Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: XavierSem on July 27, 2020, 08:24:43 AM

Title: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: XavierSem on July 27, 2020, 08:24:43 AM
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/ (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 (https://gloria.tv/post/TxujFTu9Xpqf1JmheXrs9Ecbi/replies). That this is so can also be verified at the Catholic Hierarchy website (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html) and the updated lists at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals).

The most senior living bishop (sort the Wiki list by Consecrated Bishop) is now His Excellency Bishop Eloy Tato Losado of Spain (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/btalo.html). 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 (http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html), 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 (https://reginamag.com/saint-peters-chair-at-antioch/) 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 (http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm): “[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[.]”
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 27, 2020, 09:01:21 AM
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
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 27, 2020, 09:03:34 AM
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)
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 09:04:30 AM
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/ (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 (https://gloria.tv/post/TxujFTu9Xpqf1JmheXrs9Ecbi/replies). That this is so can also be verified at the Catholic Hierarchy website (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html) and the updated lists at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals).

The most senior living bishop (sort the Wiki list by Consecrated Bishop) is now His Excellency Bishop Eloy Tato Losado of Spain (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/btalo.html). 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 (https://reginamag.com/saint-peters-chair-at-antioch/) 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 (http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm): “[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.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 27, 2020, 09:20:06 AM
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?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on July 27, 2020, 10:45:03 AM
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
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 11:03:15 AM
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).
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: LeDeg on July 27, 2020, 11:41:34 AM
Can popes be resisted forever without undermining the necessity of the Petrine ministry?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 27, 2020, 11:56:53 AM
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] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_Saint_Pius_X#cite_note-BenedictXVI2009-22) 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_Saint_Pius_X#cite_note-23) 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] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_Saint_Pius_X#cite_note-24)

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.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stanley N on July 27, 2020, 12:00:29 PM
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?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 12:03:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 12:04:16 PM
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)???
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 27, 2020, 12:31:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 27, 2020, 12:36:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: LeDeg on July 27, 2020, 12:55:11 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 01:30:04 PM
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.

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.

Is the father of a family a legitimate authority to his children?

Yes?

If he issues them an unjust or evil command, does it mean (as the sedes would have it) that he has ceased to be their legitimate authority?

Obviously not:

They are obligated to resist his evil commands, and issuing such commands does not obliterate his legitimate authority over them (nor do the children conclude that, if he has issues an evil command, he has ceased to be their father)!
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 01:31:56 PM
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.

How about 1,700 years ago during the Arian crisis?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Argentino on July 27, 2020, 01:36:11 PM
Catholic books say that even ordinary jurisdiction can be automatically supplied by the Church.

So, not having a bishop of a diocese to follow is not strictly necessary.

And, when it comes to electing a pope, Catholic books say that this is not an act of jurisdiction. Historically, clergy merely had to be citizens around Rome. An election is ASKING a man to be their bishop, not appointing him against his will.

This means, that if all clergy in Italy died, and some traditional priests traveled there and became citizens, they could elect a bishop from anywhere around the world to be their bishop - the Bishop of Rome. Accepting it, he would then have full ordinary jurisdiction over the Catholics of the whole world.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 27, 2020, 01:42:25 PM
Sean, you have a non-Catholic view of the papacy.  Lutherans, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox schismatics can (and do) claim that the pope gave unjust and evil commands/doctrine.  They are not infallible and neither are you.  Where the pope is, there is the Catholic Church.  If Frank is the true pope, then the Novus Ordo is holy and leading people to Heaven.  Ecumenism, Inter-religious dialogue and collegiality are true doctrines of the Catholic Church and are leading people to Heaven.  Communion in the hand is preferred and in some cases required over communion on the tongue.  The death penalty is immoral.  If Frank is the pope, we can trust that all of that is good and holy and will lead us to Heaven.  You complain that sedes have no hierarchy but in your view, the Catholic Church's hierarchy is unholy, corrupt and systematically leading souls to hell.  How is your view any different from that of the enemies of the Church?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 02:12:34 PM
Sean, you have a non-Catholic view of the papacy.  Lutherans, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox schismatics can (and do) claim that the pope gave unjust and evil commands/doctrine.  They are not infallible and neither are you.  Where the pope is, there is the Catholic Church.  If Frank is the true pope, then the Novus Ordo is holy and leading people to Heaven.  Ecumenism, Inter-religious dialogue and collegiality are true doctrines of the Catholic Church and are leading people to Heaven.  Communion in the hand is preferred and in some cases required over communion on the tongue.  The death penalty is immoral.  If Frank is the pope, we can trust that all of that is good and holy and will lead us to Heaven.  You complain that sedes have no hierarchy but in your view, the Catholic Church's hierarchy is unholy, corrupt and systematically leading souls to hell.  How is your view any different from that of the enemies of the Church?

Let’s see here:

The man who has unilaterally deposed the last 6-7 popes, assassinated the entire hierarchy (or any hope of ever recovering an hierarchy), and zapped the entire Church of ordinary jurisdiction is accusing ME of having a non-Catholic view of the papacy?

Lol!!

What world do you live in?

You have just invented a new Church.  One in which Jesus needed no Apostles or Disciples.  One which has no formal apostolicity, and one which disregards the hierarchical constitution of the Church.

You doctrine is crazier than the Moonies.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 27, 2020, 02:28:17 PM
Let’s see here:

The man who has unilaterally deposed resisted the last 6-7 popes, assassinated resisted the entire hierarchy (or any hope of ever recovering an infallible hierarchy), and zapped resisted the entire Church of ordinary jurisdiction is accusing ME of having a non-Catholic view of the papacy?

Lol!!

What world do you live in?

You have just invented a new Church.  One in which Jesus needed no Apostles or Disciples.  One which has no formal apostolicity, and one which disregards the hierarchical constitution of the Church.

You doctrine is crazier than the Moonies.
Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 27, 2020, 03:23:09 PM
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.

Right.  BOTH R&R and SV positions have some difficulties with them.  Both sides need to acknowledge these difficulties in order to have any kind of constructive discussion.  Dogmatists on either side are dividing the Traditional movement.  They point to the issues with the other side as conclusive, while they explain away the difficulties with their own and pretend that it's just made up by their opponents.  People need to shows some good will and honesty.

Yes, it's a problem for the Holy See to be unoccupied for this long.  Yes, it's a problem with R&R so say that the Magisterium could go so badly off the rails as to create a practical requirement to sever communion with the hierarchy.  I lean toward SVism because I find the latter problem to be insurmountable, while the former is not.  But these are both genuine problems.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 03:46:40 PM
Right.  BOTH R&R and SV positions have some difficulties with them.  Both sides need to acknowledge these difficulties in order to have any kind of constructive discussion.  Dogmatists on either side are dividing the Traditional movement.  They point to the issues with the other side as conclusive, while they explain away the difficulties with their own and pretend that it's just made up by their opponents.  People need to shows some good will and honesty.

Yes, it's a problem for the Holy See to be unoccupied for this long.  Yes, it's a problem with R&R so say that the Magisterium could go so badly off the rails as to create a practical requirement to sever communion with the hierarchy.  I lean toward SVism because I find the latter problem to be insurmountable, while the former is not.  But these are both genuine problems.

Your problem with R&R stems from the misconception you articulate above (ie., That you erroneously believe R&R has practically severed communion with the hierarchy):

If in addition to semi-Arianism, St. Athanasius also had to resist 100 other errors of Pope Liberius, you are implying such resistance would be wrong.

That is illogical.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on July 27, 2020, 06:17:24 PM
Is the father of a family a legitimate authority to his children?

Yes?

If he issues them an unjust or evil command, does it mean (as the sedes would have it) that he has ceased to be their legitimate authority?

Obviously not:

They are obligated to resist his evil commands, and issuing such commands does not obliterate his legitimate authority over them (nor do the children conclude that, if he has issues an evil command, he has ceased to be their father)!


Here we go again with one of the worst anti-sedevacantist arguments of all time, the BAD DAD argument!  :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Sean, I wrote this to you in a post a while back:


“Sean, this argument is possibly the worst argument that the R&R position has ever had. Every time I hear it, it’s like nails on a chalkboard. “Bad dad”.

Your father is your father In perpetuity due to your biological connection. A pope is not perpetually the pope. For instance, you believe that Ratzinger was the pope but resigned. Now, according to you, he is no longer a true pope.

Aside from that, if your father became a heretic, he would still be your father, but he would no longer be a member of the Church. If the pope became a heretic he would no longer be the holy father nor would he be a member of the Church.”

Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 27, 2020, 06:50:40 PM
Your problem with R&R stems from the misconception you articulate above (ie., That you erroneously believe R&R has practically severed communion with the hierarchy):

If in addition to semi-Arianism, St. Athanasius also had to resist 100 other errors of Pope Liberius, you are implying such resistance would be wrong.

That is illogical.

