Author Topic: Question for Lad about sedepriv (Read 1175 times)

Yeti · « **on:** November 09, 2019, 02:22:42 PM »

I'm asking this to Ladislaus because he seems to be the most educated person around here who subscribes to sedeprivationism, but anyone is welcome to respond.

I have been hearing for several years now that Bp. Guerard des Lauriers only believed his theory applied to people closer to the time when we had a true pope, and would not accept the current theory that Francis is a material pope. The reasoning I heard is that he thought the cardinals appointed by a true pope (let's say up to and including John 23) could provide a valid election to the papacy, but that a material pope actually doesn't have the power to create cardinals with a valid elective power, which only a true pope is able to do. Thus, Paul 6 was elected by real cardinals, but by the time JP2 was elected, probably a lot of the real cardinals appointed by real pope were not involved in the election anymore, so the election of JP2 was not valid. Thus, none of the supposed cardinals today have the power to elect a true pope.

I have heard this explanation (or a similar one) various times, but I haven't been able to track down whether des Lauriers actually thought this, or whether it's just another myth. Anyone know anything about this?

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #1 on:** November 09, 2019, 06:59:56 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 09, 2019, 02:22:42 PM

I'm asking this to Ladislaus because he seems to be the most educated person around here who subscribes to sedeprivationism, but anyone is welcome to respond.

I have been hearing for several years now that Bp. Guerard des Lauriers only believed his theory applied to people closer to the time when we had a true pope, and would not accept the current theory that Francis is a material pope. The reasoning I heard is that he thought the cardinals appointed by a true pope (let's say up to and including John 23) could provide a valid election to the papacy, but that a material pope actually doesn't have the power to create cardinals with a valid elective power, which only a true pope is able to do. Thus, Paul 6 was elected by real cardinals, but by the time JP2 was elected, probably a lot of the real cardinals appointed by real pope were not involved in the election anymore, so the election of JP2 was not valid. Thus, none of the supposed cardinals today have the power to elect a true pope.

I have heard this explanation (or a similar one) various times, but I haven't been able to track down whether des Lauriers actually thought this, or whether it's just another myth. Anyone know anything about this?

I heard the same thing.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** November 09, 2019, 07:06:10 PM »

I have not heard this. I would say to ask Bishop McKenna, since he was ordained directly by Bishop Guerard, but he's passed away. Perhaps you could e-mail Bishop Sanborn. Now, Bishop Sanborn has always had a strongly sedevacantist spin on sedeprivationism, always emphasizing the formal vacancy and minimizing the material occupancy. Some people think that he did not really buy into sedeprivationism, but since Bishop McKenna would not consecrate him if he remained a sedevacantist vs. a sedeprivationist, he reluctantly accepted the position. There has always been a conflict between the vacantists and the privationists. Hiller and Heller rejected Guerard des Lauriers' sedeprivationism, and insisted on sedevacantism, before they brought des Laurier to Thuc. McKenna would not consecrate a vacantist, but insisted that he be a privationist. So there seems to be a pretty serious conflict between them. Not so much with +Sanborn, since +Sanborn might be considered a closet sedevacantist.

To me this doesn't seems consistent with the principles of sedeprivationism.

If material cardinals can elect material popes, then material popes can designate material cardinals. The whole point of privationism is that one doesn't have to be a "REAL" (aka formal) anything in order to exercise the power of designation.

Yeti · « **Reply #3 on:** November 10, 2019, 03:42:13 PM »

Thanks for the clarification. As I reach back through my memory, I think I remember hearing that Bp. des Lauriers did not intend his thesis as a long-term state of affairs that can exist indefinitely, as the sedeprivationists hold today. He was just trying to explain the "pontificate" of Paul 6. I think he said, in effect, "Well, Paul 6 was elected by true cardinals, so he must have material possession of the papacy." He only intended the explanation to apply to his time, without explicitly stating that "material popes" can go on creating "material cardinals" and vice-versa indefinitely, as sedeprivationists assert today.

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 09, 2019, 07:06:10 PM

There has always been a conflict between the vacantists and the privationists. Hiller and Heller rejected Guerard des Lauriers' sedeprivationism, and insisted on sedevacantism, before they brought des Laurier to Thuc. McKenna would not consecrate a vacantist, but insisted that he be a privationist. So there seems to be a pretty serious conflict between them. Not so much with +Sanborn, since +Sanborn might be considered a closet sedevacantist.

