.  You don't even have "partial communion" (whatever that means) with your pope.  Your recognition of him does nothing for you.  If he really is the pope, you aren't a member of the Catholic Church.  Your only hope is that Fr. Chazal is correct.

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 681
    • Reputation: +182/-237
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #9 on: July 27, 2020, 12:00:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Because many sedevacantists hold that Pope Pius XII was the last pope and that the See of St. Peter has been vacant since then, for almost 62 years.
    How do some Roman rite trads justify not following Pius XII's directives, for example rejecting the revised Roman rite holy week?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6947
    • Reputation: +5297/-1878
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #10 on: July 27, 2020, 12:03:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can popes be resisted forever without undermining the necessity of the Petrine ministry?
    The false premise here being that there will never again be an orthodox pope?
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6947
    • Reputation: +5297/-1878
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #11 on: July 27, 2020, 12:04:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You have no clue.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_Saint_Pius_X

    That's the SSPX situation.  The Resistance situation is such that the pope you recognize doesn't even think you are Catholic.  Bishop Williamson is excommunicated.  You don't even have "partial communion" (whatever that means) with your pope.  Your recognition of him does nothing for you.  If he really is the pope, you aren't a member of the Catholic Church.  Your only hope is that Fr. Chazal is correct.

    Not sure what you are talking about.

    Do you know what you are talking about?

    It would seem not.

    Your premise is that a pope cannot excommunicate invalidly.

    Yet the pope is not infallible in this regard.

    And what does it matter what an heretical pope thinks about my Catholicity??

    And most importantly, why are you prattling on about the Resistance, rather than explaining how there can be a church with ho hierarchy and no jurisdiction (the latter of which means there can never again be a hierarchy)???
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Online Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1405
    • Reputation: +362/-271
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #12 on: July 27, 2020, 12:31:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Our Lord wished there to be shepherds and doctors in his Church up to the consummation of the age:

    Quote from: Pastor Aeternus, Vatican Council, Pius IX
    ita in Ecclesia sua Pastores et Doctores usque ad consummationem saeculi esse voluit.


    Our Lord promised to be with his militant Church on earth, all days up to the consummation of the age:

    Quote from: Dei Filius, Vatican Council, Pius IX
    Dei Filius et generis humani Redemptor Dominus Noster Iesus Christus, ad Patrem caelestem rediturus, cum Ecclesia sua in terris militante, omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi futurum se esse promisit.
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1515
    • Reputation: +947/-465
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #13 on: July 27, 2020, 12:36:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Not sure what you are talking about.

    Do you know what you are talking about?

    It would seem not.

    Your premise is that a pope cannot excommunicate invalidly.

    Yet the pope is not infallible in this regard.

    And what does it matter what an heretical pope thinks about my Catholicity??

    And most importantly, why are you prattling on about the Resistance, rather than explaining how there can be a church with ho hierarchy and no jurisdiction (the latter of which means there can never again be a hierarchy)???

    Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.  A hierarchy that can be resisted and overruled by the subjects is no hierarchy at all.  The Resistance view of ecclesiology may be compatible with Antifa doctrine but it isn't compatible with Catholic doctrine.

    Quote
    Effects of invalid or unjust excommunication

    An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI). But a case of unjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God's judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.

    Bishop Williamson and the Resistance if they have been unjustly excommunicated by a true pope are "bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved."  Fr Chazal doesn't worry about that because he doesn't think Frank is a true pope in the sense that he legitimately holds the office of the Bishop of Rome.  Fr Chazal believes that Frank has no authority in the Church.  But you think that Frank does hold authority in the Church but that you can overrule him if you judge his discipline doesn't measure up to your standards.  That's not a Catholic hierarchy.  A true pope can even suppress a religious order that was not guilty of any crimes (e.g. Society of Jesus in the 1700s).  Some people might consider that unjust but the pope has the authority to do it.  And we would be bound by his decision.  So spare me your patronizing attitude about the hierarchy.  At least sedes have the hope of an election.  Whereas R&R will be stuck in the Novus Ordo until the end of time.

    Offline LeDeg

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Reputation: +246/-42
    • Gender: Male
    • I am responsible only to God and history.
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #14 on: July 27, 2020, 12:55:11 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • The false premise here being that there will never again be an orthodox pope?
    No, that's not what I am saying. Perhaps one day we will have one if it's God's will. 
    What I'm saying is that if recognized popes and bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction can be resisted since Vatican II, why not 100 years? Or 500 years? Xavier seems to present the argument that SVism is wrong because of not having a pope or bishops for 60+ years disproves its thesis. I really don't see the difference in degrees of problems when one can resist indefinitely. It seems to undermine the necessity of the Petrine office. Try making this argument with Eastern Orthodox and they would say they resist the pope just like the SSPX, so there is no difference. 
    "The whole secret of the campaigns unleashed against Europe can be explained in two words: Masonry and Communism... we have to extirpate these two evils from our land." -Franco


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16