Well, I have a lot more issues with R&R than that one.  I just summarized one succinctly to make the point.  Simple obedience is not the same as submission to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.  Pope Liberius did not have "100 other errors".
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: LeDeg on July 27, 2020, 06:58:30 PM
Well, I have a lot more issues with R&R than that one.  I just summarized one succinctly to make the point.  Simple obedience is not the same as submission to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.  Pope Liberius did not have "100 other errors".
Agreed. In fact, it would seem that the canard of Pope Liberius falling into error stems from Michael Davies basing his research on Cardinal Newmans research 12 years prior to becoming Catholic. In other words, when he was a heretic. This erroneous view has been trumpeted around by the likes of the Remnant newspaper and publishing Michael Davies famous little book on St Athanasius and distributing it around trad book stores.
Louie V and John Lane just did a video on this. It certainly changed my perspective on the Arian crisis and what I thought I knew. 
https://youtu.be/WlIlqFY58n4
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: forlorn on July 27, 2020, 07:53:27 PM
Your problem with R&R stems from the misconception you articulate above (ie., That you erroneously believe R&R has practically severed communion with the hierarchy):

If in addition to semi-Arianism, St. Athanasius also had to resist 100 other errors of Pope Liberius, you are implying such resistance would be wrong.

That is illogical.
So is it erroneous to believe that Bp. Williamson was excommunicated?

Even if the excommunication was unjust, Bp. Williamson still ought to, by law and duty, act as if under excommunication. He does not. How is this not an issue to you? 
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 08:05:36 PM
So is it erroneous to believe that Bp. Williamson was excommunicated?

Even if the excommunication was unjust, Bp. Williamson still ought to, by law and duty, act as if under excommunication. He does not. How is this not an issue to you?

What?

Can you explain to me why one invalidly excommunicated ought to pretend he was validly excommunicated?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 27, 2020, 08:46:49 PM
What?

Can you explain to me why one invalidly excommunicated ought to pretend he was validly excommunicated?

You could argue that Bishop Williamson was unjustly excommunicated for consecrating 3 bishops without a papal mandate but you can't argue that it was an invalid excommunication.  Unless you are arguing that the consecrations never happened.  If he consecrated even one bishop without a papal mandate and Frank is the true pope, then it is certainly a valid excommunication even if it could somehow be argued that it was unjust.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 27, 2020, 08:55:45 PM
In fact, didn't the SSPX clergy write an open letter in 1988 saying they were proud to be excommunicated from the Conciliar Church?  If JP Deuce was the true pope, then certainly those excommunications were valid.  It's a crime to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate and especially so when it is against the expressed command of the pope.  Unless there is a sede vacante and there is an urgent need for new bishops.

Supposedly the big problem with the SV position is that 60 years is too long.  But there is no dogma that a long sede vacante contradicts.  Whereas resisting the pope is certainly contrary to dogmatic Church doctrine concerning the papacy.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 27, 2020, 09:07:13 PM
Supposedly the big problem with the SV position is that 60 years is too long.

One thing is the theoretical question, the other the practical situation. Concerning the latter: less problematic is the question of valid orders, more problematic the question of valid and God pleasing (non sacrilegous) orders. Orders without mandate are sacrilegous = theft.

Without an apostolically authorized hierarchy everyone has to make his own mind up about these questions.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 27, 2020, 09:27:09 PM
Point IV: Therefore, the See of St. Peter Cannot Be Vacant Indefinitely.

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.

Thus, the Church cannot exist indefinitely once those bishops appointed by the last pope die.


The 1P5 author seems to completely ignore the fact that apostolic succession will have an end. It's not going on indefinitely. Our Lord will return, and there won't be any more successors of the bishops including the Roman bishop. The Church exists indefinitely, but the militant Church will end. The job of the bishops will be obsolete like marriage will be obsolete.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 27, 2020, 09:31:53 PM
Without an apostolically authorized hierarchy everyone has to make his own mind up about these questions.

And with a putative apostolically authorized hierarchy, R&R folks make up their own mind about these questions, too.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: SeanJohnson on July 27, 2020, 09:36:12 PM
None of you people have any business pronouncing upon these matters.

Your mental inventions are like watching the leaves flutter as I blow my driveway.

Good heavens, when did you lose your minds???
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stanley N on July 27, 2020, 09:45:18 PM
Without an apostolically authorized hierarchy everyone has to make his own mind up about these questions.
Alexander VI led an immoral life, had several illegitimate children and gave his daughter an annulment. Shortly after, Leo X put the church in debt and gave indulgences for "donations". Many criticized him, including a certain monk in Germany. 

These popes were scandals to the Catholic world, yet they remained the heads of the church, and those who separated from them ceased to be Catholic.

So how can you come to the definitive conclusion there is no hierarchy?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Shrewd Operator on July 27, 2020, 10:16:26 PM
Does anyone see the parallel between; David and Saul, and the V II popes and Trads?

 Francis et al are holding the offices, but are also stark-raving mad. They attack the Faith and those like Lefebvre who keep it; forcing them live in exile. 

Despite the injustice, David refused to depose the unworthy Saul out of respect for the office. This suggests that the correct course of action for Trads is to maintain the R&R position until the situation resolves and this phase of the chastisement ends.

The SV position is like David saying "Saul's madness proves he has lost the crown! There is no King in Israel! Let all who love Israel follow me!"
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 27, 2020, 10:17:21 PM
Alexander VI led an immoral life, had several illegitimate children and gave his daughter an annulment. Shortly after, Leo X put the church in debt and gave indulgences for "donations". Many criticized him, including a certain monk in Germany.

These popes were scandals to the Catholic world, yet they remained the heads of the church, and those who separated from them ceased to be Catholic.

So how can you come to the definitive conclusion there is no hierarchy?

All bishops of all dioceses adhere to the robber council. The robber council taught heresy (e.g. a natural right of religious liberty = negation of the first commandment and of Quanta cura, the latter being a textbook example of ex cathedra teaching). Hence they're all manifest heretics. Hence they all lost office (or didn't have one, to begin with), as the fathers unanimously teach (see the Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine).

That's how I come to the conclusion that there is no hierarchy.

P.S.: Heresy, apostacy, and schism separate the candidate ipso facto from the Church, while other sins (immoral life, ... ) don't.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Shrewd Operator on July 27, 2020, 10:39:18 PM
Another example,

Jesus and the Pharisees,

Jesus never questioned the legitimacy of the Pharisees, but He denounced their errors and crimes at every turn.

He did this for His entire public ministry until He had made His final sacrifice (with their ungodly assistance). He then ended the chastisement of the Pharisees' faithlessness and began His reign of peace by appointing a worthy pope.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: roscoe on July 28, 2020, 12:25:39 AM
 There is NO SUCH THING as as a 'Sedevacantist" :confused:
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stubborn on July 28, 2020, 05:45:42 AM
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 reason you do not see any difference LeDeg, is because your conclusion in and of itself being improper, bespeaks of no difference.

As my sig says: The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

As such, the question should be;
At what point may we disobey God in order to obey the pope, who is a man? 60 years? 100 years? Or 500 years? The answer is of course, never.

The whole sede mindset, their lex credendi, hinges on the idea that the pope is supposed to be something almost celestial, at least something more than a man who is incapable of doing what man is capable of doing - combined with the idea that their knowledge of his sins (of heresy, apostasy etc.) authorizes and qualifies them to decide to dethrone him, to deprive him of his office, which is precisely what they have decided to do. They believe to do this is true, even courageous Catholicism.  

As faithful Catholics in regards to the pope, it is our duty to pray daily for the pope, always has been, always will be. As recent history proves, Catholics can keep the faith and grow in it, and there is nothing to stop us from even becoming great saints, even though the popes and hierarchy are blatantly heretical, provided that through it all we adhere to the highest principle in the Church. It really is not at all complicated.

*That* is the Church's indefectibility working.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stanley N on July 28, 2020, 07:26:52 AM
All bishops of all dioceses adhere to the robber council. The robber council taught heresy (e.g. a natural right of religious liberty = negation of the first commandment and of Quanta cura, the latter being a textbook example of ex cathedra teaching). Hence they're all manifest heretics. Hence they all lost office (or didn't have one, to begin with), as the fathers unanimously teach (see the Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine).
1. How many of them been confronted with these alleged errors, and if they have not, are you sure they are "manifest heretics"?

2. Are you bound to accept DH, and if so, at what level (faith, piety, etc.)

3. Are you certain that DH is contrary to QC, and if so, what level of certainty?

The Old Catholics say Vatican I was a "robber council" and the Catholic church hierarchy has adhered to that error and lost all authority ever since. So how is sedevacantism not another version of Old Catholicism?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 28, 2020, 08:14:29 AM
1. How many of them been confronted with these alleged errors, and if they have not, are you sure they are "manifest heretics"?

Yes, I am sure, why? A manifest heretic is a heretic who is not an occult heretic. Yes, I am sure that they're manifest heretics, they don't conceal the fact that they adhere to the robber council.


Quote from: Tit 3
[9] But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable and vain. [10] A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: [11] Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

Some read this to mean: If he hasn't been admonished, then he is not a heretic. But that's not what Paul says. The gist of what he says to Titus is: before you avoid a heretic, be charitable and give him a chance by admonishing him. On the other hand, don't spent too much time on him. And you don't need to condemn him (avoiding is sufficient) since he already is condemned by his own judgment.

Heretics may be classified as material vs. formal heretics, and Van Noort says:

Quote from: Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, p. 242
It is the more common opinion that public [i.e. manifest], material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.
source (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/incredible-statement-from-archbishop-vigano/msg703956/?topicseen#msg703956)

Also, see my signature. Father of the Church St. Jerome, and Doctor of the Church St Robert support the more common opinion.



