Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6

Author Topic: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book  (Read 4256 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 41908
  • Reputation: +23946/-4345
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2018, 08:01:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Stubborn on September 10, 2018, 06:40:29 AM
    You are correct Beaumont, the sedeconfusedists are, well, confused.

    Stubborn, you don't even understand what a distinction is, much less sedeprivationism.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #16 on: September 10, 2018, 12:19:09 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 10, 2018, 08:01:10 AM
    Stubborn, you don't even understand what a distinction is, much less sedeprivationism.
    I understand enough to know that understanding it leads to diabolical confusion. I also understand that it would've been best for the faith of sedewhateverists had sedeism never reared it's ridiculous head at all.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Beaumont

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 26
    • Reputation: +14/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #17 on: September 10, 2018, 12:41:26 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • I am not saying this to be critical of sedevacantism or sedeprivationsm. I'm currently looking into sedeprivationism. However, Fr. Wathen was R&R, not a sedeprivationist. He believed canon law says the first see is judged by noone and God would take care of any potential usurper of the Papacy and it was not our concern. That we were allowed to follow Tradition because no pope has the authority to say we cannot. Therefore we resist any of these unujust laws of true popes. If you read The Great Sacrilege he is assuming Paul VI is a valid pope throughout his arguments against the Novus Ordo. He argues that the Novus Ordo is illicit and illegal according to Church law and that it is therefore not obligatory or binding.

    This is completely different from the sedeprivationist thesis that says Paul VI was not a true pope because of his heresy (that put him outside the Church) although he was properly designated to be one. Sedeprivationism says that Paul VI had zero authority to teach, rule, and sanctify whatsoever. The only thing he retained was the legal designation to the office that he was blocked from assuming due to his previous public heresy. Nothing more.

    It is clear from the following video which quotes Fr. Wathen, that he believed Baptism ensured one will always be a Catholic and inside the Church. Sedeprivationists do not believe this, and they have plenty of papal citations to back up the fact that heresy removes one from the Church. Wathen's claim in this regard is the same as Francis who recently said the same thing. That once you are baptized you are a Catholic forever. Fr. Wathen never mentions sedeprivationism and I doubt he knew or cared what sedeprivationists thought. He is simply saying that we have no ability to say whether a claimant is not a true pope (sedeprivationists say we can), but we live our Catholic lives knowing that even if a true pope says we can't live Tradition, that particular command is invalid and we do it anyway. That is R&R.

    If Fr. Wathen were a sedeprivationist then there would have been zero reason to write the Great Sacrilege and cite extensively from Church law to prove that Paul VI issued an illicit Mass. All he would have had to say was that Paul VI was a public heretic before his election and therefore could not be a true pope, only a designee, and therefore all of his acts were completely invalid. The book would have been a half page long.

    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #18 on: September 10, 2018, 01:41:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    This is completely different from the sedeprivationist thesis that says Paul VI was not a true pope because of his heresy (that put him outside the Church) although he was properly designated to be one. Sedeprivationism says that Paul VI had zero authority to teach, rule, and sanctify whatsoever. The only thing he retained was the legal designation to the office that he was blocked from assuming due to his previous public heresy. Nothing more.
    Sedeprivationism, as I understand it, means that the pope was validly elected yet he has given up his spiritual office, of his own accord, due to his personal heresy.  He still holds the material office until removed by the Church.  However...the pope, were he to convert and confess, could regain his spiritual office immediately.  Sedeprivationism says that he is a true pope, because he was validly elected.  What he does AFTER the election cannot invalidate his office, it would only "impair" his spiritual faculties.
    Quote
    Sedeprivationists do not believe this, and they have plenty of papal citations to back up the fact that heresy removes one from the Church.
    Some do, some do not.

    Quote
    Fr. Wathen never mentions sedeprivationism and I doubt he knew or cared what sedeprivationists thought.
    I first heard the term 3 years ago.  The various sede theories have grown exponentially complex since the 70s.

    Quote
    If Fr. Wathen were a sedeprivationist then there would have been zero reason to write the Great Sacrilege and cite extensively from Church law to prove that Paul VI issued an illicit Mass. All he would have had to say was that Paul VI was a public heretic before his election and therefore could not be a true pope, only a designee, and therefore all of his acts were completely invalid. The book would have been a half page long.
    Fr's argument concerning Paul VI's new missal was based on Church law and on the allowances and assurances of Quo Primum.  This law is in effect regardless of if Paul VI was a pope or not.  The reason why he didn't need to discuss the matter is because practically speaking, the issue of the papacy is irrelevant to the laity.

    Quote
    he believed Baptism ensured one will always be a Catholic and inside the Church. Sedeprivationists do not believe this, and they have plenty of papal citations to back up the fact that heresy removes one from the Church.
    Some sedeprivationists believe this; some do not.

    Quote
    He is simply saying that we have no ability to say whether a claimant is not a true pope (sedeprivationists say we can),
    Fr's main audience was the laity.  He tried to be as practical as possible, with 'Keeping the Faith' as his main concern.  He always dissuaded his faithful from getting distracted by sedevacantism or BOD or anything non-essential, because the lack of a hierarchy would lead the laity to get off track too easily.  I agree with him that it's not our concern, but only the officials in rome, to answer (and potentially fix) the pope question.
    Logged

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1424
    • Reputation: +1360/-142
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #19 on: September 10, 2018, 01:50:13 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Beaumont on September 09, 2018, 05:57:21 PM
    Wathen held Paul VI to be a true pope and preached against sedevacantism.


    So did Fr. Gomer de Pauw. By the way, the thread "Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?" now on page 9, has over 55,000 viewings. That is, more than 10,000 since the thread was locked. I would like to suggest to Matthew that the thread be pinned.
         
    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/
    Logged
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #20 on: September 10, 2018, 02:26:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on September 10, 2018, 01:50:13 PM

    So did Fr. Gomer de Pauw. By the way, the thread "Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?" now on page 9, has over 55,000 viewings. That is, more than 10,000 since the thread was locked. I would like to suggest to Matthew that the thread be pinned.
          
    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/

    That thread just looks like a long monologue of Mr. Drew talking to himself now. 

    Where did all my hundreds of posts go?
    Logged
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #21 on: September 10, 2018, 02:39:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Sedeprivationism says that he is a true pope

    No, it does not.



    Quote
    If Fr. Wathen were a sedeprivationist then there would have been zero reason to write the Great Sacrilege and cite extensively from Church law to prove that Paul VI issued an illicit Mass. All he would have had to say was that Paul VI was a public heretic before his election and therefore could not be a true pope, only a designee, and therefore all of his acts were completely invalid. The book would have been a half page long.

    Not even a half page long would be necessary to explain the entire crisis if only were possible to demonstrate that these conciliar popes are really political conspirators, instead of true successors of St. Peter.

    Everything would make sense, then.
    Logged
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10060
    • Reputation: +5256/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #22 on: September 10, 2018, 05:56:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Cantarella on September 10, 2018, 02:26:08 PM
    That thread just looks like a long monologue of Mr. Drew talking to himself now.

    Where did all my hundreds of posts go?
    It's my understanding that that particular thread was .... pruned.
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #23 on: September 10, 2018, 06:37:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Well, if old threads are going to be “pruned” then I have no reason to waste my time on such topics of importance.  Really disappointing if true.  All that time, research and hard work is gone?  Shame! 

    I’ll just post jokes and website links, I guess, from now on.  Who cares if those are pruned.  
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10060
    • Reputation: +5256/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #24 on: September 10, 2018, 07:33:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 10, 2018, 06:37:18 PM
    Well, if old threads are going to be “pruned” then I have no reason to waste my time on such topics of importance.  Really disappointing if true.  All that time, research and hard work is gone?  Shame!

    I’ll just post jokes and website links, I guess, from now on.  Who cares if those are pruned.  
    I don't remember the specifics but I remember reading that this happened because of the posts of a banned member? Maybe someone else can confirm/clarify.
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline Beaumont

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 26
    • Reputation: +14/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #25 on: September 10, 2018, 09:06:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Pax Vobis, sedeprivationism holds that the Vatican II claimants are not true popes and have no authority to teach rule and sanctify. It holds that these men are mere designees to the papacy from a legitimate papal election, but have no authoritative power whatsoever. They are pope elects.  If one doesn't adhere to this thesis, then one is not a sedeprivationist but something else. 

