Author Topic: JPII contradicts Benedict XVI re: SSPX schismatic or not (Read 905 times)

Geremia · « **on:** September 11, 2014, 10:53:43 PM »

John Paul II declared in 1988 that Abp. Lefebvre's episcopal ordinations were a schismatic act.
Benedict XVI lifted the SSPX bishops' excommunications in 2009, implying Abp. Lefebvre's episcopal consecrations were not a schismatic act.
The Ordinary Magisterium cannot err, such as in its judgment of whether a group is schismatic or not.
∴, neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI speak on behalf of the Catholic Magisterium.
∴, neither are Catholic popes.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** September 12, 2014, 04:32:07 AM »

That has to be the lamest argument for sedevacantism that I've ever heard. It isn't even worth the time to dismantle it. This is the problem with laypeople who have zero theological background being "armed" with a few principles that they then apply with a broad brush to almost everything.

Dolores · « **Reply #2 on:** September 12, 2014, 09:52:19 AM »

There are several problems with your logic.

First, by lifting the excommunications, Benedict XVI never stated or implied that the consecrations were not schismatic. You are reading into that.

Second, these were judicial acts, not magisterial acts.

Third, even if this was a magisterial act, you are conflating things. Infallible teachings of the Magisterium only occur when the pope speaks ex cathedra, when an Ecuмenical Council make a decree, and through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (the common teachings found among the Bishops dispersed through the world yet united with the pope). Any magisterial teaching that does not rise to one of these levels is not infallible. John Paul II excommunicating someone for a violation of Canon Law does not rise to any of these levels, nor was Benedict XVI rescinding the excommunications.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** September 12, 2014, 12:50:58 PM »

I could add another three paragraphs about what's wrong with the OP's analysis, but it's not worth it ... unless someone else were to agree with it.

Geremia · « **Reply #4 on:** September 13, 2014, 02:01:08 PM »

Quote from: Dolores

First, by lifting the excommunications, Benedict XVI never stated or implied that the consecrations were not schismatic. You are reading into that.

Assuming they are schismatic (non-Catholic), how can he lift non-Catholics' excommunications? A pope does not have jurisdiction over non-Catholics.

Quote from: Dolores

Second, these were judicial acts, not magisterial acts.

Why does that matter? Are you saying that the Church does not infallibly know whether, for example, the Anglicans or Orthodox are indeed schismatic?

Quote from: Dolores

Third, even if this was a magisterial act, you are conflating things. Infallible teachings of the Magisterium only occur when the pope speaks ex cathedra, when an Ecuмenical Council make a decree, and through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (the common teachings found among the Bishops dispersed through the world yet united with the pope).

What you said would be true if you removed the word "only".

Quote from: Dolores

Any magisterial teaching that does not rise to one of these levels is not infallible.

So, a true magisterial teaching could be fallible?

Quote from: Dolores

John Paul II excommunicating someone for a violation of Canon Law does not rise to any of these levels, nor was Benedict XVI rescinding the excommunications.

Why should we believe them?

Geremia · « **Reply #5 on:** September 13, 2014, 02:02:08 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

That has to be the lamest argument for sedevacantism that I've ever heard. It isn't even worth the time to dismantle it.

If it's so "lame", then you should be able to refute it easily.

It isn't the strongest argument for SVism because reductio ad absurdam arguments are always the weakest way of demonstrating something. For the sake of this thread, I'm assuming they're valid popes, proving that leads to a contradiction, and concluding my assumption is false.