2. Are you bound to accept DH, and if so, at what level (faith, piety, etc.)

None can be bound to accept heresy, at whichever level. This question is not pertinent. Heretics do not need to bind anyone to be heretics. Rather, heretics cannot bind anyone to swallow their poison.


3. Are you certain that DH is contrary to QC, and if so, what level of certainty?

I am as certain as a man can be with respect to such questions. And I am obliged to follow my conscience whether I'm right or I'm wrong (see St. Thomas Aquinas).

Why would the Apostle ask us to reject a false gospel, if we shouldn't accept our own judgment based on received Church teaching? Why would the Council of Trent say

Quote from: General Council of Trent
As, however, it is not enough to speak the truth without discovering and refuting error, it has pleased the Holy Synod to subjoin the following canons, so that all, now knowing the Catholic doctrine, may also understand what heresies they have to beware against and avoid.
source (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm)

if we shouldn't accept our own judgment based on Church doctrine?


The Old Catholics say Vatican I was a "robber council" and the Catholic church hierarchy has adhered to that error and lost all authority ever since. So how is sedevacantism not another version of Old Catholicism?

Vatican I doesn't teach heresy.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 28, 2020, 08:46:31 AM
Heretics may be classified as material vs. formal heretics, and Van Noort says:

This is based on Van Noort's IMO defective understanding of material vs. formal heresy.  There was a big semantic debate among theologians as to whether the term "material heretic" should even exist.  Van Noort's use the term implies bad will or insincerity that can only be known in the internal forum.  In order to be even a material heretic, however, pertinacity is required.  You can't just consider someone to be outside the Church because they blurt out a heretical proposition.  They could have just mis-spoken or are just plain ignorant.

Now, here's the problem for a Pope.  Popes are required by their duty of state to not be ignorant of Catholic doctrine.  Consequently, any ignorance of Catholic dogma on the part of Bergoglio is culpible.  It would be a different story for some ignorant peasant who had barely been catechized.  Bergoglio's heretical statements are presumed to be culpable and pertinacious.  Not to mention that Bergoglio has completely blown off attempts at correction regarding Amoris Laetitita.  He clearly refuses to be corrected, and that's prima facie evidence of pertinacity.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 28, 2020, 09:00:41 AM
This is based on Van Noort's IMO defective understanding of material vs. formal heresy.  There was a big semantic debate among theologians as to whether the term "material heretic" should even exist.  Van Noort's use the term implies bad will or insincerity that can only be known in the internal forum.  In order to be even a material heretic, however, pertinacity is required.  You can't just consider someone to be outside the Church because they blurt out a heretical proposition.  They could have just mis-spoken or are just plain ignorant.


Could you please comment on the reasons why Van Noort says "we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church."?!


Quote from: Van Noort
It is the more common opinion that public [i.e. manifest], material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.

What about the visibility of the Church?
What about the unity of the Church?
What about the Church professing one faith?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 28, 2020, 09:33:06 AM
Could you please comment on the reasons why Van Noort says "we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church."?!

Yes, again, he's using the term "in good faith" to be synonymous with material heresy (vs. formal heresy).  He might say, for instance, that a Protestant heretic who's "in good faith" would still be outside the Church.  But according to the Traditional Thomistic understanding of the term "formal" in "formal heretic," all Protestants are by definition formal heretics.  That term "formal heretic" has morphed.

There's got to be a standard even for material heresy, such as pertinacity.  So, for instance, if there were some ignorant layman walking around claiming that the Immaculate Conception didn't happen, just because he was uneducated and had no access to catechesis, that doesn't prove pertinacity.  As St. Augustine taught, the litmus test is how quickly he would reject his opinion once he found out that it had been taught by the Church.  "Hey, bud, the Church teaches the Immaculate Conception."  "Oh, really?  Sorry.  I believe it then."  That person was never pertinacious and was never a non-member of the Church.  Pertinacity is a requirement.

Nevertheless, I do believe that pertinacity is presumed on the part of Bergoglio because as a result of his duties of state he is bound to know Church dogma, and any ignorance is therefore culpable.  There's no question that Bergoglio is a presume pertinacious heretic by virtue of his duty of state.  Even Father Chazal admits this.  Only question is what happens to his office as a result:  is he ipso facto deposed or does he require deposition by the Church, or [my preference], he remains in material possession of the office until the Church relieves him of it but has lost all formal authority in the Church.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: forlorn on July 28, 2020, 09:38:46 AM
The reason you do not see any difference LeDeg, is because your conclusion in and of itself being improper, bespeaks of no difference.

As my sig says: The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

As such, the question should be;
At what point may we disobey God in order to obey the pope, who is a man? 60 years? 100 years? Or 500 years? The answer is of course, never.

The whole sede mindset, their lex credendi, hinges on the idea that the pope is supposed to be something almost celestial, at least something more than a man who is incapable of doing what man is capable of doing - combined with the idea that their knowledge of his sins (of heresy, apostasy etc.) authorizes and qualifies them to decide to dethrone him, to deprive him of his office, which is precisely what they have decided to do. They believe to do this is true, even courageous Catholicism.  

As faithful Catholics in regards to the pope, it is our duty to pray daily for the pope, always has been, always will be. As recent history proves, Catholics can keep the faith and grow in it, and there is nothing to stop us from even becoming great saints, even though the popes and hierarchy are blatantly heretical, provided that through it all we adhere to the highest principle in the Church. It really is not at all complicated.

*That* is the Church's indefectibility working.
Condemn the hierarchy as heretical and make up our own minds regarding matters of faith. Not Protestant at all...
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: XavierSem on July 28, 2020, 09:50:13 AM
A Church without Ordinary Jurisdiction is a non-Apostolic Church. Consequently, it is not the Catholic Church at all. Notice, Vatican I.

"3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/first-vatican-council-1505 In just the same way as the Lord appointed Apostles whom He chose out of the world, in like manner it was His will that there should be shepherds and teachers who are sent till the end of time.

This does not mean that time ended in 1965. It means there will never cease to be at least some orthodox Catholic Successors to the Apostles. That is easily confirmed in the Oath against Modernism: "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm Same doctrine differently stated.

Want to read it in a Catechism? Here is that of Pope St. Pius X: "19 Q. Why is the Church also called Apostolic?
A. The true Church is also called Apostolic because she goes back without a break to the Apostles; because she believes and teaches all that the Apostles believed and taught; and because she is guided and governed by their lawful successors." If She were not governed by Apostolic Successors, what we profess in the Creed would be a false dogma each time we profess it. That is an absurdity. The Church will have Apostolic Successors until Christ comes again.

Another issue for Sedevacantists - the Ordinaries are necessary to pass the juridical declaration that the See is now (allegedly) vacant.

Fr. Suarez states: “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors.”

So where is this legitimate jurisdiction to pass the juridical declaration necessary before electing a new Pope? Sedes need it, but don't have it. 

Again, in deciding the question of whether it should be Cardinals or Bishops to pass the sentence, it is said the Ordinary Pastors need to pass judgment, "In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign them this faculty, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that, of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general Council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus, (q. 35, 1584 ed., vol. 13, p. 2)." (32)  https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope

Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stanley N on July 28, 2020, 10:04:34 AM
Vatican I doesn't teach heresy.
The Old Catholics think it does and make essentially the same argument as sedevacantists. 

You have taken the huge step of separating from the pope. If you're going to take a step like that, I would expect to see evidence of substantial study and some introspection.

Yet you don't seem to make distinctions about different meanings of "manifest heretic" according to different theologians. You haven't even established that V2 taught something contrary to QC. Theologians have published a lot on DH and QC including some detailed explanations of how they are not contrary. Have you read them all? Along with a wide range of Fathers and other theologians?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stubborn on July 28, 2020, 10:17:38 AM
Condemn the hierarchy as heretical and make up our own minds regarding matters of faith. Not Protestant at all...
It's sad to have to say that after 2000 years of the Church teaching all men how to keep and preserve the faith - and what we all must and must not do, and what to look out for in order to get to heaven, your above comment exemplifies the faithless mindset of the typical NOer.

Adhere to the highest principle in the Church and there will never be any argument or reason to concern ourselves, and no decision to make as regards the legitimacy of popes.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Argentino on July 28, 2020, 11:43:06 AM
Right.  BOTH R&R and SV positions have some difficulties with them.  Both sides need to acknowledge these difficulties in order to have any kind of constructive discussion.  Dogmatists on either side are dividing the Traditional movement.  They point to the issues with the other side as conclusive, while they explain away the difficulties with their own and pretend that it's just made up by their opponents.  People need to shows some good will and honesty.

Yes, it's a problem for the Holy See to be unoccupied for this long.  Yes, it's a problem with R&R so say that the Magisterium could go so badly off the rails as to create a practical requirement to sever communion with the hierarchy.  I lean toward SVism because I find the latter problem to be insurmountable, while the former is not.  But these are both genuine problems.
You really need to specify what you mean by the words I made bold in your post.
Does the problem have doctrinal implications, or merely practical implications?
The former are insurmountable, the latter surmountable. Big difference.
You wrote, "it's a problem for the Holy See to be unoccupied for this long"
Doctrinal problem with that?

Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: MiserereMei on July 28, 2020, 12:47:33 PM
Honest question for those well versed in Church history (I declare myself ignorant on this). At what point or what event triggered the first Christians not recognizing the High Priests as the authority? My question is because, if I'm not mistaken, both St Peter and St Paul still regarded them as to have some authority even after Pentecost, when they were brought before the Sanhedrin?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 28, 2020, 12:59:38 PM
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

Yeah, he just re-pastes the same tired old bad syllogisms over and over again.  His arguments mean nothing to me, as I lean sedeprivationist and none of it is relevant, but the sedevacantists thoroughly refuted this stuff on previous threads.  I had previously believed this was a legitimate objection against sedevacantism, but your arguments won me over.  I still lean privationist because I believe that there must be some role of Church authority in determining papal deposition, that Aunt Helen (Father Cekada's favorite) doesn't have the right or authority to effectively depose popes.  But these arguments made by Xavier fall flat.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 28, 2020, 01:02:02 PM
Xavier, do you believe, with +Schneider and +Vigano, that there are serious errors in Vatican II?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: DecemRationis on July 28, 2020, 01:32:28 PM
Another example,

Jesus and the Pharisees,

Jesus never questioned the legitimacy of the Pharisees, but He denounced their errors and crimes at every turn.

He did this for His entire public ministry until He had made His final sacrifice (with their ungodly assistance). He then ended the chastisement of the Pharisees' faithlessness and began His reign of peace by appointing a worthy pope.

I've made this point here repeatedly. 

As to the reign of the Pharisees ending: I would rather say it was passed on. 

See attached from the original Rheims translation of the New Testatment, courtesy of the edition of  Dr. Von Peters (http://realdouayrheims.com/ (http://realdouayrheims.com/))

Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: DecemRationis on July 28, 2020, 01:40:13 PM
Our Lord also said, "beware . . . of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 

The Robber Council . . . 

Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 28, 2020, 02:44:31 PM
Quote from: Struthio
Vatican I doesn't teach heresy.

The Old Catholics think it does and make essentially the same argument as sedevacantists.

Well, just like you and me, the Old Catholics have an obligation to follow their conscience, whether erring or not.


You have taken the huge step of separating from the pope.

Thousands of putative bishops have taken the huge step to teach condemned heresy, and I have taken the small step to reject heresy and avoid heretics.


You have taken the huge step of separating from the pope. If you're going to take a step like that, I would expect to see evidence of substantial study and some introspection.

I am just answering your questions and not authoring a dissertation on the topic. And so far, you haven't asked for one.

But I agree, I too would have expected that e.g. Döllinger would have presented at least a booklet or something, providing a concise defense of their rejection of the General Vatican Council.

I, on the other hand, feel comfortable with sorting things out for myself (not without reading all sorts of literature on the topic) and presenting my conclusions e.g. here on CI, to harvest objections, some of which allow me to rethink and improve my points of view.


Yet you don't seem to make distinctions about different meanings of "manifest heretic" according to different theologians.

There is no debate between theologians about the manifest vs. occult heretic distinction. There may be minor differences in the way they explain the terms, but these are irrelevant with respect to the false shepherds of the conciliar sect.


You haven't even established that V2 taught something contrary to QC. Theologians have published a lot on DH and QC including some detailed explanations of how they are not contrary. Have you read them all? Along with a wide range of Fathers and other theologians?

DH is against common sense. DH claims that there is a God-given right to act against God-given law. The basic principle of natural right is: Do what's good, omit what's bad. Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols). One doesn't even need the ex cathedra condemnation of QC to see that that's a false gospel. The Church never teaches anything against common sense.

I've debated this topic with several Novus Ordites for years, and they presented quite some literature. All desperate attempts to show that what must not be, cannot be.

Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 28, 2020, 03:45:48 PM
Well, just like you and me, the Old Catholics have an obligation to follow their conscience, whether erring or not.

Were you being serious with this comment or was this sarcastic?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: DecemRationis on July 28, 2020, 03:46:12 PM
DH is against common sense. DH claims that there is a God-given right to act against God-given law. The basic principle of natural right is: Do what's good, omit what's bad. Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols). One doesn't even need the ex cathedra condemnation of QC to see that that's a false gospel. The Church never teaches anything against common sense.

I've debated this topic with several Novus Ordites for years, and they presented quite some literature. All desperate attempts to show that what must not be, cannot be.
Common sense is one of the first things to go. 

Ironically, that's quite common. 
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 28, 2020, 03:48:05 PM
There is no debate between theologians about the manifest vs. occult heretic distinction. There may be minor differences in the way they explain the terms, but these are irrelevant with respect to the false shepherds of the conciliar sect.

I basically agree.  There's some debate about the semantics, with some theologians rejecting the term material heresy altogether, etc.  But they basically agree.  My earlier point was that there's more involved in manifest heresy than the mere utterance of a heretical proposition.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: forlorn on July 28, 2020, 05:29:18 PM
It's sad to have to say that after 2000 years of the Church teaching all men how to keep and preserve the faith - and what we all must and must not do, and what to look out for in order to get to heaven, your above comment exemplifies the faithless mindset of the typical NOer.

Adhere to the highest principle in the Church and there will never be any argument or reason to concern ourselves, and no decision to make as regards the legitimacy of popes.
This is Protestant rhetoric right here. "Nevermind the hierarchy, nevermind the pope and whether or not he's legitimate or a heretic or what have you. Just focus on your own private interpretation of what God wants." 
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: songbird on July 28, 2020, 05:58:48 PM
Saying the new order heretical mass is enough for me to say, the whole new order is shot!  That is the total destruction of the "Deposits of Faith"!

Is this pope against Faith and Morals?  Absolutely!  Any so-called clergy who does as well, is against The Deposits of Faith!  That is heretical at its worst!  Demonic!

I don't believe we have to so deeply search.  God did not make us as such.  His Son taught in parables easy to understand that a wolf in sheeps clothing kills!

A tree that is not good, will not put out good fruit.  You WILL know them by their fruits.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stanley N on July 28, 2020, 07:21:51 PM
DH is against common sense. DH claims that there is a God-given right to act against God-given law. The basic principle of natural right is: Do what's good, omit what's bad. Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols).
Is that what DH says?

"Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

Recall you brought up DH as an example of an allegedly heretical teaching to which all bishops allegedly adhere. It's probably the strongest argument for sedevacantism. (Certainly better than the N.O. because the latin Roman mass was not forbidden, and the eastern churches are also available.) But even if someone thought there seemed to be a contradiction between DH and the past, one could suspend judgment rather than separate from the hierarchy.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: LeDeg on July 28, 2020, 07:41:32 PM
The reason you do not see any difference LeDeg, is because your conclusion in and of itself being improper, bespeaks of no difference.

As my sig says: The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

As such, the question should be;
At what point may we disobey God in order to obey the pope, who is a man? 60 years? 100 years? Or 500 years? The answer is of course, never.

The whole sede mindset, their lex credendi, hinges on the idea that the pope is supposed to be something almost celestial, at least something more than a man who is incapable of doing what man is capable of doing - combined with the idea that their knowledge of his sins (of heresy, apostasy etc.) authorizes and qualifies them to decide to dethrone him, to deprive him of his office, which is precisely what they have decided to do. They believe to do this is true, even courageous Catholicism.  

As faithful Catholics in regards to the pope, it is our duty to pray daily for the pope, always has been, always will be. As recent history proves, Catholics can keep the faith and grow in it, and there is nothing to stop us from even becoming great saints, even though the popes and hierarchy are blatantly heretical, provided that through it all we adhere to the highest principle in the Church. It really is not at all complicated.

*That* is the Church's indefectibility working.
Stubborn, have not the popes after Vatican I and before Vatican II taught there can be no disagreement with the pope?
"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm), n. 104)

"All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 22:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians."
"Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great — to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors."
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9nostis.htm), nn. 16-17)
"This chair [of Peter] is the center of Catholic truth and unity, that is, the head, mother, and teacher of all the Churches to which all honor and obedience must be offered. Every church must agree with it because of its greater preeminence — that is, those people who are in all respects faithful…."
"Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion. Therefore, because of your special faith in the Church and special piety toward the same Chair of Peter, We exhort you to direct your constant efforts so that the faithful people of France may avoid the crafty deceptions and errors of these plotters and develop a more filial affection and obedience to this Apostolic See. Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees."
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9interm.htm), nn. 1,7)

"In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See."
"And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff."
"Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live."
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htm), n. 24)

I am failing to see where the line is for when and where the Church just continues on and just ignores what the claimants to the chair of St Peter are saying and doing. Where am I wrong?
 
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: LeDeg on July 28, 2020, 07:46:50 PM
An interesting article by Msgr. Fenton.


http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm)
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 28, 2020, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: Struthio
Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols).

Is that what DH says?

Yes, DH says that the alleged right to religious freedom is a natural right:

Quote from: DH 2
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.

An alleged right based on the alleged nature of man, and known by "reason itself".


"Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

That's simply a damn bloody lie. The "traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ" is not left untouched, when these damn heretics say that societies have a duty to provide for religious freedom for all.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 28, 2020, 09:06:17 PM
[...] In order to be even a material heretic, however, pertinacity is required. [...]

Now, here's the problem for a Pope.  Popes are required by their duty of state to not be ignorant of Catholic doctrine.  Consequently, any ignorance of Catholic dogma on the part of Bergoglio is culpible.  It would be a different story for some ignorant peasant who had barely been catechized.  Bergoglio's heretical statements are presumed to be culpable and pertinacious.  Not to mention that Bergoglio has completely blown off attempts at correction regarding Amoris Laetitita.  He clearly refuses to be corrected, and that's prima facie evidence of pertinacity.

