Can the "Sede" question be discussed academically?  By this, I mean a truly respectful and friendly and intellectually stimulating interchange between those who accept and those who reject the Sede Vacante finding.

I don't know that this is even possible, and if so, where (here, I truly hope, as I write this).  Not only are there serious feelings and whole belief structures on each side, but also serious life repercussions, at least potentially, for example, that one who concludes he was wrong might have to depart from a known and trusted congregation full of people he knows well and counts as friends to another congregation full of strangers.  If only we could discuss these things without so very much at stake!

In 2003, an SSPX book on the subject promised that "We intend to avoid any personal references to or caricatures of individuals, their characters or possible personal defects. The only effect of doing so would be to prevent a serene and dispassionate reflection on the very important question we are posing. We hope to disappoint those who may look for gossip or grist for unseemly speculation in these pages.  ...  We hope in this way to contribute to the creation of a climate of true charity which may serve as the platform for a just estimation of reality and of possible divergences. Perhaps it is the precariousness of such a platform that has until now prevented calm discussion of this subject."  I cannot agree more strongly with the need for "a serene and dispassionate reflection on the very important question we are posing."  But where has that ever taken place?

Perhaps I can set a good and mostly representative tone for what is to follow with what I hope those who do not agree with the Sede Vacante finding should find at least courteous and respectful.

Without conceding any degree of my belief that the Sede Vacante finding is correct, I can nevertheless think of seven categories of reason why a good Catholic would not (or need not) embrace the Sede Vacante finding, and for these reasons I acknowledge their true faithfulness to the Gospel:

1)  Not wanting to judge a Pope.  Even the judgement of a person, who one only subjectively and mistakenly assumes to be a Pope, would nevertheless be "crossing a line" into something radically sinful, a step which no person should ever be required to take.  By the same token, a complete repudiation of a superior's authority without truly grave cause is also unjust, a step one must not take.  Finally, one ought not come to define their Catholicism only in terms of "not belonging to this group or that."

2)  The Sede Vacante finding raises many questions regarding the visibility of the Church, authority, the Marks of the Church, how the next Pope can come about, and so forth, and these questions require and deserve answers.  It was this significant array of ecclesiological questions - and the realization that a sufficient investigation of them cannot be meaningfully embarked upon so very near the end of one's life - that most explain why Abp. Lefebvre never actually quite embraced the Sede Vacante finding, despite his having long considered it many times.  How much we all can identify with how he felt about it:  "Does the Church have a true Pope or an impostor on the throne of St. Peter?  Happy are those who have lived and died without having to pose such a question!"

3)  Arguments which may well be psychologically persuasive but logically invalid or even fallacious.  Unfortunately, there has frequently been some aspect of this on both sides, and while it behooves us to avoid such arguments, or else expose their weaknesses or fallacies where presented, and again always as carefully and with scholastic docuмentation or clear and obvious sound reasoning.

4)  The failure of most sedevacantists to address the relevant ecclesiological questions, or (in many cases) even acknowledge them, or else to just push it all off into the realm of "mystery" is irresponsible and repugnant to Catholic sensibilities.  Of course, rejecting the Sede Vacante finding only pushes that one bit more into the realm of "mystery" but on the other hand the other questions, though still something of a consideration, are not as pressingly urgent as they are among the sedevacantists.

5)  Another failure of what few sedevacantists to address the relevant ecclesiological issues satisfactorily, or to "furnish an apodictic and completely satisfying theological explanation" (which it clearly seems to be up to the sedevacantists to provide, as no one else seems to be working on that at all), or in other words, some of their attempts, such as the Cassiciacuм thesis (which the 2003 SSPX book addressed in some depth) are just plain inadequate to account for the full extent of the situation and all the relevant doctrines.

There are two other reasons which only apply to certain sorts of individuals:

6)  The fact that it is not required for everyone to know all of these high-level ecclesiological details, nor to be able to judge or discern such matters at our own limited level of being the laity.  Salvation is not a game show where picking the wrong door (Sede versus non-Sede, etc.) means damnation.  On the level of ordinary laity, it is enough that we learn the Faith, believe it, practice it, aid others in coming to it and growing in it, and thereby save our souls and serve as a good influence with whoever we come in contact with.  An ordinary layman, bringing his wife and 10 children to the nearest SSPX chapel and sending his children to their school can have no valid reason to change his usual place of worship, no matter what the results of such a discussion as this might be.  The same goes for those who do the same at a sedevacantist chapel.  This excuses the laity (and some religious) only, as clerics do have an obligation to learn and know their ecclesiology and where the Church is.

