Author Topic: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI (Read 2223 times)

WorldsAway · « **Reply #60 on:** May 16, 2025, 07:26:57 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on May 16, 2025, 06:11:41 AM

No, he would not be sinning by mentioning his name because the Church does not require the priest to decide the status of popes, the Church does require the priest to mention the name of the pope.

As Lad pointed out earlier, even saints have mentioned the name of the wrong pope in the past - it is no sin.

Again, non una cuм is only the priest's private judgement of something he is not required, and not even supposed to judge. This fact is what is being completely lost in all of this.

Objectively a SV priest who names in the mass, as Pope, the man who he believes to be an antipope may or may not be in error. That depends on if the man is actually pope, or not

Subjectively he is sinning because he would be acting against what he believes is morally right. Namely, saying mass in union with an antipope.

The saints were doing what they believed to be morally right, whether or not they were objectively in error. That is my entire point. Any saint who named an antipope, who they believed to be a true Pope, in the Mass was doing so out of private judgement! They erred, but were following their certain conscience.

You can't use Lad's point in your favour because you are disagreeing with it

Stubborn · « **Reply #61 on:** May 16, 2025, 08:09:46 AM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on May 16, 2025, 07:26:57 AM

Objectively a SV priest who names in the mass, as Pope, the man who he believes to be an antipope may or may not be in error. That depends on if the man is actually pope, or not

Subjectively he is sinning because he would be acting against what he believes is morally right. Namely, saying mass in union with an antipope.

The saints were doing what they believed to be morally right, whether or not they were objectively in error. That is my entire point. Any saint who named an antipope, who they believed to be a true Pope, in the Mass was doing so out of private judgement! They erred, but were following their certain conscience.

You can't use Lad's point in your favour because you are disagreeing with it.

Again, the Church never made it anyone's responsibility to determine the status of popes, quite the contrary. This is true no matter how badly one believes they need to. The Church has always condemned omitting the name of the pope as an act of schism. On that fact alone it makes zero sense for any priest to risk it by presuming to think their opinion is somehow the correct opinion and the Church is ok with it in this situation by purposely doing the exact opposite of what the Church teaches.

If a priest, contrary to his opinion, names one he believes to be a non-pope, he is not sinning because the offense is strictly an offense against his own opinion no matter how strongly he values his opinion. This is why no, subjectively he is not sinning at all.

It's crazy how it happens that things get twisted 180 degrees, particularly by those who should know better, aka priests and bishops.

MiracleOfTheSun · « **Reply #62 on:** May 16, 2025, 08:17:38 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on May 16, 2025, 06:17:09 AM

The NO violates my standards. See my sig.

Everyone rails against Sedes saying there's no basis to make a 'private judgement' on the matter then you get this from R'n'R. Not picking on Stubborn but this is classic and exactly the point. The NO clearly violates the standards of everyone who takes the time to look at, and address, the situation.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #63 on:** May 16, 2025, 08:19:50 AM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on May 16, 2025, 06:02:26 AM

No pope, because they believe there is no pope. I'm sure you know their arguments about interregnum periods, which have lasted for several years in the past (but 60+ years in this case ). I don't doubt they believe they are subject to the Papacy, just that there is no one currently holding the office

You've answered your own question...the doctrinal obligation of catholics is the be subject to the PAPACY, not a particular pope.

Quote

Not supposed to be a gotcha, what I'm trying to point out is that at no point in time have Catholics been forced to either hold that the See have been vacant for 60+ years, or to R&R a succession of bad popes for 60+ years, or to believe that the popes have lost all teaching authority for that period of time, etc. All of these are opinions in an unprecedented situation where there is no authority to settle the matter.

Exactly what I said before. There is no 'standard operating procedure' for this situation, because, it's not a standard situation. Ergo, there is not 100% completely right way to handle it (detailed-wise). At a high-level, we are obliged to "hold to Tradition" which is what Trads do. All Trads agree that avoiding V2 is necessary for salvation (this is the moral certainty). Where we disagree is the legal/canon law details...how to handle a heretic hierarchy (there cannot be moral certainty on this, because the Church has never told us).

Quote

But I think what, at least most of, these Catholics have done is come to a "moral certainty" that what they are doing is correct and right..you shouldn't be SV, R&R, sedeprivationalist, etc. unless you have, as subjection to the Papacy (whether than entails believing the See is Vacant, or that the Pope has lost authority, or whatever else) is necessary for salvation

I reject the notion that the status of the pope (beyond the acceptance that he is unorthodox and heretical) is a moral question. History is full of situations where the status of the pope (legal/canonical status) was not known until after his death (i.e. the Church ruled on the matter).

MiracleOfTheSun · « **Reply #64 on:** May 16, 2025, 08:22:58 AM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on May 16, 2025, 06:02:26 AM

I'm sure you know their arguments about interregnum periods, which have lasted for several years in the past (but 60+ years in this case ). I don't doubt they believe they are subject to the Papacy, just that there is no one currently holding the office

...All of these are opinions in an unprecedented situation where there is no authority to settle the matter...

Exactly.

WorldsAway · « **Reply #65 on:** May 16, 2025, 08:26:35 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on May 16, 2025, 08:09:46 AM

Again, the Church never made it anyone's responsibility to determine the status of popes, quite the contrary. This is true no matter how badly one believes they need to. The Church has always condemned omitting the name of the pope as an act of schism. On that fact alone it makes zero sense for any priest to risk it by presuming to think their opinion is somehow the correct opinion and the Church is ok with it in this situation by purposely doing the exact opposite of what the Church teaches.

If a priest, contrary to his opinion, names one he believes to be a non-pope, he is not sinning because the offense is strictly an offense against his own opinion no matter how strongly he values his opinion. This is why no, subjectively he is not sinning at all.

It's crazy how it happens that things get twisted 180 degrees, particularly by those who should know better, aka priests and bishops.

Did St. Vincent Ferrer not "determine the status of pope", "[presume] to think [his] opinion [was] somehow the correct opinion"? He was wrong, but his actions were never condemned. He asserted his opinion into the Liturgy, but believed he was doing what was right. How is that different than what SV priests do?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #66 on:** May 16, 2025, 08:51:58 AM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on May 16, 2025, 08:26:35 AM

Did St. Vincent Ferrer not "determine the status of pope", "[presume] to think [his] opinion [was] somehow the correct opinion"? He was wrong, but his actions were never condemned. He asserted his opinion into the Liturgy, but believed he was doing what was right. How is that different than what SV priests do?

It's not. If you put the wrong name into the Canon, then it's a material or objective error.

Question becomes WHY you put the name in there. If it's because you think the man is a Pope, then you have the correct formal intention (despite being in material error), just like St. Vincent Ferrer.

On the contrary, putting their names IN the Canon is similarly motivated by the same formal motive. You're putting the name in there because you think they're popes ...

Or it could be you think they at least might be popes and give them "benefit of the doubt".

Or a sedeprivationist could put them in there because they think that their material possession of the office justifies or even requires putting the name in there.

Or Father Chazal puts the name in there due to their possession of the office, despite holding that the individual is "quarantined" and therefore lacking in authority.

You could hold the Cajetan theory where the heretic Pope would need to be "ministerially" deposed.

None of these motives constitutes any formal adherence to the errors of the Conciliar Church, as Traditional Catholics are Traditional Catholics precisely because they reject those errors.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #67 on:** May 16, 2025, 09:03:15 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 16, 2025, 08:51:58 AM

It's not. If you put the wrong name into the Canon, then it's a material or objective error.

Question becomes WHY you put the name in there. If it's because you think the man is a Pope, then you have the correct formal intention (despite being in material error), just like St. Vincent Ferrer.

On the contrary, putting their names IN the Canon is similarly motivated by the same formal motive. You're putting the name in there because you think they're popes ...

Or it could be you think they at least might be popes and give them "benefit of the doubt".

Or a sedeprivationist could put them in there because they think that their material possession of the office justifies or even requires putting the name in there.

Or Father Chazal puts the name in there due to their possession of the office, despite holding that the individual is "quarantined" and therefore lacking in authority.

You could hold the Cajetan theory where the heretic Pope would need to be "ministerially" deposed.

None of these motives constitutes any formal adherence to the errors of the Conciliar Church, as Traditional Catholics are Traditional Catholics precisely because they reject those errors.

So to steelman stubborns argument, it might be something like, since you can’t dogmatically prove these individuals aren’t popes, you have to “give them the benefit of the doubt” or you’re sinning. That does seem reasonable to me. of course I do have issues with this, like why the same “benefit of the doubt” wouldn’t be given to V2 and the NOM… the principle seems to be the same

the reality of universal acceptance was always a dealbreaker to me for SVism and was why “RandR” (of the variety that argued that V2 and the NOM were able to err because they weren’t promulgated ex cathedra) and hermeneutic of continuity were the only two positions I seriously considered before ultimately concluding that, ya know, the RC simply has defected

Ladislaus · « **Reply #68 on:** May 16, 2025, 09:07:39 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on May 16, 2025, 09:03:15 AM

So to steelman stubborns argument, it might be something like, since you can’t dogmatically prove these individuals aren’t popes, you have to “give them the benefit of the doubt” or you’re sinning. That does seem reasonable to me. of course I do have issues with this, like why the same “benefit of the doubt” wouldn’t be given to V2 and the NOM… the principle seems to be the same

the reality of universal acceptance was always a dealbreaker to me for SVism and was why “RandR” (of the variety that argued that V2 and the NOM were able to err because they weren’t promulgated ex cathedra) and hermeneutic of continuity were the only two positions I seriously considered before ultimately concluding that, ya know, the RC simply has defected

Yes, I'm not trying to blow this up into a debate about the individual positions ... but listing them to show that any given position (even if you think it's wrong) doesn't necessarily speak to a defective formal motive for why the name is in there, and simply putting the wrong name in there (despite correct motives) is not as the dogmatic una-cuм types assert tantamount to professing adherence to a false pope (if they're wrong) and a false religion.

But Stubborn's argument that the "Church tells" priests that they must "put the name of the pope" in there is his typical begging the question where these men are actually Popes. He does that regularly and many have tried to point this out to him, but it won't penetrate the thickness of his skull.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #69 on:** May 16, 2025, 10:00:03 AM »

The main points are as follows.
1. The naming of the pope in the canon has its MAIN purpose as to express that the priest is offering his mass in union with the PAPACY and with the DIOCESE. Contrary to the orthodox and anglicans, who recognize no pope at all.

2. The secondary purpose is to pray for the pope/diocesan bishop, as an individual. The prayer even mentions that such prayers are only effective if the pope/bishop are “orthodox in belief”. If they aren’t, then they don’t get the benefit of the prayers.

3. There are multiple ways in which one can interpret the meaning of the pope. (That’s one good outcome that will come out of this crisis.).
a. I pray for the guy elected, who runs the Vatican.
b. The actual pope who has full authority.
c. I pray for the papacy and if this guy is him, even if a heretic, I’ll pray for his conversion.

Sedes refuse to acknowledge that there are any options of viewing this crisis outside of “b”. You either are all for the pope or all against. No in between. No distinctions.

The ‘una cuм’ debate is a distinction-less stupidity. It’s one of the dumbest things that Trads argue about (and that’s saying something).

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #70 on:** May 16, 2025, 10:46:00 AM »

Moral certainty = probability so great as to allow no reasonable doubt.

Yes, there is moral certainty that V2 and the new mass aren't catholic. Which is why 99.9% of Trads agree. And even non-Trads agree. There's no "reasonable doubt" that V2 and the new mass are anti-catholic.

But it's incorrect to say that a heretical pope automatically loses his office, ipso facto, immediately, with no trial. This legal question has MUCH reasonable doubt. In fact, theologians have debated it for centuries. Ergo, moral certainty is not able to be obtained. The proof is that the various opinions among Trads is all over the place.

If you want to argue that "Fr Jim has moral certainty" on the papal status (beyond the heresy question) then you're basically saying there is no reasonable doubt. If there is no reasonable doubt, then such an opinion is no longer in the realm of personal opinion (i.e. conscience) but MUST be elevated to some kind of unquestionable truth. If there can be no doubt, then it's a fact.

So, it's illogical for (some) Sedes to say that "my conscience has moral certainty" for that is akin to using the modern saying of "it's my truth". But there's only 1 truth. Not multiple truths. Truth does not depend on your conscience, as it exists outside of your reality, and MUST APPLY TO EVERYONE. Ergo, if you say you have "moral certainty" on a topic, you are necessarily demanding that EVERYONE has the same certainty.

Or you're just using the term "moral certainty" erroneously. In which case, reasonable doubt exists, which means, you have an opinion.

It could be a VERY STRONG OPINION; it could be 90% accurate. It could even be 100% accurate, but we don't know yet. The undetermined part is we don't have any authority to get rid of the tiny amount of doubt which remains. This doubt means the topic is in the realm of opinion.

Stubborn · « **Reply #71 on:** May 16, 2025, 10:57:55 AM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on May 16, 2025, 08:26:35 AM

Did St. Vincent Ferrer not "determine the status of pope", "[presume] to think [his] opinion [was] somehow the correct opinion"? He was wrong, but his actions were never condemned. He asserted his opinion into the Liturgy, but believed he was doing what was right. How is that different than what SV priests do?

The point is, St. Vincent named the pope, whether he chose the correct pope or not is irrelevant, the point is that he did not omit the name. The Church says we must not omit the name, St. Vincent did not omit the name. Perhaps other saints also named the wrong pope, who knows? He had 3 to choose from, we have 1.

What matters is, the Church *explicitly* instructs us that we are not permitted to judge the status of popes - so there is no need to judge his status, no reason whatsoever. How can I say that? Easy, it's because the Church told us not to do that, that's all the reason we need.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #72 on:** May 16, 2025, 11:11:47 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on May 16, 2025, 10:57:55 AM

The point is, St. Vincent named the pope, whether he chose the correct pope or not is irrelevant, the point is that he did not omit the name. The Church says we must not omit the name, St. Vincent did not omit the name. Perhaps other saints also named the wrong pope, who knows? He had 3 to choose from, we have 1.

No, the Church has never made this prayer a litmus test for morality. In the historical crisis situations, some saints followed the "omit the name", some saints "named the pope" and some saints "named the wrong pope". The point being, naming/non-naming/wrong naming...nobody is going to hell over that (in a crisis situation).

In a situation where there's no crisis (i.e. an Anglican or Orthodox priest refuses to name the pope), then it could be a heretical act. But the heresy would come from the will, the prayer would just be an external indicator that the person rejects a dogma.

Quote

What matters is, the Church *explicitly* instructs us that we are not permitted to judge the status of popes - so there is no need to judge his status, no reason whatsoever. How can I say that? Easy, it's because the Church told us not to do that, that's all the reason we need.

Sure, and that's the whole debate at hand. Is 'una cuм' a judgment/statement on the papal status? I say 'no', based on history. Sedes try to say that naming/non-naming the pope is some kind of 'line in the sand' where you are (and must) make a judgement.

Now, the Credo prayer...THAT is a litmus test of doctrine. If someone goes to Mass and refuses to say (or accept) the Credo, then they are a heretic. This is clear and is the purpose of the prayer - to pray in unison, as a Church.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #73 on:** May 16, 2025, 01:12:33 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on May 15, 2025, 05:21:46 AM

Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it.... "We say that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."

So, the NOM -- which was duly promulgated by an authority the legitimacy of which you assert cannot be questioned -- can, in its entirety, be questioned/judged/rejected?

Please tell me you can see the blatant, colossal contradiction involved.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #74 on:** May 16, 2025, 01:19:32 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on May 16, 2025, 06:17:09 AM

No, I have avoided all things NO essentially since the crisis began.

The NO violates my standards.

Upon whose authority have you rejected it/them? Your own?

The men you say are absolutely indisputable Pontiffs (and thus the living guardian and expositor of the Faith) have stated otherwise, both in word and deed. They have done so, without equivocation or variance, since 1969. Upon what grounds do you contradict their teaching and practice?

Author Topic: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI (Read 2223 times)

WorldsAway

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

Stubborn

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

MiracleOfTheSun

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

Pax Vobis

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

MiracleOfTheSun

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

WorldsAway

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

Ladislaus

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

ByzCat3000

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

Ladislaus

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

Pax Vobis

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

Pax Vobis

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

Stubborn

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

Pax Vobis

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

gladius_veritatis

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI

gladius_veritatis

Re: Dogmatic Sedevacantism on CI