It's a "problem" for all fathers of the robber council who didn't reject it.

The latin word pertinax means stubborn and in the given context expresses the notion that the heretic knows the doctrine of the Church and instead of accepting it piously like a lamb, rejects it stubbornly like an ass.

In the case of the thousands of putative bishops assembled to teach to the whole world in the 1960s, the reasonable presumption is that they were well aware of those Church doctrines which are relevant to the topics they debated and then taught about. And if they weren't well aware in advance, their duty of state was to make sure they are. They got no excuse. And if they think they have: None has come forward to present his excuse.

Some mix up pertinacity with the two admonitions, the Apostle is talking about. But the admonitions are not a prerequisite for the heretic to be a heretic. And pertinacity just means stubborn rejection in spite of the knowledge that it's Church teaching they reject.

Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stanley N on July 28, 2020, 09:59:45 PM
Quote
Quote from: Stanley N on Today at 07:21:51 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/asking-sedevacantists-a-church-without-popes-forever/msg709028/#msg709028)
Quote
Quote from: Struthio

Quote
Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols).
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Is that what DH says?[/font][/size]

Yes, DH says that the alleged right to religious freedom is a natural right:
That's not what the question was about. Given that DH affirms a duty to follow the true religion, does DH say there's a right to worship idols?

And again, the point of this discussion is not DH itself, but SVism.

We come across what appears to be a contradiction in church documents (or Scripture). The Church fathers do often write or say things that can appear rather different than 20th century Catholicism, so this is not an exclusively V2 issue. What is a Catholic reaction? Perhaps wondering if context might be different? Perhaps humbly considering our understanding might be wrong? Perhaps it is a legitimate development of doctrine? Perhaps even suspending judgment? Yes, these seem like options for a Catholic. But being so certain that our understanding of an apparent dilemma is correct and the hierarchy is wrong, to the point of declaring that hierarchy no longer exists? Does that really seem like a Catholic response?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: XavierSem on July 29, 2020, 03:01:43 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
I lean sedeprivationist and none of it is relevant
First, it is relevant to everyone if someone falls into open heresy, and the Ecclesia-Vacantist opinion that the entire hierarchy is heretical is certainly itself heretical. It is heretical irrespective of whether it is held by sedes like Struthio or R&R like Stubborn. I respond to whoever denies it, documenting from Church Catechisms and other official sources, that it is impossible. 

I have been replying to 3 separate errors (1) The entire hierarchy can defect into heresy or die (2) Papal appointment is not necessary for ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity, and (3) the Church can elect a new Pope without Ordinaries issuing a juridical declaration first. I believe you agree with, or at least don't contest, (1) or (3), but you do deny 2. Is that right?

With regard to Sede-Privationism, here's the thing: Sede-Privationism says the material Pope remains a Pope-elect only. In such a case, the Bishops designated by him would remain Bishop-designates only. It is the universal Jurisdiction of the Supreme Pastor that effects the conferral of particular jurisdiction of the Bishop. If you disagree with this, you disagree with the doctrine as explained by the Theologians, including Msgr. Fenton and Cardinal Ottaviani. So I'm not disturbed by the objection of Sede-privationism.

This is a real problem for sedevacantism, whether sedevacantists and quasi-sedevacantists want to admit it or not. A 100 year interregnum is clearly heretical and contradicts the defined dogma on St. Peter's Perpetual Successors. So what is the limit?

No sedevacantist even wants to touch that question? The clear limit, upon reflection, is seen to be when all Papally appointed Bishops die.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stubborn on July 29, 2020, 04:53:04 AM
This is Protestant rhetoric right here. "Nevermind the hierarchy, nevermind the pope and whether or not he's legitimate or a heretic or what have you.
That's Catholic, not protism, but beyond that you are correct - when the hierarchy and when the pope are in error and want us to join them in their error, we do not mind them because if we do, we will offend God. So yes, never mind what they want because what they want is wrong - period. We know right from wrong because for 2000 years prior to V2, the Church has taught us right from wrong - *that's* how we *know* right from wrong which is why we do not mind them, because we are supposed to know right from wrong.

Questioning their legitimacy or illegitimacy never even enters the equation. The main thing that questioning or deciding their legitimacy does is bring in confusion, the result of confusion is division.  


Quote
Just focus on your own private interpretation of what God wants."
What private interpretation? You are implying that for 2000 years the Church never taught the whole world what we must do and what we must not do - this same thinking exemplifies faithless NOers who forgot, or ignore, or do not know what the Church has taught all men prior to V2.


 
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stubborn on July 29, 2020, 06:14:32 AM
Stubborn, have not the popes after Vatican I and before Vatican II taught there can be no disagreement with the pope?
"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm), n. 104)
Certainly correct in that Pope Pius XI is entirely orthodox in everything he says here. If what he says in bold is to be taken literally as a certain, unchangeable truth, then the NO is in fact the Church, which we know is not true because of 2000 years worth of Church teachings and not our private judgement. This is the same reason that we know with certainty that the Supreme Pastor has fallen into error.

Yet the undeniable truth of the matter is that if what Pope Pius XI says here is in fact to be taken as a type of fallible Gospel, literally and unchangeable, then all trads everywhere, including sedes, are the ones in error because per the above bolded, he appears to be saying that the pope cannot err in all things that touch upon faith or morals.  

You must accept and be clear in your mind that we, us, you and I and all trads, are not relying on any private interpretation of V2 nor false autonomy of human reason - so these quotes certainly do not apply to us in this present crisis. Who knows - perhaps the next crisis they would apply, but not in this crisis.

The reason for this is because in this crisis what we are doing is, *not* relying on our own interpretation, rather, we *are* relying on the 2000 years worth of teachings of the Church prior to V2 that taught and bound us, not only *that* we must believe, but also *what* we must believe in order to be saved. We know wrong when we see it because the Church taught us to know wrong when we see it. That's how we know right from wrong when we see it, it is a main part of our faith.

It is because of those teachings and not our private interpretation that we know with certainty of faith that what he said above only applies to us whenever our Supreme Pastor teaches things that do not conflict with or contradict what the Church has always taught....which goes without saying, just as he did not say above.





 



Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 29, 2020, 08:40:46 AM
First, it is relevant to everyone if someone falls into open heresy, and the Ecclesia-Vacantist opinion that the entire hierarchy is heretical is certainly itself heretical. It is heretical irrespective of whether it is held by sedes like Struthio or R&R like Stubborn. I respond to whoever denies it, documenting from Church Catechisms and other official sources, that it is impossible.

I have been replying to 3 separate errors (1) The entire hierarchy can defect into heresy or die (2) Papal appointment is not necessary for ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity, and (3) the Church can elect a new Pope without Ordinaries issuing a juridical declaration first. I believe you agree with, or at least don't contest, (1) or (3), but you do deny 2. Is that right?

With regard to Sede-Privationism, here's the thing: Sede-Privationism says the material Pope remains a Pope-elect only. In such a case, the Bishops designated by him would remain Bishop-designates only. It is the universal Jurisdiction of the Supreme Pastor that effects the conferral of particular jurisdiction of the Bishop. If you disagree with this, you disagree with the doctrine as explained by the Theologians, including Msgr. Fenton and Cardinal Ottaviani. So I'm not disturbed by the objection of Sede-privationism.

This is a real problem for sedevacantism, whether sedevacantists and quasi-sedevacantists want to admit it or not. A 100 year interregnum is clearly heretical and contradicts the defined dogma on St. Peter's Perpetual Successors. So what is the limit?

No sedevacantist even wants to touch that question? The clear limit, upon reflection, is seen to be when all Papally appointed Bishops die.

We've gone over this several times before and you refuse to even recognize any of the arguments against your position.  You are not sincerely seeking the truth.  You are just pushing an agenda.

As for your implied claim that the entire hierarchy consists solely of the ordinaries, you should read The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology by Pietro Parente because there you will find that the hierarchy also includes all clerics.  And even the home-aloners have reasonable arguments for why they think that all clerics have defected as well.  I don't agree with them but I don't think their position is completely without any reasonable basis.  You on the other hand have elevated your opinion to the level of dogma and that is completely unreasonable.  I won't say that your arguments are completely unfounded but they are not certain so accusing others of heresy on these points is morally wrong.  On the other hand you refuse to accuse the Novus Ordo ordinaries (including Chaos Frank) who have not only denied word-for-word dogmas of the Church but have also given clear indications of their unholy motive for doing so.  It is abundantly clear that you have an agenda which you hold to have a higher value than the truth.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 29, 2020, 09:03:38 AM
With regard to Sede-Privationism, here's the thing: Sede-Privationism says the material Pope remains a Pope-elect only. In such a case, the Bishops designated by him would remain Bishop-designates only.

No, by virtue of the appointment, they can formally exercise jurisidiction provided they have no impediment from doing so.

Also, even in straight sedevacantism, it's demonstrated quite clearly that the bishops continue to exercise jurisdiction even during interregna.  Theologians were also cited to the effect that jurisdiction could even derive from Antipopes due to color of title.

You've been refuted on this point several times by the sedevacantists, but you simply ignore their arguments and keep re-stating yours.