7)  The fact that there does not exist a universal consensus among the traditional bishops as to whether the Church has a living Pope or not.  Bishops of both opinions exist and sustain congregations in the Catholic Faith, practicing on behalf of their respective Faithful the authentic Catholic Rites as is their duty, in clear union with all that ordinary lay Catholics need be concerned with (see point 6 above).  One cannot be morally bound on any question for which no unanimity, even moral, exists among the Church's bishops.

Perhaps some rules, specific to this thread, would be in order:

1)  Respect, courtesy, and acknowledgment of each other's faithfulness to the true Faith and Church.  A big part of this courtesy requires that one does not reduce their opponent's arguments to mere "straw-man" parodies of what is actually contended.

2)  Expect to be scholastically challenged on any broad and far-reaching ipse dixit which is not already obviously accepted by at least virtually all members of both sides of the question.

3)  Use standard theological sources:  Popes, Councils, Scripture, Fathers, Doctors, approved Roman Theologians.  Please use these sources generously, for it is they who can instruct us all in these matters in the Church's teachings.  Please do not use mystical writings, private revelations (even accepted), or other sources as an "authoritative" or "magisterial" basis for anything, but only to point out an individual's position or provide a helpful turn of phrase.

4)  Use the standard theological sources honestly:  Quotes must be given accurately and in context, with sufficient surrounding material as to satisfy the reader that no pseudo-scholastic subterfuge is being used to make some source seem to say something they never intended to say.  It is best to provide at least the paragraph from which a quote comes, and the quote itself either bolded or repeated right after the quote, and with whatever explanation is required to show its connection with the matter at hand.

5)  Points made by someone of either side must be acknowledged by someone of the other side; they may be entirely correct and accepted, or partially correct (or overall close to being correct) in which case that which is correct about them must be admitted while one is free to differ with that other part which is disagreed with.  If completely disagreed with, a reason, based on magisterial sources or obvious logic must be presented.

6)  Stay on topic.  These questions open enough various things to talk about within the scope of this thread's subject matter.  Please do not bring up other subjects.  And also, no "that was great!" or "I agree"  or simply "well said" except as preface to an explanation of what is so great or agreeable or well said about it.  If you agree with someone's post, just give it a thumbs up (or down if you disagree but don't have the time or patience to explain why).

Before going on with that list, a couple other points:  I do not see this as a debate in which one or the other side is to be proven "right" and the other "wrong," but rather that both sides learn from each other and become familiar with the actual ecclesiological issues involved, and with how they might be reasonably addressed.  From what I see, both sides have much of value to bring to the table, and we all stand to gain from a better understanding of the issues.  But because of this somewhat different emphasis as I request here, there are a couple other items to list:

6)  No reports of some latest monstrosity from the Vatican or other current events.  I think we all know that things are truly amiss over there and therefore there is no need to docuмent these things any further here.  There are many other threads for presenting and discussing such information.  Here, the focus must be on theological, canonical, and ecclesiological issues, exclusively.

7)  No attacks on anyone and no accusations of bad will (unless it be clear to all that they have violated the rules for this thread).

I would hope and request that our Moderator would delete or respond to any violators of the rules for this thread.

Ladislaus is right on this in some respects.  The biggest problem I've seen is that simply disagreeing on the matter is often taken as a personal insult by way too many people.

I'm not the most learned man on the forum (something that a lot of people will attest to) and I don't have all the answers nor can I adequately put all the answers I have into words.  I find it amazing that the clearest answers to most of the questions are very simplistic.  I note too that I can read (translated) docuмents from 200 years ago and earlier and they make a lot of sense.  In the words of Christ, they say yes, yes, no, no.  They are not nuanced so that only a person with advanced degrees in Thinkology can understand, yet I find this is required of most of what is written today by the Conciliar church and its defenders.  (This, I'm sure, is probably a violation of the no personal attacks rule.)

I will take your points one by one:

1.  Not wanting to judge the pope.  Have you ever heard the saying, Not to decide is to decide?  I believe the same goes for judging.  Not to judge is to judge.  If we were attempting to judge any person's inner soul, it would be correct to refrain from any judgment.  On the other hand, just as the layman Eusebius judged the teaching of Nestorius to be heresy, and therefore it's teacher a heretic, we have God's given intellect to judge the declared statement and actions of the man claiming the papacy.  People who are ignorant of his teachings (and here, I am appalled by the people who say that he hasn't really taught anything) have an excuse.  I simply do not understand how anyone can say he teaches heresy but is not a heretic.  Too many popes have taught that heresy severs one from the body of the Church to believe that a heretic can be its head.  I agree, one cannot simply declare this without good reason, but I cannot understand how I can be accused of not having a good reason.

