Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?  (Read 2327 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Struthio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1650
  • Reputation: +453/-366
  • Gender: Male
Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2020, 09:07:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)


    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +453/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #31 on: July 27, 2020, 09:27:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)


    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +453/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #32 on: July 27, 2020, 09:31:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #33 on: July 27, 2020, 09:36:12 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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???
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #34 on: July 27, 2020, 09:45:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?


    Offline Shrewd Operator

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 159
    • Reputation: +84/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #35 on: July 27, 2020, 10:16:26 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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!"

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +453/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #36 on: July 27, 2020, 10:17:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

    Offline Shrewd Operator

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 159
    • Reputation: +84/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #37 on: July 27, 2020, 10:39:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7610
    • Reputation: +617/-404
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #38 on: July 28, 2020, 12:25:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  There is NO SUCH THING as as a 'Sedevacantist" :confused:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13819
    • Reputation: +5567/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #39 on: July 28, 2020, 05:45:42 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

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

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #40 on: July 28, 2020, 07:26:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?


    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +453/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #41 on: July 28, 2020, 08:14:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    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

    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.
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41859
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #42 on: July 28, 2020, 08:46:31 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +453/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #43 on: July 28, 2020, 09:00:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41859
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
    « Reply #44 on: July 28, 2020, 09:33:06 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.