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

Author Topic: Question for Lad about sedepriv  (Read 5404 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Question for Lad about sedepriv
« 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?
Logged

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv
« 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.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv
« 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.
Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv
« 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.
Logged

Offline CatholicInAmerica

Re: Question for Lad about sedepriv
« 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
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
« previous next »