You're perfectly free to disagree with the thesis that there can be jurisdiction in the Church during an interregnum or that color of title suffices for the transmission of jurisdiction from Christ.  Jurisdiction in the Church comes from Christ, and the Pope is a conduit for it, and there's nothing that rules out that even a purely material pope could continue serving as a conduit for jurisdiction even when he cannot himself formally exercise it.  Again, disagree with this, but for you to continue to assert that it's heretical is completely unwarranted.

You are not intellectually honest on this issue.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 29, 2020, 09:09:29 AM
We've gone over this several times before and you refuse to even recognize any of the arguments against your position.  You are not sincerely seeking the truth.  You are just pushing an agenda.

Correct.  He ignores counter-arguments, does not rebut them, but merely keeps re-asserting and restating his own position.

He's been caught in many contradictions.

So, for instance, he claims allegiance to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX.  But at the same time, he's asserted that the legitimacy of the V2 popes is dogmatic fact.  To deny or publicly doubt a dogmatic fact is in fact heresy, so since +Lefebvre and +Tissier and others in the SSPX have publicly doubted the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants, they would be heretics if his assertion is true that their status is dogmatically certain.  But he refuses to come to terms with these contradictory positions.

When you hold two contradictory positions at the same time, that's clear evidence of bad will.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stubborn on July 29, 2020, 11:04:55 AM
An interesting article by Msgr. Fenton.


http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm)
From the link:


The article was mostly fine until Fr. Fenton gets to Fr. Fenton's own, original idea that people have wrongly come to believe is a teaching of the Church, this is the point where it gets twisted into error...

"In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth".

No, God has never "given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense etc......" If however, what he says here is in fact the truth and a true teaching of the Church, which it's not, but if it were, then all trads are wrong and the sedes are more wrong because although we all condemn the NO, the sedes go further and deny that popes are popes.

What the Church teaches in this matter and also what reality since V2 has proven, is that this paragraph is completely and totally wrong, a falsehood, an outright lie when taught by a learned theologian who is expected to know better. But rather than recognize the falsity of this idea based on what the Church actually teaches, the sedes take this false idea of Fr. Fenton as if it is dogma itself, so when they see the pope preaching heresy, they say; "because he does what popes cannot do, on that account he cannot be the pope".

In one paragraph Fr. Fenton obliterates the dogma of papal infallibility as defined at V1, which defined in apodictic terms that the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. If popes have any other "kind of infallibility", no mention was made at V1 - where, btw, infallibly defining papal infallibility was the very purpose of the Council. Did they forget about another kind or simply neglect to define this other kind of infallibility?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 29, 2020, 01:49:53 PM
No, God has never "given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense etc......"

Yes, God has, and this principle derives from the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stubborn on July 29, 2020, 02:04:40 PM
Yes, God has, and this principle derives from the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium.
No, God has not. You know not what you are talking about here. The pope is safeguarded from the possibility of error when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals ex cathedra, this is what was defined at V1. This is the teaching of the Church, this is the papal infallibility we learned from V1, this is what we are bound to believe.

As V1 taught; among all the doctrines which we must believe, are those doctrines contained in the Church's Magisterium, some of which are defined ex cathedra, again, this teaching comes directly from V1. So to say "this principle derives from the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium" only demonstrates a decided confusion in your thinking here.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 29, 2020, 02:27:41 PM
Quote
"In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense.

1.  Pope speaks ex-cathedra (on faith and morals) = infallible.
2.  Pope speaks authoritatively (on faith and morals) but not ex-cathedra = infallible.
3.  Pope speaks authoritatively (but NOT on faith and morals) = not infallible because this is a governmental decision.
.
I think most catholics would agree with 1-3 above.  Yet, Fenton goes further and teaches a #4.
.
4.  Pope speaks non-authoritatively (on faith and morals) = infallible.
.
This #4 theory effectively makes ex-cathedra statements pointless because the pope is infallible regardless.  This is ridiculous and as far as I can tell, Fenton is the only theologian who argues thus.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 29, 2020, 02:39:42 PM
1.  Pope speaks ex-cathedra (on faith and morals) = infallible.
2.  Pope speaks authoritatively (on faith and morals) but not ex-cathedra = infallible.
3.  Pope speaks authoritatively (but NOT on faith and morals) = not infallible because this is a governmental decision.
.
I think most catholics would agree with 1-3 above.  Yet, Fenton goes further and teaches a #4.
.
4.  Pope speaks non-authoritatively (on faith and morals) = infallible.
.
This #4 theory effectively makes ex-cathedra statements pointless because the pope is infallible regardless.  This is ridiculous and as far as I can tell, Fenton is the only theologian who argues thus.

Catholic doctrine is not limited to what's been solemnly defined.  If souls could lose their faith by assenting to the Magisterium, then the Magisterium would have defected.  It's a simple correlative to the Church's overall indefectibility.

R&R claim that the Church's indefectibility lies solely in its material continuity, but the Church cannot defect in HER MISSION either.

From NewAdvent regarding the Church:
Quote
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard.

Tell me with a straight face that the Conciliar Church is still essentially the Catholic Church, that is not become "corrupt in faith and morals" and has not "set up a false and corrupt moral standard".
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 29, 2020, 02:42:24 PM
You posit a blasphemous caricature of the Church, whereby it's possible for the Church to become 99% corrupt, unreliable, and pernicious.  This is all perfectly acceptable in your minds ... so long as that 1% of defined dogma is correct.  Everything else is a free-for-all for you.

Those of you who think this way have all but lost the Catholic faith.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 29, 2020, 03:08:59 PM
Fenton says that non-infallible “directives” are protected by a special “charism”.  Ok, maybe.  
.
The problem comes into play when you try to come up with a PRACTICAL EXAMPLE of this.
.
1.  Name a time when the pope, in matters of faith and morals, directed/commanded (under pain of sin) a belief outside of an ex-cathedral statement.  I can’t think of any.  
.
1b.  Isn’t what Fenton describing the use of the ordinary/infallibility of the pope?  That is, when JPII reiterated that it is of Tradition that women can never be priests. That sounds like a non-ex-cathedral directive and it is certainly infallible. 
.
2.  The further problem is when one applies Fenton’s theory to V2, because 1) neither V2 nor the new mass were “directives” and 2) they have nothing to do with infallibility because neither were obligatory (ie thus, not directives).  
.
So those claiming that this “special charism” applies to V2 (assuming Paul VI was a true pope) are wrong.  Even if Paul VI was legitimate, V2 doesn’t fulfill what Fenton was describing.  
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 29, 2020, 03:15:28 PM

Quote
You posit a blasphemous caricature of the Church, whereby it's possible for the Church to become 99% corrupt, unreliable, and pernicious. 
99% of churchmen can become corrupt?  Yes, it happened during Arianism and it’s happening now. 
.
99% (or even 1%) of church doctrine/teaching to become corrupt?  Has never happened and never will.  This is the meaning of indefectibility, which applies to truth/doctrine, not men, and not clerics.  
.
V2 is not part of the infallible magisterium (and it’s not part of Fenton’s special-non-infallible infallibility either), because the key part missing from V2 is it's not a “directive”.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 29, 2020, 03:32:17 PM

Quote
He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard.

V2 definitely tried to setup a false doctrinal standard, but even so, this new "pastoral approach to doctrine" wasn't obligatory and has been debated ever since the council ended.  There are so many interpretations that there is no one, single standard.
.
However, even as corrupt as V2 was, it did not affect morals directly.  So, I would say that it did not setup a corrupt moral standard, but morals were corrupted gradually from without (i.e. hollywood, pagan society) and had been since before V2.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Bataar on July 29, 2020, 05:22:05 PM
According to Vatican I, the church is also infallible when using her Universal Ordinary Magisterium. This may be what Fenton meant in his 4th option. If the pope, together with all of the bishops teach something, it is to be considered infallible. Take the idea of Guardian Angels for example. There is no Ex Cathedra doctrine stating that Guardian Angels exist and that we all have one, yet the church, in her universal ordinary magisterium teaches this and it would be heresy to deny it. 
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 29, 2020, 10:01:15 PM
That's not what the question was about. Given that DH affirms a duty to follow the true religion, does DH say there's a right to worship idols?

Yes, DH affirms that there is a natural right to follow whichever religion one sees fit. And the state has to ensure that this natural right is guaranteed. Consequently, the conciliar sect went to threaten several Catholic countries to change their constitutions, and they did (e.g. M. Lefebvre reports about this, as can be found in at least one of his books).

It is true that DH also teaches that if you happen to have been so dim-witted to once adhere to the religion of the conciliar sect, you mustn't leave it. But all others don't enjoy this privilege. And it's a contradiction within one and the same decree,


And again, the point of this discussion is not DH itself, but SVism.

Again? Well, so far, I just answer your questions and input, and I commented on DH only once. Not my fault to talk about DH.


We come across what appears to be a contradiction in church documents (or Scripture). The Church fathers do often write or say things that can appear rather different than 20th century Catholicism, so this is not an exclusively V2 issue. What is a Catholic reaction? Perhaps wondering if context might be different? Perhaps humbly considering our understanding might be wrong? Perhaps it is a legitimate development of doctrine? Perhaps even suspending judgment? Yes, these seem like options for a Catholic. But being so certain that our understanding of an apparent dilemma is correct and the hierarchy is wrong, to the point of declaring that hierarchy no longer exists? Does that really seem like a Catholic response?

All your suggestions should be considered. And yes, there's also the possibility, that we witness the great apostasy, as prophesied in 2 Thess 2. Each of us has to make up his mind and draw his conclusions.


No, no, no, stop! There's one very bad suggestion: "Perhaps even suspending judgment?"

That's grave sin! The principal rule of natural law is: Do what's good and omit what's bad. And to follow that rule, you have to judge. If you suspend judgment, the devil already got you. There is a webpage on the net, where a Thomist university professor of philosophy and theology declared that he, given the robber council, stops to thinking further. He did realize that the robber council teaches heresy. Without realizing this, he wouldn't have to stop thinking. He is just a coward, kneeling in front of Antichrist.



Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 29, 2020, 10:37:35 PM
Quote from: Struthio
Well, just like you and me, the Old Catholics have an obligation to follow their conscience, whether erring or not.

Were you being serious with this comment or was this sarcastic?

That's serious. To follow one's conscience is to apply natural law, and is a moral duty for everyone.


"when erring reason proposes something as being commanded by God, then to scorn the dictate of reason is to scorn the commandment of God." (St. Thomas Aquinas (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article5))
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: XavierSem on July 29, 2020, 11:15:51 PM
Quote from: Clemens Maria
We've gone over this several times before and you refuse to even recognize any of the arguments against your position.  You are not sincerely seeking the truth.  You are just pushing an agenda.

I recognized the two arguments and addressed them. We may not agree, but there it is. I have no "agenda" but the Catholic Faith, all that pertains to it, and only that which pertains to it. Of the about 20 articles I wrote for 1P5, all are on the Catholic Faith. Some are apologetic articles against Modernism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy. Some are devotional articles. This one was on SVism.

I know you think you have arguments showing all Ordinaries can defect. The issue is that it's contrary to Vatican I, and a statement in the Oath Against Modernism. How do you explain those two sources, Clemens Maria?

Quote
As for your implied claim that the entire hierarchy consists solely of the ordinaries, you should read The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology by Pietro Parente because there you will find that the hierarchy also includes all clerics.

You need a statement like, "All Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction can defect, so long as some vagrant clerics without jurisdiction remain". Do you have anything like that? I don't think you'll find a statement to that effect.

Quote
 And even the home-aloners have reasonable arguments for why they think that all clerics have defected as well.  I don't agree with them but I don't think their position is completely without any reasonable basis.

The home aloners who make the jurisdiction argument are taking 60 year sedevacantism to its logical conclusion. They are pointing out there are no authorized sede Priests or authorized sede Bishops since there was no Pope to authorize them.

I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion of their argument. I'm disagreeing with the premise that led to that conclusion. If and only if there was no Pope, it's true that no one was authorized these last 60 years. Otherwise, it's not true at all.

Quote
You on the other hand have elevated your opinion to the level of dogma and that is completely unreasonable.  I won't say that your arguments are completely unfounded but they are not certain so accusing others of heresy on these points is morally wrong.

Not so. I don't consider normal sedevacantism to be heretical. Nor even 5 or 10 year sedevacantism to be heretical. There are two things I do consider heretical, with good reasons from dogmatic sources: (1) Saying the entire hierarchy can defect (2) Saying an indefinite vacancy is possible. When someone claims something is heresy, he must show the dogma that it opposes. What dogma does (1) oppose? Aposotolicity. What dogma does (2) oppose? St. Peter's Perpetual Successors, defined at Vatican I.

Quote
On the other hand you refuse to accuse the Novus Ordo ordinaries (including Chaos Frank) who have not only denied word-for-word dogmas of the Church but have also given clear indications of their unholy motive for doing so.

I hold only the Ordinaries can pass judgment that the Pope has lost office, as also Fr. Suarez said. So what efforts are sedevacantists making to assemble the Ordinaries (or even non-Ordinaries if you insist) in a General Council to do so?
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: XavierSem on July 29, 2020, 11:27:27 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
No, by virtue of the appointment, they can formally exercise jurisidiction provided they have no impediment from doing so.
Is there a source for this? I can show you sources that Ordinary Jurisdiction only passes to Bishops through the Successor of St. Peter. I'm not disagreeing that for e.g. a Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Sarah really possesses authority. But I can hold so consistently since I hold the Pope who appointed them had authority. Thus, they received their authority through his authority, in my view. In your view? They received their authority through his non-authority?

The early sedevacantists argued those appointed by those who lacked authority themselves lacked authority. They took Cum Ex at its word here, and used that argument against +ABL.

Quote
Also, even in straight sedevacantism, it's demonstrated quite clearly that the bishops continue to exercise jurisdiction even during interregna.  Theologians were also cited to the effect that jurisdiction could even derive from Antipopes due to color of title.
It's not about Bishops already appointed continuing to exercise jurisdiction. We all agree they can. It's about whether new Bishops can be appointed by heretics during interregna. Even if they could be appointed by Catholics, it still remains a truism, per Fr. Gueranger, that Catholics cannot have the Apostolic Mission transmitted them by heretics.

Here is the source, cited in the OP: "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"

Do you still hold that those who are defiled by heresy can transmit to others a mission they themselves have forfeited, after this?

Quote
You've been refuted on this point several times by the sedevacantists, but you simply ignore their arguments and keep re-stating yours.

Not at all. I take their arguments into account and answer/refute them. The same as I refuted Protestant arguments in an article on Purgatory. We may not agree, but there it is.

Quote
You're perfectly free to disagree with the thesis that there can be jurisdiction in the Church during an interregnum or that color of title suffices for the transmission of jurisdiction from Christ.

Color of title as applied to a Catholic, I agree. As applied to a heretic, no. Can the Patriarch of Constantinople appoint Bishops to offices of authority?  No, because heretics cannot appoint Catholics to authority.

Quote
Jurisdiction in the Church comes from Christ, and the Pope is a conduit for it, and there's nothing that rules out that even a purely material pope could continue serving as a conduit for jurisdiction even when he cannot himself formally exercise it.  
If he was a Catholic, it is defensible. To say a heretic can serve as a conduit for authority to be transmitted to Catholics is absurd.

Quote
Again, disagree with this, but for you to continue to assert that it's heretical is completely unwarranted.
I didn't say this was heresy. I only said two things were heresy (1) Ecclesia-Vacantism, or no hierarchy. (2) Indefinite SVism, or the idea that a vacancy can be extended forever unproblematically. Given your idea that a non-Catholic can serve as a conduit for jurisdiction to Catholic Bishops, is there any limit to a vacancy? Or is it possible in your view that a Papal Vacancy can last forever?

To me, saying a Papal Vacancy can last indefinitely is a direct and plain contradiction to St. Peter's Perpetual Successors Dogma. It reduces that Dogma to a meaningless formula. That's why God won't let a succession of non-Catholics last indefinitely.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stubborn on July 30, 2020, 05:32:35 AM
According to Vatican I, the church is also infallible when using her Universal Ordinary Magisterium. This may be what Fenton meant in his 4th option.
This is actually wrong, in order to be correct means that we must be precise in this field. To be precise, V1 taught that all those things are to be believed which are contained in both the Church's Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Fr. Fenton's idea of some other infallibility is clearly novel, and if his idea is true, then the NO is the true Church and all trads are outside of it because by claiming that the conciliar popes (together with the hierarchy) have taught and do teach heresy to the whole world, we deny his idea. IOW, we are in direct contradiction to this idea of Fr. Fenton - whose same idea is shared by some of the other 19th/20th century theologians.  


Quote

If the pope, together with all of the bishops teach something, it is to be considered infallible.
Take the idea of Guardian Angels for example. There is no Ex Cathedra doctrine stating that Guardian Angels exist and that we all have one, yet the church, in her universal ordinary magisterium teaches this and it would be heresy to deny it.
You likely do not know it but you are preaching a NO doctrine (bolded), this doctrine is found only in Lumen Gentium 25.2 and is not a teaching of the Church. Again, if it were a true doctrine, then all trads are not members of the Catholic Church because we deny this NO "doctrine" by being trads.  

The doctrine of the Guardian Angels is part of tradition, having been always and everywhere taught and believed by all of the faithful is one of those things contained in the Church's Universal Magisterium of which V1 speaks which, "by divine and Catholic faith" we are to believe, which is why we believe it - *if* we have the Catholic faith.  

Always remember that in Church speak, the word "Universal" *always* includes the element of time, it's meaning is from the time of the Apostles until the end of time.  



 
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Stanley N on July 30, 2020, 07:56:11 PM
No, no, no, stop! There's one very bad suggestion: "Perhaps even suspending judgment?"

That's grave sin! The principal rule of natural law is: Do what's good and omit what's bad. And to follow that rule, you have to judge. If you suspend judgment, the devil already got you. There is a webpage on the net, where a Thomist university professor of philosophy and theology declared that he, given the robber council, stops to thinking further. He did realize that the robber council teaches heresy. Without realizing this, he wouldn't have to stop thinking. He is just a coward, kneeling in front of Antichrist.
Most heresiarchs would have benefitted from some suspending judgment. 
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 30, 2020, 09:26:07 PM

Quote
You need a statement like, "All Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction can defect, so long as some vagrant clerics without jurisdiction remain". Do you have anything like that?

1.  All V2 bishops with oridinary jurisdiction have not defected, +Vigano being a good example, and maybe others like +Schneider and +Sarah, to a smaller degree.
.
2.  During Arianism, most clerics defected (I cannot say all, but I also cannot say that some didn't, as history does not concern itself with such details).  What we know is that +Athanasius did not defect, even though he was stripped of ordinary jurisdiction, being the equivalent of a current "Trad bishop", such as +Williamson or +Sanborn, +Dolan, etc..
.

Quote
The home aloners who make the jurisdiction argument are taking 60 year sedevacantism to its logical conclusion. They are pointing out there are no authorized sede Priests or authorized sede Bishops since there was no Pope to authorize them.
And they are wrong, because canon law authorizes jurisdiction in emergency circumstances, such as happened during china's communistic reign, when chinese bishops ordained/consecrated bishops for the preservation of the faith, unknown to Rome.
.

Quote
I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion of their argument. I'm disagreeing with the premise that led to that conclusion. If and only if there was no Pope, it's true that no one was authorized these last 60 years.

Pope or no pope, "home aloners" are wrong (just as you are) because you restrict canon law (i.e. church law) to papal authority.  The Church is greater than the pope because Christ created the papacy.  The pope exists to teach/govern the Church; the Church does is not restricted by a pope or a lack his leadership.
.

Quote
I can show you sources that Ordinary Jurisdiction only passes to Bishops through the Successor of St. Peter.

Canon Law = supplied jurisdiction for many cases.
.

Quote
To say a heretic can serve as a conduit for authority to be transmitted to Catholics is absurd.

Whether a heretical pope can or can't provide jurisdiction is irrelevant.  Canon law allows for supplied jurisdiction, to those faithful who request the sacraments, either way.
.
There is such a thing as a materially heretic pope (not yet declared, not yet decided he is obstinate) who is not yet a formal heretic.  So, in such cases, the church still continues to operate, whether or not the pope is a heretic or not.
.

Quote
I only said two things were heresy (1) Ecclesia-Vacantism, or no hierarchy. (2) Indefinite SVism, or the idea that a vacancy can be extended forever unproblematically.

1) As during Arianism, where was the hierarchy?  It was in St Athanasius (excommunicated, with no ordinary jurisdiction) and others like him.  He was not, legally, the hierarchy, so according to your definition, during Arianism, there was no hierarchy, bu the Church still survived.
.
2) No one says that SVism extends indefinitely.  We just haven't seen the end of it.  All signs, including many prophecies, point to a miraculous resurrection of the Church.  Svism doesn't have to explain the full theory to be correct.  Its principles are solid.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 30, 2020, 10:08:26 PM
I know you think you have arguments showing all Ordinaries can defect. The issue is that it's contrary to Vatican I, and a statement in the Oath Against Modernism. How do you explain those two sources, Clemens Maria?

I'm not sure what you are referring to in the Oath Against Modernism.  Maybe this?

"Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time."

Or this?

"I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles."

See the parallels between the Successor of Peter and the Successors of the Apostles?  In fact, Van Noort says that we don't scruple about finding the exact line of succession for each and every bishop.  The way that we know they are Successors of the Apostles is that they are in communion with the pope, the Successor of Peter.  So Apostolic Succession is dependent on the the Succession of Peter, not the other way around.  We have been over this before.  But you refuse to even consider the argument.  You go around in circles until you come back to your original argument.  It's tedious.

Needless to say, the Succession of Peter does not end with the death of the pope.  We have sede vacantes and yet we don't worry that the See of Rome has defected.  If the See of Rome has not defected then neither has the Church defected.  But the See of Rome doesn't defect during a sede vacante.

Also consider that phrases such as "duration of time", "until the end of time", "until the consummation", etc don't imply that there is guaranteed to be a pope reigning at the moment the world comes to an end.  The world could very well end during a sede vacante without ever violating any of Our Lord's promises to his faithful.

I'll point out again (for the 20th time maybe?) that Van Noort and other theologians speculated about nuclear wars wiping out the entire world.  But he insisted as did Msgr Fenton that the Local Church of Rome would never defect.  So conceivably every other see can defect at the same time but the Roman See will not defect.  This despite the fact that there are sede vacantes from time to time of the Roman See.  So obviously they did not think the existence of the Roman See was dependent upon another ordinary somewhere in the world.

We see similar parallels in the Vatican I document:

"SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870

3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation."

"Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time."

And note that this is very prejudicial against the R&R position:

"Chapter 4

The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."

And yet the SSPX has saw fit to question this teaching by second-guessing the teaching of the purported pontiff.


You need a statement like, "All Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction can defect, so long as some vagrant clerics without jurisdiction remain". Do you have anything like that? I don't think you'll find a statement to that effect.

Oh, really?  And you don't need a statement that says the existence of the Roman See is dependent on the existence of at least one ordinary somewhere in the world?

The home aloners who make the jurisdiction argument are taking 60 year sedevacantism to its logical conclusion. They are pointing out there are no authorized sede Priests or authorized sede Bishops since there was no Pope to authorize them.

I posted earlier 2 articles by different authors who have pointed out that the election of a pope does not require the cardinals in some scenarios.  And neither does it require ordinaries.  At one time the local clergy of Rome really did elect their own bishop.  And obviously none of them were ordinaries.

There are two things I do consider heretical, with good reasons from dogmatic sources: (1) Saying the entire hierarchy can defect (2) Saying an indefinite vacancy is possible. When someone claims something is heresy, he must show the dogma that it opposes. What dogma does (1) oppose? Aposotolicity. What dogma does (2) oppose? St. Peter's Perpetual Successors, defined at Vatican I.

There you go again, not listening.  I just pointed out earlier in the thread that the hierarchy consists of all clerics.  And you continue to use the word hierarchy to mean solely the ordinaries.  Also, every sede vacante is indefinite.  There is no time limit on a sede vacante.  The cardinals have never had a deadline by which they absolutely had to elect the next pope.


I hold only the Ordinaries can pass judgment that the Pope has lost office, as also Fr. Suarez said. So what efforts are sedevacantists making to assemble the Ordinaries (or even non-Ordinaries if you insist) in a General Council to do so?

According to St Robert Bellarmine, a manifest heretic is already judged.  If it was something that needed to be judged in a court by competent authority, it would be impossible to make such a judgment because the pope cannot be judged.  Either the V2 popes are obviously guilty of heresy/apostasy or they are not guilty at all.  A large number of well-informed Catholics see that the Conciliar popes are not Catholic at all.  And those who don't think the popes are heretics are lost in contradiction.

As far as what the sedes are doing with regard to a general council, I don't know.  I've heard there have been some discussions among various clergy but I have no idea what might be happening in the future.  I don't know what I can do to help other than to fast and pray.
Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Argentino on July 31, 2020, 09:17:16 AM
First, it is relevant to everyone if someone falls into open heresy, and the Ecclesia-Vacantist opinion that the entire hierarchy is heretical is certainly itself heretical. It is heretical irrespective of whether it is held by sedes like Struthio or R&R like Stubborn. I respond to whoever denies it, documenting from Church Catechisms and other official sources, that it is impossible.

I have been replying to 3 separate errors (1) The entire hierarchy can defect into heresy or die (2) Papal appointment is not necessary for ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity, and (3) the Church can elect a new Pope without Ordinaries issuing a juridical declaration first. I believe you agree with, or at least don't contest, (1) or (3), but you do deny 2. Is that right?

With regard to Sede-Privationism, here's the thing: Sede-Privationism says the material Pope remains a Pope-elect only. In such a case, the Bishops designated by him would remain Bishop-designates only. It is the universal Jurisdiction of the Supreme Pastor that effects the conferral of particular jurisdiction of the Bishop. If you disagree with this, you disagree with the doctrine as explained by the Theologians, including Msgr. Fenton and Cardinal Ottaviani. So I'm not disturbed by the objection of Sede-privationism.

This is a real problem for sedevacantism, whether sedevacantists and quasi-sedevacantists want to admit it or not. A 100 year interregnum is clearly heretical and contradicts the defined dogma on St. Peter's Perpetual Successors. So what is the limit?

No sedevacantist even wants to touch that question? The clear limit, upon reflection, is seen to be when all Papally appointed Bishops die.

To accept the ostensible claimants from the Vatican since Paul VI as true popes is out of the question. I know who are NOT popes, but I don't know if there is a true pope in a dungeon somewhere.Trust in the Church. Whichever you like to believe, either there is no true pope for a certain amount of time OR there is a pope we don't know about locked up out of site. But, again, I know who are NOT true popes.

I already answered in a previous comment that bishops with ordinary jurisdiction are not essential for electing a pope.

Title: Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Post by: Struthio on July 31, 2020, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: Struthio
DH is against common sense. DH claims that there is a God-given right to act against God-given law. The basic principle of natural right is: Do what's good, omit what's bad. Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols). One doesn't even need the ex cathedra condemnation of Quanta Cura to see that that's a false gospel. The Church never teaches anything against common sense.

I've debated this topic with several Novus Ordites for years, and they presented quite some literature. All desperate attempts to show that what must not be, cannot be.

Common sense is one of the first things to go.

Ironically, that's quite common.

Yes, I should say "sound reasoning" instead of "common sense".