Author Topic: Dogmatic Sedevacantists do not exist. (Read 6943 times)

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #10 on:** October 22, 2011, 08:51:25 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

My point Raoul was simply that sedevacantism is a temporal movement in a unique and particular moment of history. The THEOLOGY of it is founded on Dogma, don't get me wrong. But it cannot be APPLIED dogmatically in this sense: To assert That Benedict is the Pope is more an error of fact than dogma. Such an assertion contradicts no teaching of the church: For those who make the assertion simultaneously believe him to not be heretical, unless of course you are SSPX and then it gets complicated.

My main point was that there is no person who can say the denial of sedevacantism constitutes a denial of Catholic doctrine: Because the denial is not based on the denial of theology, but on disagreement as to the FACT of its application here and now.

It's a purely temporal and historical dispute, unless you actually believe in the FACE of the vast majority of theologians that a public and manifest heretic can be Pope. Then you would have problem, because the faithful are obliged to hold to the unanimous teaching (which can be a morall unanimity, and not univocal) of approved theologians.

Nevertheless, roscoe has a point that this teaching, while based on dogma, does not constitute "sedevacantism." That is the name of a movement that applies this theology to real-world applicable situations.

This and what Nishant2011 wrote is exactly the reason why I am disturbed by sedevacantists who treat their theological position as if it were a political party.

No one sedevacantist can oblige individual consciences to his position, when even the sedevacantist clergy cannot do that since they have no jurisdiction at all. All they have is supplied jurisdiction in the very acts in which the Church supplies such jurisdiction, but it is not habitual.

I think the sedevacantists should stop behaving like they have what their clergy can never claim without either embarrassing themselves or committing gross aberrations and even errors proximate to heresy (at least in the practical order, because positing Ordinary Jurisdiction without the Roman Pontiff seems to me too much like an error against the Vatican Council's definition of Papal primacy).

Anyways, these are my points of view. I have no jurisdiction, so you can dismiss them at will

Gregory I · « **Reply #11 on:** October 22, 2011, 11:04:17 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Sedevacantism is a theological possibility, but there is a difference in saying, "Everyone is bound to reject the Papal claimant who appears to have fallen into heresy" from "Anyone may reject a Papal claimant who appears to have done so". I think the first can be called "dogmatic sedevacantism" because sometimes it is treated as if it were a dogma, as if it were, properly so called, an object of divine and Catholic faith necessary for salvation, and concepts like culpability and invincible ignorance are likewise applied to it as well.

Well, I would have to say that no one lay individual is an authentic interpreter of either canon law or the unanimous teaching othe Church approved theologians. We are private interpreters. But that does not mean we cannot CERTAINLY KNOW that the theological position espoused by the majority of church theologians applies to such and such a situation. Perhaps my view is unique: But I would not oblige other people to hold to sedevacantism on the basis of the THEOLOGY being a part of revelation declared by the church as such (Ecclesiastical dogma). Rather, my incentive for and motive for desiring to convince other people as to the truth of the sedevacantist theological position is that, simply put, it can be historically demonstrated. For example, there is historical precedent for clerics wanting to call a council to depose a Pope for private Heresy (Savonorola and Alexander VI). In the past, the clerics of Rome have stripped a pontiff of his Pontifical title on the basis of suspected heresy (Pope Liberius) and elected another (Anti/Pope Felix). When Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople first preached heresy, the Council of Ephesus declared that from the moment of his preaching, he ceased to have a ministry in the church.

There are various historical precedents that indicate the Church's attitude toward heretical leaders: They have no ministry from the instant the publically and notoriously manifest heresy. The theologians of the Church teach this almost unanimously. So on this basis, I strive to demonstrate the historical FACT of Precedent, and the Historical FACT of its current application to those who can be shown to be Public manifest and notorious heretics: Either through private teaching that is widely disseminated, or through acts that give witness to heresy.

We cannot deny that these actions fall within the parameters envisioned by the theologians of the church, and that other prelates in the past, including Popes, have been deposed for far less (Liberius and the Arians and the Creed, etc.).

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** October 22, 2011, 12:08:01 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

There are sedes out there who believe sedevacantism is a dogma of some sort, like David Landry. Thus why I will not drop the dogmatic sedevacantist label because there are some of them out there. You aren't a dogmatic sede, nor is anyone else here for that matter except roscoe (even though he says there's no such thing as a sede LOL). But to clarify, when I address someone as a "dogmatic sedevacantist" it's only when that person says that everyone must be a sede to be part of the Church and blah blah blah.

Yes, this is my position as well.

Gregory I, you're not a dogmatic sedevacantist, which is why you're welcome here. Likewise all the other sedevacantists on here (of which there is no shortage!)
But you haven't been on CathInfo very long. Long-time members have seen several so-called "dogmatic sedevacantists". They do exist, sorry to say. Sad but true.

They literally consider it to be a dogma, and that anyone who denies that dogma does not possess sanctifying grace (being a heretic), and is matter for conversion.

Nishant · « **Reply #13 on:** October 22, 2011, 01:06:30 PM »

Gregory, I think Liberius actually remained Pope and Felix was the Anti-Pope, according to most theologians who studied the issue and even perhaps official Church lists. That being said, I think St.Robert Bellarmine's comments on it are illumininating, for he says the opposite also applies.

He says what Raoul said, that men are not bound to read hearts, and even if they are wrong, in being sedevacantists, as it would seem those who attempted to declare Pope Liberius deposed were, God would not hold that alone against them.

Of course, even as someone who does believe there is a Pope, I grant the common teaching of theologians on this point, that a Pope cannot be a manifest heretic. However, I still think a future ecclesiastical court will have to decide the question, for all faithful Catholic Christians to have the necessary certainty we need in such a matter.

Obviously, even if the good God, in His mercy, will choose to forgive us, we must still act in accordance with known truth. But I think, frankly, it is hard, to be sure about this, either way or the other. I've tried. Now, I prefer to leave it to God, and devote myself to prayer and the spiritual life. If at all I'm wrong, and it is God's will for me to know the truth in this matter, I trust that in any case prayer will help me in coming to that knowledge more than theology alone.

LordPhan · « **Reply #14 on:** October 22, 2011, 09:22:45 PM »

Quote from: sedesvacans

This is a great topic.

I could never go to a mass that is una cuм Benedict XVI, because of the fact that the reason I am sedevacantist is because I believe he is a public, obstinate and stubborn heretic who is promoting Anti-Christ ideas and dogmas such as ecuмenism, modernism, indifferentism. I believe that with these ideas, he is trying to make a mockery of Christ's incarnation and passion.

No, sedevacantism is not a dogma, but anti-sedevacantism in these times is against all dogma.

This is a schismatic act.