I suppose this sort of thing varies from place to place. In my experience, being an American, I don't detect any tension between the two points of view, but I've heard from French and German people that apparently in Europe people take very seriously whether you are sedeprivationist or sedevacantist. To me the dispute seems to involve no (currently) practical problems.

CatholicInAmerica · « **Reply #4 on:** November 10, 2019, 05:30:11 PM »

There’s a priest on Twitter Fr. Despósito who is a professor at MHT seminary and holds the thesis. He would probably be able to answer this.

Link to his profile: https://twitter.com/FrDesposito

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** November 11, 2019, 08:28:51 AM »

Quote from: CatholicInAmerica on November 10, 2019, 05:30:11 PM

There’s a priest on Twitter Fr. Despósito who is a professor at MHT seminary and holds the thesis. He would probably be able to answer this.

Link to his profile: https://twitter.com/FrDesposito

I'd be a little cautious of MHT's positon, since MHT has always put a strong sedevacantist spin on sedeprivationism. Father Sanborn did not initially buy into it, but it was made a condition for his consecration by Bishop McKenna.

It would be more important to get someone who knew the mind of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers rather than putting their own spin on it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** November 11, 2019, 08:32:15 AM »

And I don't now whether any of the main or original sedeprivatonists thought through this.

But my own flavor of sedeprivationism has the following consequences:

If a material-only pope appoints a bishop, then that bishop is legitimate, and provided that he himself does not have an impediment to formally exercising the authority of the Episcopal See, then he himself does have ordinary jurisdiction.

This completely wipes away the ecclesia-vacantist objection to sedevacantism. I'm entirely certain that there are some members of the hierarchy who are not pertinacious heretics. Very few are not in material error, but there are some who are not at all pertinacious but are of good will ... buying into the Vatican II nonsense only because they believe it to have been the teaching of the Church.

Now, you could argue that they are not valid bishops ... but that is true only of the Latin Rite. Eastern Rite consecrations and ordinations are still entirely valid. So if you could find any non-pertinacious Catholic bishops in their ranks, then these men hold ordinary jurisdiction.

Yeti · « **Reply #7 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:20:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 11, 2019, 08:32:15 AM

This completely wipes away the ecclesia-vacantist objection to sedevacantism.

I've never understood this objection anyway. The Church is not vacant, and no sedevacantist ever said it was. The Church is composed of all baptized believers who profess the true Faith. There are at least thousands, and probably millions of such people in the world today.

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 11, 2019, 08:32:15 AM

I'm entirely certain that there are some members of the hierarchy who are not pertinacious heretics.

Interesting. Do you have any names you can give us?

forlorn · « **Reply #8 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:21:58 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 11, 2019, 02:20:17 PM

I've never understood this objection anyway. The Church is not vacant, and no sedevacantist ever said it was. The Church is composed of all baptized believers who profess the true Faith. There are at least thousands, and probably millions of such people in the world today.

There still needs to be a hierarchy or the Church has defected.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #9 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:26:43 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 11, 2019, 02:20:17 PM

I've never understood this objection anyway.

Ecclesia-vacantism is the idea that all episcopal sees, or dioceses, are vacant, because of the lack of the Pope to appoint Bishops to them. The syllogism from SVism to EVism would be,

Major: Only a Pope can appoint Bishops to sees/dioceses.
Minor: SVism says there has been no Pope for 61 years.
Conclusion: Therefore, no diocesan Bishop has been appointed for 61 years.
Corollary: Only one diocesan Bishop still exists. [source for that, http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html]

Namely, Archbishop Bernardino Piñera Carvallo appointed by Pope Pius XII on 27 April 1958 as Bishop (now Emeritus) of La Serena.

That's the consideration against "straight or simple sedevacantism". Ladislaus is saying he believes sede-privationism solves it.

Yeti · « **Reply #10 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:35:42 PM »

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I understand what the objection states. What I don't understand is how it is an objection.

In other words, my understanding is that the objection is as follows:

Major: It is impossible that all the episcopal sees of the world be vacant simultaneously.
Minor: But sedevacantism says that all the episcopal sees are vacant simultaneously.
Conclusion: Therefore sedevacantism states something impossible, and is therefore false.

What I don't understand is where the Major comes from. Everyone who makes this argument asserts it as if it were Catholic dogma, but I have never seen anyone quote a dogmatic definition to that effect.

EDIT: typo correction.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:38:15 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 11, 2019, 02:35:42 PM

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I understand what the objection states. What I don't understand is how it is an objection.