2.  Archbishop Lefebvre also once said that he did not say that Wojtyla was not the pope but he also did not say that others could not say that he is not the pope.  Archbishop Lefebvre seemed to oscillate in his views on the pope question.  In any event, I cannot imagine that he would hold the view of Bishop Fellay or even Bishop Williamson today.  Perhaps he would, but the question is really irrelevant to the pope question in 2015.

3.  I'm not going to try to make a logical argument because they would lack clarity in this forum.  Suffice it to say that I've not seen one argument yet that Bergoglio is definitely the pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church that is logical.  But I'm also wondering if any pope in history could hold up to such a level of scrutiny.  Historical facts are simply that--historical facts.  Since never, until Paul 6, did a "pope" promulgate heresy (of course, I'm told that there really isn't heresy in Vatican 2 or in the authentic magisterium of Vatican 2 and in the Conciliar hierarchy, but that seems to fly in the face of what is rather that what should be.)  Never, until Paul 6, did Catholics have to guard their faith against the bishops.  Never, until Paul 6, did Catholics have to choose between the catechisms they were taught in their youths and the catechism being taught by the priests and bishops.

4.  I agree that there is a failure of many sedevacantists to address many of the ecclesiological issues.  Can I simply say that I don't know the answers here?  On the other hand, the Church is still visible.  People are finding the Church, and the faith, in traditional chapels everywhere.  Where people cannot find the Church is in the institutional structures that have been stolen from the faithful.  But let's also ask another question.  How can the Church officially endorse the prophesy that Rome will lose the faith when we all thought Catholic doctrine teaches that Rome can never lose the faith?  That seems rather mysterious as well!

5.  Another example of my ignorance.  I don't understand the difference between 4 and 5.

Items 6 and 7 seem beyond the scope of my comments.  

I believe I've complied with rules 1, 2, 5, 6, the second item 6, and 7.  I've not even tried to comply with items 3 and 4.  I think if you want those two issues, you really need to go to the Bellarmine Forums and there, in its archives, you will find serious discussions using many theologians, councils, popes, etc. to develop many issues regarding sedevacantism though few such comments from me.

It seems that most of these questions have been addressed many times over and the replies seem almost always to simply discount the theologians and the teachings and to reject any teaching not attached to a very specific anathema in a general council.  

This will be as far as I go, and it wasn't very far.

P.S.

I do not see this as a debate in which one or the other side is to be proven "right" and the other "wrong," but rather that both sides learn from each other and become familiar with the actual ecclesiological issues involved, and with how they might be reasonably addressed. From what I see, both sides have much of value to bring to the table, and we all stand to gain from a better understanding of the issues.

Dialog on this topic, on this forum, is, I think, between faithful Catholics.  

But what you wrote above is exactly how the Conciliar popes dialog with the Orthodox, Protestants, and even non-Christians and atheists.  I just thought that was an interesting observation.

1.  Not wanting to judge the pope.  Have you ever heard the saying, Not to decide is to decide?  I believe the same goes for judging.  Not to judge is to judge.  If we were attempting to judge any person's inner soul, it would be correct to refrain from any judgment.  On the other hand, just as the layman Eusebius judged the teaching of Nestorius to be heresy, and therefore it's teacher a heretic, we have God's given intellect to judge the declared statement and actions of the man claiming the papacy.  People who are ignorant of his teachings (and here, I am appalled by the people who say that he hasn't really taught anything) have an excuse.  I simply do not understand how anyone can say he teaches heresy but is not a heretic.  Too many popes have taught that heresy severs one from the body of the Church to believe that a heretic can be its head.  I agree, one cannot simply declare this without good reason, but I cannot understand how I can be accused of not having a good reason.

The issue is not that non-SV trads are not judging *anything*, because we do judge - as we are bound to do, so as to not follow evil leaders into the pit - and imo there are very few trads who would argue against the conciliar popes having all been evil leaders.

Yet the bottom line falls to the very real fact that there is nothing anyone can do about it. The quote below from Fr. Wathen is simply a truth that sedevecantists ignore or reject without reason. On another forum, one SV agreed what Fr. said was indeed true, but said basically, "so what".  

If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.

I would like to hear where Fr. is in error in his quote above.

I was afraid that if I regarded the Pope as the Pope -- who's rejecting every single Catholic dogma - as the Pope, I could die in that state and go to hell because I regarded an evil person the successor of St. Peter.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics …”

In fact I can't depose the Pope , no one can, but I can't recognize Vat.II as Popes.

I believe Francis has incurred in ipso facto excommunication just like his predecessors.

This is a sincere opinion from someone who was regarding Francis as the Pope last week

Quote from: LucasL

I was afraid that if I regarded the Pope as the Pope -- who's rejecting every single Catholic dogma - as the Pope, I could die in that state and go to hell because I regarded an evil person the successor of St. Peter.

This is similar to Richard Ibranyi's reasoning. According to his findings, there have been no popes or cardinals since the year 1130 on account of their rejecting only a single dogma - in your case, it seems rejecting only a single dogma is not enough, he must reject every single dogma before he ceases to be pope - is that correct?



 

No! this is absolutely crazy. I've heard of this Ibranyi before and if he thinks the Sede is Vacante since 1130 then... well then he's mentally ill.

What I think you're trying to say is

-- There were bad (heretic) Cardinals and Popes in the past still they didn't lose the office

But the very point is: Vat.II teaches heresy On the Chair of St Peter and the VII docuмents are to be accepted by the Universal Church (just like every single Ecuмenical COuncil)

If we look in the past, even bad and not so moral Popes hold the office. The difference is that when speaking for the Universal Church. they  have continued to the tradition of Catholic Church. So I come this conclusion:

when a Pope is heretic in his writing, private letters etc it's bad but not something that brakes the Church tradition. On the other hand when the Pope teaches for the Universal Church heresy (now in 2015 Francis teaches satanic, pure satanic doctrine and denies the Catholic dogmas) then it's clear he's not the Pope.

I don't know if what I wrote is correct but let me know where there is error.

I was too focused on the issue of John XXIII, Paul VI.. etc then I heard a talk from Bishop Sanborn (regardless my personal differences with him , he has helped a lot) which made things more clear tome

The problem is Vatican II.

Now my opinion: if the Popes follow Vatican II they will always be heretics, regardless if they are friendly to Latin Mass or against abortion. Vatican II is pure, total , 100% a Council that is not a Council of the Roman Catholic Church.

Then not only the Popes who follow Vatican II are Antipopes but also Priests who are in total agreement on Vatican II and were ordained with the new rite of ordination.

Regarding Priests and Bishops things are more complicated if they were ordained in the Old Rite, then may be in heresy if they follow Vatican II but they are still Priests.
But I didn't study the question regarding Priests and Bishops who follow Vatican II because there're Priests who rejects 100% Vatican II but still consider Francis as the Pope.
[Note that  this question  regarding the Priests who are ordained in the old rite is not clear to me]

I was afraid that if I regarded the Pope as the Pope -- who's rejecting every single Catholic dogma - as the Pope, I could die in that state and go to hell because I regarded an evil person the successor of St. Peter.

Try not to be too worried about this.  God is not a tyrant.  We can only do our best.  St. Vincent Ferrer picked the wrong pope ... without any impact on his personal sanctity.  Even if a Pope were to become a heretic, there are some very prominent theologians who claim that such a one would remain Pope until declared deposed by the Church (the papa haereticus ab Ecclesia deponenda school of thought).  There are the sedeprivationists or those like Father Chazal who think that the Pope remains pope but is "quarantined" from formally exercising authority.  In fact, most Traditional Catholics have essentially concluded that these Popes, for one reason or another, are not formally exercising Magisterium even if possessing the office.  However one decides about the MATERIAL disposition of the current Pontiff, I find that two things are essential in remaining formally Catholic.

1) We cannot say that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church has essentially defected.

2) We cannot say that Catholics are entitled to reject popes of their own private judgment.  This undermines the Magisterium every bit as #1 above.

In #1 you see my problem with R&R, in #2 my issue with SVism.  SVs reject R&R due to #1 but they refuse to see the problems with #2.  R&R reject SVism due to #2 but refuse to see the problems with #1.

We'd go a long way towards being civil Catholics if each camp would at least ACKNOWLEDGE the problems cited by the other camp.  If I'm an SV, I say, yes, I understand your problem with #2 but find that #1 is more compelling.  If I'm an R&R, I say, yes, I understand your problem with #1, but I find #2 more compelling. ... Instead of dogmatically rejecting the concerns from the other side.

But whether you want to insert Francis in the Canon or put his picture up in the vestibule, as long as one has not used #1 or #2 to arrive at this practical conclusion, I have zero problem with it.

And I found many arguments from Theologians (which I don't regard as the same as Pope ex cathedra) but they not only makes sense but are according to Church teaching. But this arguments I've read are from Sedevacantists pages and groups. They claim they're  following the Pope in every sense because the Church teaches that the Pope can't be a heretic so the only option left is regard as Antipope.

Another argument to support the issue of a heretic Pope loses office is specially when he says things on moral and dogma such as the Popes after Vatican II -- which are heretical and against the Church.