    Fr. Wathen never claimed the beliefs above regarding any of the Vatican II papal claimants. At all times he recognized them as and acted as if they were true popes. There is one section in the OP where he is speculating and saying that if a usurper did, in fact, get elected to the chair and then repented, he could become the pope. This does admit of part of the sedeprivationist thesis in theory. But that is as far as Fr. Wathen goes. Pure theoretical speculation. 

    There is no evidence from any of his writings, especially on sedevacantism, that prove he in any way held a sedeprivationist view of the Vatican II papal claimants. He refers to all of them as "pope" in his sermons and writings. I have read many many writings of Fr. Wathen and I haver listened to hours of his sermons. If you do so, it is crystal clear he saw JPII and previously Paul VI as true popes and based all of his defense of Tradition off this premise. Sedeprivationism holds these men to be "pope elects" and not true popes, thus referring to them as popes would be inconsistent with the thesis. 

    Fr. Wathen was clearly R&R throughout his life as evidenced by all of his writings and sermons. He believed we had a duty to obey the Vatican II papal claimants as popes except when they legislate, in his opinion, illegal, illicit, or unjust laws. As I said, if he were a sedeprivationist he would have said Paul VI is not a true pope with authority (at all), but a mere designee,  and so none of his acts (including the Novus Ordo Missae) are binding on the faithful, end of story. In the sedeprivationist thesis there is absolutely no need to go into Quo Primum at all as Fr. Wathen and the R&R position extensively does. 
    Logged

    Offline AlbertP

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 34
    • Reputation: +18/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #26 on: September 10, 2018, 09:08:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Struthio on September 09, 2018, 10:23:26 PM
    St. Robert Bellarmine says that the "heretical pope" is no pope and therefore he can be deposed. Even the "Church officials" as you say couldn't depose him, if he was the pope.

    Can you quote a Saint who says that "Church officials" can depose a pope? I bet you can't. A pope cannot be deposed. Only an "already-not-pope-anymore" can be deposed.
    Here's a saint who teaches that the bishops at a council can depose a pope, but only if they can first clearly prove that he's a heretic.
     
    “that oath does not take away the freedom of the Bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Concilii, ch xxi)
    Logged

    Offline Beaumont

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 26
    • Reputation: +14/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #27 on: September 10, 2018, 09:15:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The way I understand it is that sedevacantists do not believe the church can depose a pope because the first see is judged by no-one. 
    They say that the Pope spouting public heresy would in and of itself sever him from the papacy and that the cardinals would simply declare the see vacant for the purpose of electing a new pope. 

    Putting the pope on trial for heresy would be a practical impossibility. He could simply dismiss everyone attempting to put him on trial or refuse to participate as he is the supreme authority. 

    But the vast majority of sedevacantists do not argue this. They instead argue that most of the the Vatican II papal claimants were public heretics before their election and thus could not become true popes under divine law. 
    Logged

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +453/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #28 on: September 10, 2018, 09:48:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AlbertP on September 10, 2018, 09:08:37 PM
    Here's a saint who teaches that the bishops at a council can depose a pope, but only if they can first clearly prove that he's a heretic.

    “that oath does not take away the freedom of the Bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Concilii, ch xxi)

    Well, they're going to depose him after the fact that is no longer pope. They do not depose a pope, but rather a heretic who is not pope anymore though he was one before turning into a heretic.

    Quote from: Struthio
    A pope cannot be deposed. Only an "already-not-pope-anymore" can be deposed.

    That is the opinion of St. Robert. As long as he is pope, he cannot be deposed but has to be obeyed.
    Logged
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +453/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book
    « Reply #29 on: September 10, 2018, 09:53:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • P.S.: Please note: "obedient to the supreme Pontiff as long as he is pope". According to St. Robert, R&R is not recommendable.
    Logged
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
    « previous next »