Author Topic: Dogmatic Sedevacantists do not exist. (Read 6952 times)

Gregory I · « **Reply #25 on:** October 24, 2011, 08:53:14 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: roscoe
Quote from: Gregory I
Quote from: LordPhan
Last time I checked this was a SSPX board, futhermore I stated a fact. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to be obstinate in your refusal to hear the truth. Then you come on our general section and accuse Bishop Williamson of being sympathetic to sede's or even considering being one, which is absolute culumny.

Get real, you believe that this is YOUR section? no it is just the only one you're supposed to be allowed in.

Do you not understand that those who DOUBT the Popes election cannot be considered schismatic for their refusal to adhere to him?

This is the general consensus of theologians: Even if it were an objectively wrong FACT that the Pope is NOT the Pope, you can't call us schismatics to not adhere to him. The BASIS for our refusal to submit to him is because we perceive him to have no office within the Church. How is that schismatic?

Gimme Dogma.
Gimme a Council
Gimme a THeologian.
Gimme a Cardinal, or saint or Bishop or SOMETHING.

If we are Schismatics, then so was St. Vincent Ferrer.

That's right, he supported Anti-Pope Benedict XIII- but guess what, he is a saint and was never censured or condemned as a schismatic!

Why could that be...?

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Here the theologian Vidal EXCUSES those who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff on account of RUMORS of his invalid election! RUMORS! Sedevacantists have ALOT more to go on than rumors, seriously.

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

Wow, so here we have a DOCTOR of CANON LAW, a qualified EXPERT saying that if one merely SUSPECTS the Pope to be invalid, his refusal to submit does not constitute an act of schism. I think it is right to suspect the validity of any "Pope" who allows such things as Assisi III, praying with Muslims in THEIR Mosques in THEIR prayer postures, and TAKES OF HIS BLOODY SHOES when entering, who venerates the "Altars" of Lutheran Heretics, who denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Tabernacle according to its proper mode of subsistence, etc.

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

The Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, Juan de Lugo, on eof the Church's greatest theologians is also on the sede side.

Here's a fact concerning the Legitimacy of Benedict's Power: He can only exercise the office of Pope if he IS Pope. But a Pope is the Supreme and Universal Head of the Visible Members of the Church of Christ, with Jurisdiction over all of them. This is what Vatican I defined. But now Benny is saying that schismatics and heretics make up the Church of Christ too! That means that they are ALSO visible member sof the Church of Christ. But guess what? He has no Jurisdiction over them! Nor do they acknowledge him as their head. Therefore, by Definition of Vatican I, he CANNOT be the Pope, for the Pope has full, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the visible members of the church of Christ which he can freely exercise at any time. You won't see Benny do that to the Archbishop of Canterburry will you? Nope. But according to him, he is a visible member of the church of Christ.

How can he then be the Pope if he has not the POWER of the Papacy? He cannot be.

Therefore, LP, we are not now, nor can we ever be considered Schismatics. That is something the semi-trads have to deal with, not us.

Show me a canonist or a theologian who teaches otherwise. Just ONE.

None of the Fr Popes of GWS have ever been defined as anti-popes.

IOW-- St Vincent Ferrer did not support an anti-pope.

So, you are telling me that Benedict XIII was the true papal claimant?

roscoe · « **Reply #26 on:** October 24, 2011, 10:45:24 PM »

My understanding from von Pastor is that a compromise was reached as the Council dragged on. It was then decided that because the schism was only political in nature, one was left free to recognise either the Fr or It faction as Pope. John repented and he was the only one accused of heretical views so I do not believe even he is an antipope.

I am not aware of any Church docuмent declaring the Fr faction as anti-popes. The only thing I have ever seen claiming them as anti-popes is the Catholic Almanac list reprinted in Fr Radecki's book and that is not official. To my knowledge, no one has ever posted a Catholic Dictionary or Encyclopedia reference claiming this.

BTW-- my apologies to Fr Radecki as it was the Catholic Almanac list published in his book and not him specifically that accuses the Fr Popes are anti-popes.

Gregory I · « **Reply #27 on:** October 24, 2011, 11:10:06 PM »

So there has never been a definitive decision as to who was the Pope and who was Anti-pope?

But the Point I was making Still stands: Between Boniface IX and Benedict XIII ONE of them was schismatic and an anti-pope. There were saints on both sides of the issues. In other words, you had saints supporting people who were objectively NOT the Pope; and yet they were not considered schismatic.

So, if a sedevacantist, in a similar manner, refuses to recognize Benedict because of his manifest heresy, it cannot be an act of schism. It is an act of prudence and taking the safer course.

The Vatican II God forgives all, so surely he will accept us if we err.

That was my point, and I think it is still a valid one.

roscoe · « **Reply #28 on:** October 24, 2011, 11:18:58 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

So there has never been a definitive decision as to who was the Pope and who was Anti-pope?

But the Point I was making Still stands: Between Boniface IX and Benedict XIII ONE of them was schismatic and an anti-pope. There were saints on both sides of the issues. In other words, you had saints supporting people who were objectively NOT the Pope; and yet they were not considered schismatic.

So, if a sedevacantist, in a similar manner, refuses to recognize Benedict because of his manifest heresy, it cannot be an act of schism. It is an act of prudence and taking the safer course.

The Vatican II God forgives all, so surely he will accept us if we err.

That was my point, and I think it is still a valid one.

U are missing the point. Just because one of either Boniface or Benedict was a political schismatic does not make him an anti-pope. Atwater agrees he says---' The Clementine popes of GWS are not called anti-popes owing to the historical uncertainty of their status,'

Gregory I · « **Reply #29 on:** October 24, 2011, 11:27:24 PM »

"Political Schismatic?"

That's a Euphemism.

The term is Anti-pope.

The defintion: When there is a valid living pope, and another man claims, in opposition to the living pope, to be pope.

It is manifest that the Roman Popes were the true Popes. All others must therefore be anti-popes.

Why is that wrong?