In other words, my understanding is that the objection is as follows:

Major: It is impossible that there all the episcopal sees of the world be vacant simultaneously.
Minor: But sedevacantism says that all the episcopal sees are vacant simultaneously.
Conclusion: Therefore sedevacantism states something impossible, and is therefore false.

What I don't understand is where the Major comes from. Everyone who makes this argument asserts it as if it were Catholic dogma, but I have never seen anyone quote a dogmatic definition to that effect.

There may not be a technical dogma, but that the Church is actually a visible institution rather than just all those who happened to have the true faith was always a bone of contention between Catholics and Protestants

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #12 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:52:17 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 11, 2019, 02:35:42 PM

In other words, my understanding is that the objection is as follows:

Major: It is impossible that all the episcopal sees of the world be vacant simultaneously.
Minor: But sedevacantism says that all the episcopal sees are vacant simultaneously.
Conclusion: Therefore sedevacantism states something impossible, and is therefore false.

Yes, that's right. That's the syllogism.

We agree I think that Straight or Simple Sedevacantism (hereafter SS) leads to EVism.

It remains for us to examine if the major is true. If it were true, the conclusion would follow.

There are perhaps 3 dogmatic statements that could be provided, before we look at texts of theologians.

First, the statement of Vatican I, that there will always be Shepherds and Teachers in the Church, which seems to plainly refer to Bishops with Teaching Office and Ordinary Jurisdiction, "as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/first-vatican-council-1505

Shepherds and Teachers, pastores et doctores in Latin, seems to describe Bishops who have Power of ruling i.e. jurisdiction, and of teaching, i.e. magisterial authority, doesn't it? Well, such would only come from appointment to an episcopal office/see/diocese.

Second, it follows from the Apostolicity of the Church. For the Church cannot cease to be Apostolic, and Apostolicity requires Bishops who have succeeded to episcopal sees, i.e. it requires ordinary jurisdiction not only valid orders. Another statement in Vatican I itself speaks of "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit" from which the same conclusion would follow. So, what is requisite for apostolic succession? That Bishops have ordinary power of episcopal jurisdiction, and be appointed to an office/see to which it is attached.

There are various theological descriptions of this also in the manuals and one other dogmatic statement that we can look into later on.

Your thoughts on this, Yeti?

God bless.

Yeti · « **Reply #13 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:53:00 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on November 11, 2019, 02:38:15 PM

There may not be a technical dogma, but that the Church is actually a visible institution rather than just all those who happened to have the true faith was always a bone of contention between Catholics and Protestants

Yes, I agree that the Church is a visible institution. How would it stop being a visible institution just because there are no currently reigning bishops with ordinary jurisdiction? These arguments seem to be conjectural and a bit subjective. On the contrary, the fact that no one can point to any bishop in the new church that obviously holds the Catholic Faith is an observation of public, objective facts.

Yeti · « **Reply #14 on:** November 11, 2019, 03:11:40 PM »

I should be clear in this thread that I don't hold it as absolutely a fact that there are no Catholic bishops in the world today, just that as far as I know this appears to be the case, because if there we would know about it. Archbishop Lefebvre was a bishop with jurisdiction and he stood up for the Catholic Faith, and he was known worldwide for his stance. Is there anyone even remotely resembling that today? As far as I know, no. That is why I am inclined to think there are none, which logically implies that there is no dogma of the Faith that tells us such a thing is impossible. That is why I asked, to see if anyone could provide any solid proof that there is at least one bishop somewhere who publicly teachers the Catholic Faith as a successor of the Apostles, as Vatican I describes.

On the other hand, there are people much smarter than me who say it would imply a denial of Catholic teaching to say there are no Catholic bishops, despite the appearances of what is going on in the world today, so I hold the idea as plausible. I just need to see some proof that it's true. And it would sure help a lot if anyone had any idea who these bishops are. Presumably they're not hiding in a basement somewhere, but are publicly teaching the Faith and condemning heresy? Within the new church? Wouldn't that make them pretty easy to identify?

Author Topic: Question for Lad about sedepriv (Read 1175 times)

Yeti

Question for Lad about sedepriv

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

Ladislaus

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

Yeti

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

CatholicInAmerica

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

Ladislaus

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

Ladislaus

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

Yeti

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

forlorn

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

Nishant Xavier

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

Yeti

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

ByzCat3000

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

Nishant Xavier

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

Yeti

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv

Yeti

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv